HomeMy WebLinkAbout49-Planning & Building Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Michael E. Hays, Director
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and
Parcel Map No. 15038
(g(Q)(P)f
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Date: June 26, 1997
MCC Date: July 7, 1997
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the Public Hearing and deny the appeal; adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration; approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 97-01; and approve Parcel Map No. 15038 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to
the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements contained in the May 20 Planning Commission Staff Report;
or continue the matter until August 4, 1997 at 3:00 p.m. to allow staff time to prepare written responses to issues
raised by the appellant.
<J;;pilfi:J
hael E. Hays
Contact Person: Michael Hays
Phone: 5357
Supporting Data Attached: Staff Rc:port
FUNDING REQUlREMENTS: Amount: Nt A
Ward: 1
Source:
(Acct.No.)
(Acct. Desaiption)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Continued to 0 7 /P.I /"17
AGnIDA rrEMN07!1!L
7 'tIll?
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-01 AND
PARCEL MAP NO. 15038
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 7,1997
OWNER: Economic Development Agency and Various
201 North "E" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507
Phone: (909) 384-5081
APPLICANTS:
MDA San Bernardino Associates
300 Continental Blvd., Ste 360
E1 Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 416-1100
APPELLANTS:
Mano Management, Inc.
c/o Harry L. Gershon, Esq.
Richards, Watson and Gershon
333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 626-8484
REQUEST: The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 97-01 and Parcel Map No. 15038. The appellant claims that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is not appropriate for the project and that an Environmental Impact Report should
be prepared.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONILOCATION: The conditional use permit application is a request
to construct a 2Q-Screen theater complex and three related retail structures. The parcel map
application is a request to subdivide 5.19 acres into 7 parcels to accommodate the theater
complex and retail buildings.
The 5.19 acre site is located at the northwest comer of 4th Street and "E" Street in the CR-2,
Commercial Regional land use designation. See Exhibit 1.
BACKGROUND
In October of 1996, prior to submittal of the project, Planning and Public Works staff met with
the applicant several times to discuss the environmental issues and project processing. Staff
identified air quality and traffic as potential concerns, and recommended that the applicant hire
a traffic engineer to prepare the traffic study and a local environmental consultant, qualified in
air quality analysis, to prepare the Initial Study.
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and
Parcel Map No. 15038
July 7, 1997
Page 2
On January 30, 1997, the applicant submitted the application and identified Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan as the traffic consultant and Tom Dodson as the environmental consultant the
applicant had retained for preparing the Initial Study. Public Works staff met several times with
the traffic consultant to determine the scope of the traffic study consistent with the Public Works
Traffic Policy Manual. The traffic study was forwarded to Mr. Dodson for inclusion in the
Initial Study and preparation of the air quality analysis consistent with AQMD guidelines. In
early March, prior to distribution of the Initial Study to the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC), staff thoroughly reviewed and commented on a screen check of the Initial Study prepared
by Mr. Dodson. Suggested changes and corrections were made to the screen check based on
comments provided by staff. Staff concurred with the conclusion of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Study and the Initial study was
circulated to the ERC for Review.
On March 13, 1997, the ERC, based upon their review of the Initial Study, concurred with the
recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff prepared the Notice of Preparation
and Noticing for the proposed environmental determination. Since the project was of region-
wide interest, it was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento, and was subject to a 3D-day
review. Copies of the Initial Study were circulated to the Planning Commission during the
public review period.
The public review period extended from March 20, 1997 to April 21, 1997. Only two comment
letters were received: one from the County Traffic Engineer (Gary Kuhlman) and one from Dr.
Mulvihill, CSUSB professor. The comments were forwarded to the City Traffic Engineer; Tom
Dodson, and Richard Baretto of Linscott, Law, & Greenspan. Draft responses were provided
to staff for review/revision by Tom Dodson, prior to their circulation to ERC. Planning and
Public Works staff concurred with the adequacy of the responses, and circulated them to the
ERC.
On April 24, 1997, the ERC reviewed the comments and responses and cleared the project onto
Planning Commission with a recommendation to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
In early May, Mr. Dodson prepared a Draft Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is that document that contains a listing of all the
mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study and the procedures for monitoring and
documenting their completion. Revisions were made based on comments made by staff, and
circulated to the Planning Commission as an attachment to the Planning Commission Staff
Report.
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and
Parcel Map No. 15038
July 7, 1997
Page 3
On May 20, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project. No members
of the public had any questions or concerns regarding the environmental determination. Most
comments raised by the Planning Commission related to project financing. The Planning
Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approved the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and approved the project.
In summary, the environmental review process was completed correctly and staff believes that
the Initial Study with a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate.
KEY POINTS
o The appellant has challenged the appropriateness of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by
raising questions about the Traffic Analysis, Parking Analysis and making claims that a
Socioeconomic Study should have been conducted and further stated that an
Environmental Impact Report for the project should have been prepared. However, the
appellant has only raised questions regarding these issues and has provided no evidence
to support their claims. See Exhibit 2.
o The Initial Study addresses the pertinent issues and contains the necessary documentation
to support it conclusions. See Exhibit 3, Attachment F.
o The appellant has indicated that additional facts and/or testimony will be presented at the
public hearing. This information mayor may not support their claims.
The Planning Commission Staff Report prepared for the May 20, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting provides the detailed background and analysis of this project (Refer to Exhibit 3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council close the Public Hearing and:e
Deny the appeal, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and Parcel Map No.
15038 based upon the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements contained in the May 20 Planning Commission Staff Report; or,
Continue the matter until August 4, 1997 at 3:00 p.m. to allow staff time to prepare written
responses to the issues raised by the appellant.
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and
Parcel Map No. 15038
July 7, 1997
Page 4
Prepared by:
Michael R. Finn, Senior Planner for
MICHAEL HAYS, Director of Planning & Building Services
EXHIBITS:
1 - Site Location Map
2 - Appeal
3 - May 20, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment A Location Map
Attachment B Site Plan (B-1), Floor Plan (B-2), Elevations (B-3), and Parcel
Map (B-4)
Development Code and General Plan Consistency Table
Conditions of Approval
Standard Requirements
Initial Study (forwarded to the Planning Commission March 19,
1997 under cover memo)
Initial Study Comments and Responses to Comments
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
-
o*..~ C
VJhIL. _
HQ
17"
=:.=. 0: It J
PLANoLn PAGE1OF1 (..."
EXHIBIT 2
~-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North -n" Strwt, 3rrI Floor, &m &monlbro, C4 92418
PhtHte (909) 384-5057 Faz (909) 384-5080
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
OF A DIRECI'OR DETERMINATION, DEVELOPMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMI1TEE DETERMINATION OR PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION
Appellant's Name, Address & 'MANO MANAGEMENT, INC.
Phone
c/o Harry L. Gershon, Esq.
Contact Person, Address &
Phone
HARRY L. GERSHON, ESQ.
Richards, Watson & Gershon
333 South Hope Street. 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 626-8484
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development (Municipal) Code, all appeal must be filed on a
City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the
appropriate fee.
Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing,
of the specific date and time.
Date Appeal Filed
~/~/t7
,
Received by
..,t{~
~12b 9tJ
Receipt No.
<17 ()o/9l;.3
Receipt Amount
fD)rn@rnowrnrm
lIil JUN 0 4 1997 ill;
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
BUILDING SERVICES
~) ,
'I L- 9'"2 c,'2- ,
Appeal Application
Page 2
The following information must be completed:
Specific action being appealed and date of that action
Specific grounds for the appeal
Action sought
Additional information
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
}, "JUaN
Harry L. Gershon
Attorney for Appellant,
Mano Management, Inc.
June -;. 1997
Date
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE 1
Project Under Appeal: San Bernardino Entertainment Center (CUP No. 97-01)
Specific action being appealed and date of that action:
The City of San Bernardino Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Pennit
No. 97-01, for the development of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center (the "Project"),
parcel map no. 15038, and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared therefor,
which occurred at the hearing held on May 20, 1997.
Specific grounds for the appeal:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a negative declaration
is improper where there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a proposed project
may have significant adverse effects on the environment. According to the Initial Study (p. 3),
the proposed project includes a theater complex (115,000 square feet, with 4,600 seats);
ancillary retaillrestaurant (total of 20,000 square feet); and, a central landscaped public plaZa
area (consisting of about 68,285 square feet).
In this instance, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate under CEQA for the
following reasons:
1. Traffic Impacts:
a. Circulation Impacts:
(i) The traffic study fails to analyze the traffic trips generated
by those members of the public who will use the central
landscaped public plaza area. Since these additional trips
were not included in the analysis, the Project's impacts on
traffic circulation are not fully disclosed and will be greater
than anticipated in the Initial Study.
(ii) The traffic study fails to account for the concentration of
incoming and outgoing traffic generated by theater patrons
at the start of and at the end of movie showings, resulting
in an underestimation of impacts from the Project.
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE 2
Project Under Appeal: San Bernardino Entertainment Center (CUP No. 97-01)
b. Parking Impacts:
(i) The Shared Parking Analysis underestimates the parking
demand to be generated by the Project as it does not
consider nor analyze the impacts of traffic to the central
landscaped public plaza area. As with the traffic impacts
discussed above, the Project's impact on parking resources
is necessarily underestimated in the Initial Study.
Inasmuch as the Initial Study and the Shared parking
Analysis show only a slight positive margin of parking
supply, the demands to be created by the Project on the
existing, limited parking resources will cause an adverse
impact which requires further analysis in an Environmental
Impact Report to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
(ii) Neither the Initial Study nor the Shared Parking Analysis
consider the impact upon the parking supply from the long-
term parking requirements of theater patrons as compared
to the long duration of parking periods for other users of
the proposed parking facilities. This analysis also fails to
account for the impacts which result from incoming or
outgoing movie patrons who will be competing for those
scarce parking spaces.
(iii) The Shared Parking Analysis states that the Project will
rely heavily on the use of the "Caltrans" or "State" parking
structure, as well as the City's Civic Center Parking
structure, to support its projected weekday evening and
weekend parking needs. However, according to the Initial
Study there is only a proposal to use the State of
California's Superblock parking structure, and, the
Conditions of Approval, #2(i), indicates that presentation
of an approved parking agreement between the EDA and
Caltrans must occur prior to building occupancy. There is
no analysis in the Initial Study to show where parking may
be available if no agreement is reached with Caltrans.
IIIII
/1/11
/1/11
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE 3
Project Under Appeal: San Bernardino Entertainment Center (CUP No. 97-01)
c. Cumulative Impacts:
The traffic study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan in support of
the Project does not analyze the impacts of "Phase 2 of the 'Superblock'
Project", even though that phase is planned to be developed by the year
2010 and is a reasonably foreseeable probable future project. The traffic
report does not analyze any cumulative impacts beyond the year 2002
2. Socioeconomic Impacts:
a. The Initial Study fails to analyze the Project's potential impact on other
nearby, existing theater complexes, including the Carousel Mall Theaters
(4 screens), the Inland Center Theaters (5 screens), and the Del Rosa
Cinema (8 screens). In the Initial Study, the City recognizes that such
impacts may occur when it states that the Project "may result in shifting
of movie patrons in the community", and that, as an offset to air quality
impacts, the Project is expected to draw local residents to the Project
rather than going to other theaters being built in cities such as Redlands,
Fontana, Ontario and Riverside.
b. The traffic study indicates, and estimates, that the average non-work trip
to the Project will be between 4.7 and 6.1 miles. Clearly, both the
Carousel Mall Theaters and the Inland Center Theaters fall within the 4.7
mile radius of the Project, and, the Del Rosa Cinema is within 6.1. The
"shifting of local movie patrons" will impact those theaters, which may
then be forced to eliminate screens and possibly close down theaters.
Such vacancies are physical impacts on the environment causing blight and
resulting in boarded up buildings. The Initial Study indicates that such
would be a result of the Project by shifting local movie patrons, therefore,
a socioeconomic study is necessary to determine the scope of those
impacts.
Action sought:
To rescind or set aside the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared therefore, and instead direct the preparation by the City
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE 4
Project Under Appeal: San Bernardino Entertainment Center (CUP No. 97-01)
of an Environmental Impact Report to fully consider all of the potential impacts from the
development of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center (CUP #97-01).
Additional Information:
In further support of these grounds for appeal of the Planning Commission approval of
CUP 97-01, and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Appellant will present
additional facts and! or testimony at the hearing on this appeal.
\
\.
\
EXHIBIT 3
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
CASE: Contitional Use Pennit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
3
5-20-97
1
APPLICANT:
Jason Kamm
MDA San Bernardino Associates
300 Continental Blvd., Ste 360
El Segundo, CA 90245
OWNER:
Economic Development Agency & Others
201 North "E" Street
3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507
===============================================
REQUFST I LOCATION - A request for a Conditional Use Pennit to construct a 20-screen theater
complex and three related retail structures. The request also includes a Parcel map to subdivide 5.19
acres into 7 parcels to accommodate the theater complex and retail buildings. The site is located at the
northwest comer of 4th Street and "E" Street in the CR-2, Commercial Regional land use designation.
===============================================
ExISTING LAND USE
PROPERTY LAND USE DESIGNATION
SUBJECT Office, Retail & Public Parking CR-2, Commercial Regional
NORTII County Social Services (DPSS) CR-2, Commercial Regional
SOUTH Parking StnJctunl and Mall CR-2, Commercial Regional
EAST Superblock and Parking StnJctunl CR-2, Commercial Regional
WEST California Theater, TfIIJl'.hnil'...R1 CR-2, Commercial Regional
College and Public Parking
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC YES D FLOOD HAZARD YES D SEWERS: YES.
HAZARD ZONE: NO. ZONE: Zone X SOO NO . NO D
Yr
mGH FIRE HAZARD YES D AIRPORT YES D REDEVELOPMENT YES.
ZONE: NO . NOISE/CRASH NO . PROJECT AREA: NO D
ZONE: Central City RDA
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
o Not Applicable
o Exempt
o No Significant
Effects
. Potential Effects,
Mitigating
Measures,
No E.I.R.
o E.I.R. wI Significant
Effects
. APPROVAL
. CONDmONS
o Significant Effects,
See Attached E.R.C.
Minutes
o DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE
TO:
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page I
REOUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant requests the approval of a Conditional Use Permit under the authority of
Development Code Section 19.06.020(E)(2) to construct a 2Q-screen theater complex and three
related retail structures. The applicant also requests the approval of a Parcel map to subdivide
5.19 acres into 7 parcels to accommodate the theater complex and retail buildings.
The 5.19 acre site is located at the northwest comer of 4th Street and "E" Street in the CR-2,
Commercial Regional land use designation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The theater complex is proposed to contain 20 theaters in a total of 115,000 square feet of
building space. The 20 theaters will provide an estimated 4,600 seats. The theater footprint will
encompass approximately 80,000 square feet and the structure will be two stories (43 feet in
height). The complex also includes three additional commercial retail structures totalling
approximately 20,000 square feet. It is anticipated that these retail structures will house
restaurants and other related retail shops. Conceptual signage, including a Changeable copy sign,
is included with the proposal.
The theater and retail shops will be arranged around a central landscaped public plaza area that
will contain approximately 68,285 square feet. Parking for the facility will be provided in
surrounding public parking lots. It is anticipated that parking will also be available in the
parking structure currently under construction for Superblock.
Hours of operation for the facility will vary from early morning to late evening for retail
operations and from early to late evening for the movie theaters during the week. On weekends
the movie theater may open up as early as noon. In addition the theater may conduct weekday
matinee operations.
The parcel map will subdivide ten parcels totalling 5.19 acres into seven commercial parcels
ranging in size from 7,680 square feet in area to 110,882 square feet in area. The parcel map
is for the purpose of providing separate parcels for the theater, retail buildings, and public plaza,
and existing City parking.
SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is located at the northwest comer of 4th Street and "E" Street. The site is relatively
flat with a 1-2% slope to the south. The site is currently developed with the former Social
Security Office, a parking lot, and a music retail store and religious retail store. These structure
will be demolished in order to construct the theater complex and associated retail buildings.
Surrounding land uses include the California Theater and existing public parking to the west, 5th
Street and County Department of Social Services to the north, Superblock and associated parking
Conditiooal Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 2
structure across "E" Street on the East, and Carousel Mall and parking structure across 4th
Street to the south.
BACKGROUND
Central City Parking Place Commission
The theater complex is dependent upon existing public parking in the Downtown. This requires
a shared parking plan to be submitted to the Public Works Department for review by the Central
City Parking Place Commission and final approval of the parking plan by the Mayor and
Common Council.
The Shared Parking Plan was previously circulated to the Planning Commission as part of the
project Initial Study. The parking plan was presented to the Central City Parking Place
Commission on March 6, 1997. The Parking Place Commission recommended approval of the
Plan to the Mayor and Common Council at that meeting. The Shared Parking Plan has been
scheduled for review and approval by the Mayor and Common Council on May 19, 1997.
Development Review Committee
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee and cleared onto Planning
Commission on April 24, 1997. The Public Works Department, Development Services
Division, Fire Department and Water Department have all provided Standard Requirements for
the proposal.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT lCEOA) STATUS
o The Initial Study was prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates, was independently
reviewed by staff, and presented to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on
March 13, 1997. The ERC proposed a Mitigated Negative Declaration. See Initial
Study, Attachment F.
o The Initial Study was circulated to the State Office of Planning and Research, and was
made available for Public Review and Comment from March 19, 1997 to April 21 , 1997.
Comments were received from the San Bernardino County Traffic Engineer and Dr.
James Mulvihill, California State University, San Bernardino. Responses to the
comments were prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates for the City and were
independently reviewed by staff. The comments and the City's responses to the
comments have been included as Attachment G.
o On April 24, 1997, the Environmental Review Committee, reviewed the comments and
responses, and finding them adequate and acceptable, recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 3
o The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared by Tom Dodson,
reviewed by staff, and determined to be adequate and acceptable. See Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Attachment H.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed use is conditionally pennitted within, and would not impair the integrity
and character of the of the subject land use district and complies with all of the
applicable provisions of this Development Code.
Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.06.020(E)(2), theaters are permitted in the CR-2land
use district subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The associated retail uses are
permitted subject to a development permit, but are part of the entertainment complex and are
in the conditional use permit. The proposed complex complies with all applicable provisions of
the Development Code as shown in Attachment C.
Front setbacks are allowed at the ground level if the area is designed as a pedestrian plaza, as
per Section 19.19.040(3) of the Development Code. To qualify as a plaza it must be a minimum
of 10 feet deep and the width of the entire store front, include enhanced or textured paving, and
landscaping. The western most restaurant building facing 4th Street has been setback 10+ feet
and meets this criteria. The project has been conditioned to treat this area with enhanced paving
and landscaping. Development Code Section 19.19.040(1)(A) allows up to 50 percent of a
building face to be set back. The eastern most building facing 4th Street meets this criteria and
has included its setback portion into the pedestrian plaza associated with retail building on the
west.
The northern end of the theater along "E" Street is set back to accommodate a future retail area.
Until the retail is built, this area will be developed as a mini-pedestrian plaza with enhanced
paving and landscaping, consistent with that along 4th Street.
The complex and associated plazas will create a much needed public space in the downtown and
will complement the Superblock building and its associated public plaza across "E" Street to the
east. Hence, the proposal will improve and not impair the character of the CR-2 land use
district.
Conceptual identification signage and a changeable copy sign is included with the project. The
applicant proposes to place movie posters along the "E" Street side of the theater to help to
maintain the pedestrian orientation of the facility. A sign program for the complex will be
submitted to identify the specific signage including type, amount, location, size and design,
consistent with Development Code requirements.
Conditional Use Permit No. 9Hll
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 4
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposal is consistent with General Plan Policy 1.3.3. which states:
"Allow for the development of region-serving hotel and convention. entertainment,
cultural, and supporting uses in areas designated as:
a. 'Commercial Regional-Downtown (CR-2)' ...."
The proposal is also consistent with General Plan Policy 1.16.31 which states:
"Encourage that buildings be located within twenty-five feet of the sidewalk. except for
setbacks to allow for outdoor dining. pedestrian-oriented plazas, courtyards and
landscaped areas provided that:
a. the setback is not separated from the abutting sidewa1ks by walls. continuous
planters. or other barriers:
b. the set back is at or approximate to the elevation of the abutting sidewa1ks, except
where a distinctive and usable open space can be created which transitions
"smoothly" from the abutting sidewalk;
c. the setback is landscaped and incorporates pedestrian oriented amenities; and
d. no automobiles or trucks may be parked in this area."
Review of the site plan (Attachment B-1) shows that the design of the proposal is consistent with
this policy.
3. The approval of the Conditional Use Pennit for the proposed use is in compliance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6)
of the Development Code.
As noted in the discussion on CEQA Status. an Initial Study was prepared and circulated for
public review and comment in compliance with CEQA. Mitigation measures have been
identified and are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. All mitigation
measures have been made project Conditions of Approval. All CEQA requirement have been
met.
4. There will be no potentially signUicant negative impacts upon environmental quality and
natural resources that couId not be properly mitigated and monitored.
As identified in the Initial Study, the project will not result in any potentially significant negative
impacts upon environmental quality and resources. All mitigation measures will be properly
monitored as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment H).
Conditional Use Permit No. 97~1
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 5
5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the
proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other
conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses
in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
of the City.
The proposal is in compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards and is consistent
with the General Plan as noted elsewhere in this staff report. The proposal will not create any
significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable as identified
in the project Initial Study. As such, the proposal will not be detrimental to other permitted uses
in the vicinity and will not create any situation adverse to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being
proposed.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as
evidenced by project compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards.
7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health
and safety.
All agencies responsible for reviewing access, and providing water, sanitation and other public
services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal, and none have indicated an inability
to serve the project. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health and safety.
Parcel MaD
1. The proposed map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans.
The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan in that the map conforms to the standards
concerning distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the General Plan as noted in the
discussion for Finding #2 for the Conditional Use Permit above. There are no applicable
specific plans.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
The proposed design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General
Plan as noted in the discussion for Finding #2 for the Conditional Use Permit above. There are
no applicable specific plans.
Conditiooal Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 6
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The sile is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the lots created meet
the minimum lot standards specified by the Development Code and summarized in Attachment
C.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
As noted in the discussion for Finding #1 of the conditional use permit above, the proposal
complies with all applicable Development Code Standards and is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.
The subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as addressed in the Initial
Study.
6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
The subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems as
addressed in the project Initial Study.
7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will co'lflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision.
Several utility easement exist in the area where the theater is to be constructed. These easements
exist to provide utility services to the former social security building and the existing retail music
and religious facilities which are to be demolished. However, the design of the subdivision and
proposed improvements will not conflict with these easements since they will be abandoned or
relocated by the Public WorkslEngineering Department through processing of the Final Map.
CONCLUSION
The proposal meets all necessary Findings of Fact for approval of the Conditional Use Permit
and Tentative Parcel Map.
RECOMMENDATION
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 7
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and
2. Approve Conditional Use Pennit No. 97-01 and Parcel Map 15038, based upon the
Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E).
?2J;"1f
Michael E. Hays .
Director of Planning and Building Services
IJUJwj;J- ~
Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Location Map
Site Plan (B-1), Parcel Map (B-2)
Floor Plan and Elevations are on file in the Planning and Building
Services Department
Development Code and General Plan Consistency Table
Conditions of Approval
Standard Requirements
Initial Study (forwarded to the Planning Commission March 19, 1997
under cover memo)
Initial Study Comments and Responses to Comments
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ATTACHMENT A
"""Ill
AGENDA
ITEM #
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
to...
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
-
P\.ANoI.11 P.oE 1 OF 1 (4<<It
<<" CI' SM .......,
---
I . I
.1111
~=tt~ ~~I~!~.~~~ ~
I
f EB~
:l
Z
o
f=
. c(
u
o
...J
.:=:-.:==-
-.-
I . . I J I
I I
I
I
I
I I
m 'i!I:~
III e i , ~
.... r i l-
e c(
I ~I ~ ;1:5
~ ii t ~& I-~
il olUM!Ii
I .oo ~ fi~!1
dm ~~~d
; : I
l L-'~---il'
b
;sml
I
ATTACHMENT B-1
.....
e
..........
~mm
J
-- iI
I
I
...
Cj>
,...
GI
~
8
,
,
,
-.--... .'
-.
0::
ILl
~
ILl <
J:z
1-'"
o::~1
c(~ .
I- (,) i
~il
~Oi
1Ll~1
Z~!
ullll
xi
ILl'"
...J
a..
I
o
N
I
I
....
'"
:r
....
'"
I
I
E
I
EB
Sl
o
..I .. i~c
~CDII~i
ac(ll). Cza:O
CO.za:u.
A In.. a: Wlll-
-"'jlU ...I
IllZC
~d. ZCU
t:Z!::~
CD. ~ .,OW
t-C O~I-
Z- u .....C
w. Ii ~I-I-
t- ~ CZ.
uS
u
ATTACHMENT tlB
I I .
- "
lilll I.
t. .~. .1~
" 'Ill,,!.! i
'1"I'i 1.1:1l,
,illdllt
II I! i : I ~
Iii . i \- t! . ~
.
I~ I.~ ~
~~ I ~ 3!mu ~I
I .
l.. ' 't.
i!' I'q ,
!~ ~!!~~I
I". H;lmi.
',I,i1111
ill".'m
iji I! lill l
S;loioO l; II!ml .
. Ii 1i1!i!l
i: llil;;:
iii 1:,.iIi
.~!: I
.. 'II
I~]~
i! G"'ilii
1115I!~
II" i
11.1.111
ilillll
I, I .11
;;mm k I
I ;11111111 I'i II
I I' 1 'II""
;U;; 111111 Ilii:I:..."
I ! ~, ! ~""-4 ! II !! ! ! I
II
i'
t= - -!!!!-..~-
-~~.
I I. ,. II
I I I I: ~~r.,
I .1 I~\ :i: 'I, I
II . '" ",r-~-r- ~
l, ! I ! :Ir---~-"
, : I I ("J i r
,....--:+-:---1---: . - &
I, : I ~ I ,I ~ ·
. : I - I : I; .
I . ------+--' I ~
. I. I ~
.. i i: i I.i I"
5 ... :..' I . ~ I
._~fi:_ I
- ..'--
I.
I
I,
:~-;y
--
""""",... . ~
-~~.,-i\:.r,./: \';
\:\~
.-;/
.
:-:..
Ii
!!i.
~~ .
I: i
~;I"
/'..
,"
I
.'1:
w,
-
-
I.'
.' .
, I. i
. ~'
Lf:~
I q I!!i
I~~~
----
Conditiolllll Use Permit No. 9Hll
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Dale: 5-20-97
Page 11
ATTACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Development General
Catel!ot:y Pro,posal Code Plan
Permitted Use 20-plex Theater and Permitted subject to Permitted
Associate Retail Conditional Use Permit
Height 2 Story No defined No defined
Stories (43 feet) Height Limit Height Limit
Setbacks
Front o to 10 feet' o feet < 25 feet
Street Side o feet o feet < 25 feet
Landscaping 68285 square feet 20,250 square feet N/A
(51 percent) (15 percent)
Lot Coverage 55 percent 100 percent N/A
, Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.19.040(3), front setba~h are allowed at the ground level if the area
is designed as a pedestrian plaza. See discussion on Page 3 of this staff report.
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 12
ATIACHMENT D
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
and Parcel Map No. 15038
1. Within two years of development approval, the parcel map shall be recorded and
commencement of construction on improvements shall have occurred or the
permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of
construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval
shall become null and void.
Project:
Expiration Date:
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01 and Parcel Map No. 15038
May 20, 1999
2. The review authority may, upon application being f11ed 30 days prior to the expiration
date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review
authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code
provisions.
3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter.
Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of
San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and
attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this
condition.
4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds
10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the
ref11ing of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing
review authority if applicable.
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification
of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved
theme; and,
Conditiooal Use Permit No. 97.{)!
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 13
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied
or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued
by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed
with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate. The
deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms,
conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit.
6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lightning design and control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied
with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter
cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the
building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
7. All mitigation measures identified by the project Initial Study and listed in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment H to this staff report) are incorporated
herein as project Conditions of Approval.
8. The area identified as a future retail area along "E" Street at the northeast comer of the
theater building shall be developed as a mini-pedestrian plaza. This shall include
treatment with enhanced paving/textured concrete, and landscaping consistent with the
interior theater plaza in materials and design.
9. The area of setback adjacent to the retail buildings along 4th Street has been permitted
for the purpose of creating a pedestrian plaza area along 4th Street. This area shall be
treated with enhance paving/textured concrete, and landscaping consistent with the
interior theater plaza in materials and design.
10. A sign program shall be submitted for the complex that includes the type, amount,
location, size and design consistent with Chapter 19.22 of the Development Code.
11. Demolition permits shall be obtained for the demolition and removal of the former social
security building and the music and religious retail buildings on the site.
Conditioual Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 14
12. No final parcel map shall be filed and no building permits shal1 be issued unlil the
Economic Development Agency or Developer has obtained title to all parcels comprising
the project site (APN's 134-131-01, 02, 06, 15, 16, 18; 134-121-12, 17, 19, and 20.
13. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Public Works (Engineering) Department
b. Building Services Division of the Planning and Building Services Department
c. Water Department
d. Fire Department
e. Parks and Recreation Department
'\
,
'.
"
ATTACHMENT "E"
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX, 80.000 SF
THEA TER AND 3 BLDGS OF 20.000 SF
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF "E" ST
AND 4TH STREET
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
PAGE NO:
. NOTE TO APPUCANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant Is I8Sponslble
for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering DMs/on. They may be submItted
prior to submittal of Building Plans.
1. Drainaae and Flood Control
a) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public
drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall
be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to maintain
compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit
Requirements. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water
Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 5 acres of more of land.
c) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an Erosion
Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and
wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including
graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon.
2. Gradina and LandscaDina
a) If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/ploUgrading and drainage
plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will
be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the
City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings",
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Page 1 of 10 Pages
5/14/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 SLOGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF liE" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
b) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond will be
required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section
7012(c) of the Uniform Building Code.
c) A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site. This evaluation must be
submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading
requirements or structural design requirements recommended by the approved
liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan and building
plans.
d) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this
plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to all
requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading
Policies and Procedures"). .
e) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and
detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the On-
site Improvement permit issued by the Department of Public Works/City
Engineer.
f) The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including
light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design, conduit location
and size, and the number and size of conductors. Photometry calculations
shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will
meet the intensity and distribution criteria specified by the City Police
Department.
Page 2 of 10 Pages
5/14197
r
-
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 SLOGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF liE" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
g)
h)
The on-site improvement shall include all details of the modifications that are
shown on the approved Conditional Use Permit Plan to be made to Central
City Parking District Lot #1, including designation and marking of handicap
parking spaces. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall approve the
details of the modification.
An easement or reciprocal access & parking rights will be required from the
property owner at the northeast corner of UF" Street and 4th Street to allow
improvement of District Lot #1 on property belonging to that parcel owner.
i)
A copy of the approved parking agreement between the Economic
Development Agency and Caltrans regarding use of the Caltrans parking
structure by theater patrons shall be provided to the Department of Public/City
Engineer prior to building occupancy.
j)
The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of
The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to handicap parking and
accessibility.
k)
A handicap accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to
the building entrance. All pathways shall be paved and shall provide a
minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the
minimum paved width shall be 6 feet.
I)
A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan approval if
reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking are proposed to cross lot
lines.
Page 3 of 10 Pages
5114/97
r
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS1 CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 BLDGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF "E" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
m) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the
Engineering Division for Checking.
3. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City
Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas,
electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV (Cable TV optional for
commercial, industrial, or institutional uses).
b) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished floor
elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole.
c) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the
Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard
Drawings.
d) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as
required.
e) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the
Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except overhead lines,
if required by provisions of the Development Code to be undergrounded. See
Development Code Section 19.20.
Page 4 of 10 Pages
5114197
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF
THEA TER AND 3 SLOGS OF 20.000 SF
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF liE" ST
AND 4TH STREET
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
PAGE NO:
f) Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be maintained by
the City but shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and inspected
under a City On-Site Construction Permit. A private sewer plan designed by
the Developer's Engineer and approved by the City Engineer will be required.
This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where practical.
4. MaDDina
a) A Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required.
b) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to, building
setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks, geologic mapping
and archeological sites shall be filed with the City Engineer in accordance with
Ordinance No. MC-592.
c) If this Map is located in an Assessment District and the assessment has not
been paid off, the subdivider shall submit an apportionment application to the
Real Property section of the Department of Public Works/City Engineer.
Application forms can be obtained form the Real Property Section at (909) 384-
5026.
d) Assessment District Apportionment Fees:
. Parcel Map of 4 or fewer Parcels - $ 1.100.00.
Page 5 of 10 Pages
5114/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 SLOGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF "E" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
5. Imorovement Comoletion
a) Street, sewer, and drainage improvement plans for the entire project shall be
completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the Map
recordation.
b) If the required improvements are not completed prior to Map recordation, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the
developer and the City will be required.
6. Street Imorovement and Dedications
a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be improved to
include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap ramps, street lights,
sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not limited to traffic signals, traffic
signal modifications, relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with
new construction, striping, shall be accomplished in accordance with the City
of San Bernardino "Street Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings",
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when
required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's
"Street Lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on
street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
b) "EO Street between 4th and 5111 Street and 4111 Street between oFo and oEo Street
shall be modified as shown in concept on the approved Conditional Use Permit
plan and the project traffic analysis. The Director of Public Works/City
Engineer shall approve details of the modification.
Page 6 of 10 Pages
5114/97
STANDARD REOUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 SLOGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF "E" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
c) During the first 6 months of operation of the theater, the City will evaluate the
need for a pedestrian crosswalk across "En Street approximately 100 feet north
of 4th Street. If the crosswalk is determined to be needed, then the Economic
Development Agency of the City shall fund the design and construction of the
crosswalk, including the possible reduction of street width and pedestrian
signals, in accordance with the requirements of the Director of public
Works/City Engineer.
d) Handicap parking spaces shown along "ED Street shall not be counted toward
the projects required number of handicap parking spaces.
e) The bus stops on 4th Street and DED Street adjacent to the site shall be
relocated to a new location mutually acceptable to the City and Omnitrans.
f) The applicant shall apply for vacation of the portion of 4th Street that is shown
to be incorporated in the site plan.
g) A signing program conforming to the Main Street theme shall be installed to
direct theater patrons to public parking lots that are available for use by theater
customers. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall approve the
signing program.
h) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at all
curb returns adjacent to the project site. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way at the
corner to accommodate the ramp.
i) Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 204, Type II, including
Handicap by-pass. Remove existing driveway approaches that are not part of
the approved plan and replace with full height curb & gutter and sidewalk.
Page 7 of 10 Pages
5114/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 SLOGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF liE" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
j) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard Nos.
SL-1 and SL-2 modified to conform to the Main Street Theme.
7. Phasina
a) If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase shall be
designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public service
vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this requirement, the
following will be required prior to the finalization of any phase:
b) Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond the phase
boundary to verify the feasibility of the design shall be complete to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer;
c) A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division,
Fire, and Planning Departments indicating what improvements will be
constructed with the given phase, subject to the following:
d) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32 foot radius paved width;
and,
e) Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms, and block
walls, shall be constructed, as necessary, to protect the development from off-
site flows; and,
f) A properly designed water system shall be constructed which is capable of
providing required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond the phase
boundaries; and,
Page 8 of 10 Pages
5114/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 BLDGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF liE" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
g) Pads that are not proposed for immediate building construction shall be
landscaped; and,
h) Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities shall
be completed.
8. Reauired Enaineerina Permits
a) Grading permit (If applicable.).
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Planning and
Building Services), including landscaping.
c} Off-site improvement construction permit.
9. ADDlicable Enaineerina Fees 1
a) Map Checking fee - $ 1,000.00 plus $ 30.00 per parcel.
b} Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cose of the off-site improvements.
I All Fees el'8 subject to chenge without not/ceo
'Est/meted Construct/on Cost for Off-Sits Improvements Is based on s list of stendsrd unit prices on..f1/e with the
Department of Public WorlcsIClty Engineer.
Page 9 of 10 Pages
5114/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. CUP 97-01
CITY ENGINEER & PM 15038
DESCRIPTION: 20 PLEX. 80.000 SF HEARING DATE
THEA TER AND 3 BLDGS OF 20.000 SF AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF "E" ST
AND 4TH STREET PAGE NO:
c) Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except buildings -
See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the
estimated construction case of the on-site improvements, including
landscaping.
d) Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee Schedule
available at the Engineering Division Counter.
e) Drainage fee in the approximate amount of ~14.205 Based on 169.340
total Square Feet @ $ 0.388 per square foot for the first 3,000 square feet of
impervious lot area (169,340 SF - 68,285 SF = 101,055 SF) then $ 0.133 per
square foot of remaining impervious lot area or fraction thereof.
f) Traffic system fee in the estimated amount of _$86.714 . Based on 5.610
trips per day @ $ 15.457 per new trip generated by the project. The City
Traffic Engineer shall determine exact amount at time of application for
Building Permit.
g) Sewer Connection fee in the approximate amount of $10.316 . Based on_
135.000 Square Feet of Bldg Area @ $ 219.49 per 3,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
h) Sewer inspection fee in the amount of $74.04. Based on L connection @
$18.51 per connection.
3 Estimated Construction Cost for On-Site Improvements Is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with the
Department of Public Works/Clty Engineer.
Page 10of10Pages
5/14/97
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 1
BUILDING DIVISION STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
1. Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building Architect or Civil or Structural Engineer.
2. Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis prepared by a Registered Civil or
Structural Engineer or Architect.
3. Submit State of California Title 24 Energy Calculation Forms for non-residential
buildings including a signed compliance statement.
4. Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses and existing materials of
construction.
5. Submit four (6) complete sets of construction plans including:
(a) Copy of conditions (5 copies)
(b) Energy Calculations (3 copies)
(c) Structural Calculation (3 copies)
6. Submit a single line drawing of the electrical service. Show all equipment, conduit and
wire sizes and types. Show the service ground size and grounding electrode.
7. Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical plans. (Tenant Improvement Drawings)
8 Permit required for demolition of existing buildings on site.
9. Submit a plan of the heating, ventilating or air conditioning system. (Clearly identify the
location and rating of the equipment and the sizes and material of all ducts, registers and
the location of all fire dampers). Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as
required by the 1991 Uniform Building Code. (Tenant Improvement Drawings)
10. Submit gas pipe loads, sizing calculations and isometrics. (Tenant Improvement
Drawings)
11. Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed sewer system.
12. Submit isometric plans of cold and hot water and drain waste and vent systems. (Tenant
Improvement Drawings)
13. Show compliance with Title 24 disabled access.
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-01
Parcel Map No. 15038
Hearing Date: 5-20-97
Page 2
14. Submit plans approved by the County Health Department. (Tenant Improvement
Drawing)
15. Fire Sprinklers Required:
Plans for fire sprinklers shall be submitted to the Fire Department and approved prior
to installation. No building inspections shall be performed beyond "framing and
ventilation" until fire sprinkler plans are approved.
16. City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for Worker's Compensation
Insurance.
17. Assessor's Parcel Number. 134-131-01,02,06, 15, 16, & 18; 134-121-12 & 17
18. Contractor's City license.
19. Contractor's State license.
20. Sewer capacity rights from Water Department, 384-5093.
21. School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
22. Other: Plan Check time is awroximately 2 -3 Wf'P.h.
23. Deposit: $12,544.88. Plan Check fees required for development.
/'l.l'"
l?'r - I ~ I ~ 01 C; ';'1 01.> I':;> l\tl It;
. j. I ~ ~
134 -/'2-/ - i'Z-J 17, i9, ' TTE:O:
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
Z(,3/97
rlto~1Al7 Vce5 It>oL'>e:, I
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Review of Plans: ~ ~O i
Owner/Developer: 'DI ,r,
/
Type of Projecl: 1I~"'T"'~ C-tJM PLfIf
Location: IJ ~ (f.{:,J~ 4-!. 4-" 6 I,
WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING:
Contact: 1'>, u.. S~Y'06J
(Ef7~'
Date Compiled: Z J 10/97
. ..
Compiled By: P J t-EjCA/J
Number of Units:
.t(Tltff5114 ,"e" I- "p')
-
Phone: 384-..-7;; <) I
Fax: gf,4 -&;53 z..
Note: All Waler Services are Subjecl 10 \he Rules & Regulalions of \he Water Departmenl.
8" {' jl4",/ " 7JI' "z;"
o Size of Main Adjacenl \he Project: C-, loJ 5 - ~ J I} -4 - l I Z' C. i fJ ,.J c.-
O Approximate Waler Pressure: bo.2sJ Efev":t1on of Wa;fS\orage: ItJ,'1 FT Hydranl Flow@20psi: > i~,~
o Type, Size, Location, and Distance 10 NearesI Fire Hydrant: I 0 I-l'(DrMl~) 0,,", r~cC-T ft:CJMen:.R
<=.6f. MA(',S 79 ((1(') ;::C,,;: l.v{-ATi0A6 f 1>CTAII_!.
o Pressure Regulalor Required on Cuslomer's Side on \he Meier.
o Off-site Water Facililies Required.
o Area NoI Served by San Bernardino MunicipalWaler Department.
o Comments:
WATER OUALITY CONTROL:
Contsct:
o R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
o Double Cbeck Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
o Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
o No Backflow Device Required at This Time.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLIINDUSTRIAL WASTE:
Contscl:"Mo...I C A?) To;:?c
Phone:
Fax:
Phone: ~>>4 '7".70 7 Fax: 3g4- 54-87
Note: No Regenerative Waler Softeners May be Installed.
o Industrial Waste Permit Required.
o Grease Trap Required.
~o 'KEL;.vI~MbJ~ 'i'CR D,C..
2-/+/97
o Pre-treatment Required.
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION:
Contact: AlP-if ,J..nM"-''1 Phone: ~g.4-5093 Fax:~-5.:2.IS
Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted 10 \he Building & Safety Department Prior 10 Issuance of \he Building Permit.
o No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
~ Capacity Fee Must Be Paid 10 \he Waler Department for 117tA Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: 7()
P"Subject 10 Recalculation of Fee Prior 10 \he Issuance of Buildiog Permit.
BreakdoWD of Estimaled Gallons Per Day: 4.3~8 sub (..fI.w:kr) Jr 5',: .;l.U.Jo ..,.. d}O/~s.{, ~e.o.~,
'/fd) ~ ;)''J..,lOO *~ 1""'- hS6 r .-J.'r .3 J.. :.I.L :1". ':"<'vIi"$l .;> J'l<. ~" ".lIA ra-/ ""1
S..J,i"~ ~ a~f.~ Tu' ..f.>r- ~ .s",v;".
STDREQUI2.F1lM (4194)
CITY OF &~N BERNARDINO FIRE DE. ARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Case: (uj) en- v I
-..//S /'i 7
Reviewed 'By: 'K
Date:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
g / Provide one additional set of co,"!stru~tion plans to Building and Safety for Fire D~l?artme~t use at, time of plan check.
!:It" Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requIrements.
~The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based
on square footage. construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and !!U:!I1 be available .R!im to placing combustible
materials on site.
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
0-' The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by:
~an Bernardino Munir:ipal Wate' f'lecartrnent . En(j:"-"!Ninq (909) 384 539~
o East Vailey Water District - Engineermg (909) 888-8986
o Other Water Purveyor:
Phone:
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACiliTIES:
IiY' Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not
to exceed 500 feet for residential areas.
o Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1.500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas.
Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas.
o Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted, as deemed
- J appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations.
f!! Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San-Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water
purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor.
o Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial
responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor
indicated above for additional information,
ACCESS:
o Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance, The routes shall be paved. all weather.
~Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet
of unobstructed width.
........Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings,
iY" Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings.
IV' Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required
width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING.. M.C. See 15.16".
o Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround.
o The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
o All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
Q' Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within
40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barret type, with one 21/2 inch and 4 inch outlet. and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire hydrants shall be designated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the
hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles,
BUilDINGS:
1'9"'" Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage
street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall. single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color
of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background.
o Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves.
o Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 10B/C, Minimum
distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher.
o Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels (motels) with 20 or more units, or apartments or hotels (motels) three stories or more in height
shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards.
g.-- All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA
standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days.
it""'" Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system,
o Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction.
B-" Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation.
e-r Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location,
Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any.cranges to Fire Department rquirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 6 yo. 1" e...- h. d V" 11 T . ,) ~
r 0 ",J'/ V-e IV...//!
f/il~
FPB170(11.94)
.~
CXTY OP SAN BERNARDINO PARKS, RECREATION" COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
,.-.,'
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
r" C
case:r::.,C1i-)fj - 0 i
A \ .-; I l Ir)-;
Date: ,!~l\l.-l I
, I I' L:..., " !
Reviewed By: 1\ \-J:0J iD2.q~
/
i
'-"
GBRBRAL RBQm:~S:
~
~
eo...rcial Indu.trial and ~lti-VDit
a.......nt Di.trict
...idantial
PuzpO.., Guid.lin.. and .ubmittal procedure
Irrigation and Land.caping~lan..
Cont.ct the City of san .enaardino .arka.Jlecreation and c: nftity Service.
Depar_t at (9091 314-5217 or 384-5314 for .p.cific d.tailed
requir_nt..
S'-:J:J'XC aavu.lItJftllR1TS:
IPLMI'l' IIA.'l'BllDLS
~~
iXI
Xaintenanc. of land.cape ar.a.
.lant.r Ar.a.
Int.rior .lant.r Ar.a.
Irrig.tion Sy.t...
Setback Ar.a.
Slope Area.
Qround Cov.r and ..dding Kat.rial
Bra. ion Control
.eed Control
.lant li.t and climatic condition.
Stre.t Tre..
.lant Kat.rial si.. .equirement. and aatio.
DlSPBCTJ:OH AND v,nu... RBQUJ:RBI'1n1TS
~[ ~
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
Irrigation Sy.t..
Landecaping
Bardscap. It...
Street tr.. Specification.
Arbori.t aeport
aemoval or d..truction of tre..
Scr..ning a.quir_nt (City. Dav.Codal
fro rfI {'VI €I
(J/fYlOvd
the .arka. aecreation and
Kote. The applicant ....t requ..t. in writing. any chang.
C . .ftity service. r.quir_t.. Additional infoxmation
P"f'
".:1:1
. JA..e. ~V\ :t.
11'1 .,..
&-rei') .
ATTACHMENT G
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
463 N. SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
TEL (909) 884-9700 . FAX (909) 889-8050
MEMORANDUM
April 23, 1997
From: Tom Dodson
To: Mike Finn, City of San Bernardino
Subj: Responses to comments and reCommendations for the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center CEQA environmental determination
The 30-day comment period on the proposed Negative Declaration for the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center (SBEC) project ended on Monday, April 21, 1997. We received two
comment letters on the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration. These letters were
from:
1. San Bernardino County TransportationlF1ood Control Department
2. Dr. James L. Mulvihill
I have prepared responses to these comments relying upon input from the project traffic engineer
and your office. The responses are attached for distribution to and consideration by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) at the April 24, 1997 ERC meeting.
Based on the input received, it is my recommendation to the ERC that the proposed SBEC
project stilI warrants a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as the appropriate
environmental determination in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). I will be at the ERC meeting to present my recommendations and to address any
questions or comments that arise at the meeting.
~e~
Tom Dodson
Attachment
LETTER #1
. nH.l..~r-vn 1l'\llVl~rl VU \,;VI'<lIIiUL
DEPA~ENT-SURVEJDR
I AfR 1 11997
......---
Ie ~387...,
00UNn' OF.,. B"Ir~
l'UlIUO ..... CliROUP
as
. .
lCllN.... MlU.!R
'*-r .
CITV OF SAN 8ElDWIllNo
_AlmABfrOl'~ ..
"1ltDlNG 8IA\IIC!S
file: 1'4 OSIF;1hSfNBt
A.pril9, Im'
07YOFs.u1~
j'r"1 ; is 1lIf4Bv'""""-. g",.h... roT {' 1,4
3()(} NriI oozy SINIt
s.n&._.&...,0\ 92f:f.B
.A71N; Mra:l'AU.R. FINN
.oar MJ-. Film:
1-1
n.e T7rI/JiI: Dir1iM .d' ...If f1re Thi1ic Straly ,....,......4 iy ,~ lArP & Gr..., ,j j1r lilt: Srm
&r,..4i..., :04._--1 Ordrr. ~ ~ ..., ftonz EtfJM 8. "PM lW Hmlr Prtjecl ~
V~.. fIIIf Ilee is ~ b~j, ~ 1itIIt"" &rir _. Str.t. ~ IIlIfIIiIe t1rtzt.
rrffedt4 -F ~-'*- -- Ill'. cfl7oa,.sy- l}rftPy (Ill F<<d aU . ~ from
l-\~-Aw..fD1ip~Aw.lie~'Ir;.--Y41Inltll. ,
lfyau. r-.,furfhIr r UfWd,'" amlRCtGtl1y KWrlttJtm trt(909)3B7-28.l3.
~"e~
g~y.B~1>L
~ Trrt:JJic l>WisiorJ
JYB:l.'B:k
cc: KAM.aL-Rt=fing Ale
. . ~.IS'; .......;;..10.::.:.
::.... ~..:~ \:.,:,.:. :i:ae:~',a :::: ;;.
10:,:,.::" "'.:~.2:4
.. ,.J ..... __"'''~'_''_.~'''''~ ........,....
'C.!.~"V"_~;"~......_...... .... .-.:K.:......a.;.:_ ........"~."^'__..:'Io...,,.. ........_ "
".c:;;.:ca:.s ................. ~-'o.~~ ..::.~tI.ti..Jtt.:- ..... ...... .~-~.. ;lo"'oC"
.;L....1:~ ':!J;..'!J!;$ . I. .....' ... ....... ~ ~.a::::.
~::.~ '-'t:.;.\.
.~~"it.:':':. eo;:::. '.' ~~;..":~-I~"::r .~.
- -
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER NO.1
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT
1-1 Please refer to the attached response prepared by the project traffic engineer which indicates
that no significant traffic impacts will effect the intersections or streets east of the "E"
StreetlFifth Street intersection.
IINSCO n
Ii\VV &
( ;REENSPAN
))[g@rnow~~
lJU APR 2 3 1997 ~
ENGINEERS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
BUILDING SERVICES
ENGINEERS & PLANNERS . TRAfFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING
1580Corporale Drive, Suite 122 . Costa Mesa. California 92626
Phone: 714 641.1567 . Fax: 714 641-0139
April 21 , 1997
Mr. Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Planning and Building Services Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
VIA FAX: (909) 384-5080
Subject:
RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STAFF COMMENTS
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, Ca6fomia
Dear Mr. Finn:
The following is a response letter prepared to address the co"'"""'.. received on the Traffic
Impact Analysis Report for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center, dated March 3, 1997,
from the County of San Bernardino Transportation!Flood Control Department-Surveyor. The
County comment letter is dated April 9, 1997.
County Comment:
The Traffic Division reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan
for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center. We have noted from Exhibit 8, "P.M
Peak Hour Project Traffic Volume," that there is significant traffic proceeding east on
Fourth and Fifth Street. We require that the affected major intersections under County
jurisdiction, specifically on Fourth and Fifth Streets, from Waterman to Tippecanae be
analyzed as well.
LLG Response:
Based on the existing street network in the project study area and anticipated project
traffic distn"bution pattern, traffic generated by the proposed San Bernardino
Entertainment Center will not significantly impact traffic conditions on 4th Street and 5th
Street, east of "0" Street, in the County of San Bernardino. As stated in the report, the
project traffic distribution pattern presented in Exhibit 7 of the report was developed
based on the assumption that parking for the movie theatre will be provided at the
CaItrans Parking Structure. The majority of project traffic, as illustrated in Exhibit 8,
utilizes 4th and 5th Street to access the Ca1trans Parking Str?cture.
Philip M. linscon. P .E. (Ret.)
lick M. G~nsp.an, P.E.
Willi.am A. L1w, P.E.IRel.l
P.aul W. Wilkinson. P.E.
tohn P. Kealing. P.E.
DavidS. Shendel, P.E.
Pasadena. 616796.2322 . San Diego. 619299-3090 . las Vegas -702 451-1920 . An lG2WB Company
IINSCOTT
I/\\^'.I &
CRH NSI'/\,'\J
Mr. Michael R. Finn
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
April 21, 1997
Page 2
ENGINEERS
Project generated traffic is not expected to utilize 4th Street, east of "0" Street, given this
downtown roadway terminates at Arrowhead Avenue. Thus, project traffic will not impact
major intersections under County jurisdiction on 4th Street, between Waterman Avenue and
Tippecanoe. The project volumes utilizing 4th Street total 157 trips (66 inbound, 91
outbound) and originate from the south and west, via "E" Street and 4th street (none from the
east).
Project traffic on 5th Street totals 194 trips. The majority of project generated traffic (143
trips) on 5th Street originates from the north and west of the study area and primarily utilize
5th Street to access the Caltrans Parking Structure. Project generated traffic on 5th, east of
"0" Street, total 51 trips (27 inbound, 24 outbound). The traffic impacts of these project-
related trips are expected to be insignificant and will dissipate as project traffic disperses to
other local roadways prior to Waterman and Tippecanoe.
Please note that based on application of the County of San Bernardino CMP impact criteria.
the key sigro"li7OO intersections on 5th Street, between Waterman and Tippecanoe, will not
require evaluation. Per the CMP impact criteria, the study area must include intersections
where the proposed project will add 80 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions).
Since project traffic originating from the east on 5th street totals only 51 trips, at worse, no
other intersections east of"O" Street were evaluated.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This completes our response package prepared to address comments from County of San Bernardino
staff on the Traffic Study Report for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center. If there are any
further questions, or you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOTI, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
~~~.'?>~
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer ill
attachments
cc: Jason Kamm, MDA-San Bernardino Associates, LLC
Oavid Gaulton, Pacific Development Services
Anwar Wagdy, City of San Bernardino
18S0RTC2.DOC
LETTER D2
HKKORANDUM
\O)m~mnwrn'\)\
U\1 AP~ 2 II a97 \!ij
C1T'( OF SAN B~..
~o~
TO:
Mr. Michael Finn
Planning Department ~......, A
City of San Bern&rdinOI'~~ ?p ~~.
Dr. James L. Mulvihill
California State Univers y, San Bernardino
FROM:
SUBJECT: Co_ents on the Initial Study, San Bernardino
Entertainment Center.
CC: File.
DATE:
April 21, 1997
The Initial Study for this project concludes that a
mitigated negative declaration provides sufficient
protection to the public for the anticipated negative
impacts this project will produce. I have several concerns
regarding this conclusion, and request that more complete
environmental analysis be required.
My concerns fall under five topics: parkinl,
liquefaction, traffic, cumulative i~acts and potential for
cJ:'eatinc blicht.
1) Parkin~: Relardinl Initial Study Section A(9)b,
Exhibit 3 of the parking study shows parking Zones
3 and 4 are two blocks from the proposed site. On
page 15, the study concludes that demand on
~typical" weekdays and weekends will Ri.ni~inantlv
exceed shared parkinc, and these two last mones
will be required.
2-1
Use of theaters assumes adjacent parking, or at
least ~line of sight.~ Assuming that patrons will
walk two blocks is . bad assumption. At Ontario
Mills parking is adjacent to their 62 screens.
Even if you parked at the far end of that cOlllplex,
there ~y be a two block walk, but the large
.hopping co~plex intervenes and provides some
attractive stops along the way.
Associated with this already constrained parking
situation, what are the plans for festivals 8uch
as ~Route 66." I saw nothing in the study
relardinl this and .i.ilar Main Street events,
e.g. taraers markets, etc. Does the theater have
contingency plans for parking durinl those
periods'l
Page Two
Memorandum: San Bernardino Entertainment Center
April 21, 1997
2) 1.io"..h,etinn: Regarding Initial Study Section A(l)h,
hieh liquefaction potential should not be listed
as ~maybe;~ it is & fact. In my memory, basements
of buildings in .the vicinity have had to use pumps
2-2 to keep. water levels down. It is a critical
concern here becau.e the theater. will be built
"below grade. n The problem was a major concern in
the twin theaters on Oran.e Show Road in which the
first 5-10 rows were frequent.ly flooded. What cloos
t.his mean for their design?
3) Traffic: ReaardiDl Initial Study Section A(l)a, t.he
let.ter and executive suamary dated March 3, 1997,
from Mr. Richard E. Barretto of Lin~cott, Law and
Greenspan, concludes that only one of nine
intersections will be Degatively impacted by this
development, that at E Street and 5th. Page iii
concludes that at peak hour a LOS 11 will exist at
this intersection. The mitigations include: re-
striping and eliminatina some di.,onal parkinc.
Will these sufficiently correct the LOS
shortcomings generated by the project. What are
the plans for ~Route 66,~ and similar weekends?
Looking at Initial Study SectioD A(14)c, mandatory
findings regarding cumulative impacts. The
Superblock is only at. Phase 1 in construction.
Page ii of the Executive Summary of the Linscott,
Law and Greenspan study indicates that. cumulative
impacts of Phase 2 is ~ included in. this
analysis (and I couldn't identify if Phase 1 was
completely covered). The Superblock has the
potential of generating many ancillary activities
related to the State Office building. In fact., the
present report indicates 695,000 SF of additional
space is planned in Phase 2 alonel Now we have the
opportunity to look more closely about how this
project will limit our future planning. If traffic
and parking is tight now, what must we do to
assure that future decisions won't be limited by
this project?
4) Rli.ht: If this project fails, it will have severe
blighting impact on its neighborhood, and likely
the Cit1 as whole. There are other investments, in
neighborhoods that will deteriorate further
without funding, that can be made with the
resources being risked on this project.
Bt assWlling this theater will have a "regional
2-3
2-4
Page Three
Kelllorandullt: San Bernardino EntertalI111lent Center
April 21, 1997
2-4
draw," the marketing study for this project is
greatly f1.awed. Right now, there is a aultlplex:
bein, bull t in Redland., and there are already 52
screens in ontario. At best, this project wi1.1.
draw _in1)'" from the 1.oca1 co_unit)'". Without a
broader market. this project can't aucceed.
cant.
AlIIO, the $7 .ll110n HOD Section 108 1.oan beina
used to support over hal.t of this project, usea
future Co_nit,. Developaent Block: Grants .s
collateral. Ii' this project fails, which aseneies
won't we fund?
'.
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER #2
DR. JAMES L. MULVTRTI.J.
2-1 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Planning Commission when it
considers this project for a decision. The parking analysis allows the assumptions contained
in the parking study. Visual line of site access to the theaters may be preferable as stated in
your comment, but in tenns of identifying adequate parking resources the study has shown
that adequate parking is available within easy walking distance. Further, although the shops
along "E" Street may not be comparable to those at Ontario Mills, many sma1I shops are
located in the inunediate area that provide a variety of shopping options. Regarding parking
during special events, the parking evaluation does not address the "extreme" demand
circumstance any more than traffic studies examine the absolute worst case traffic flow
condition. The threshold for traffic and parking impacts is based on the average peak demand
for circulation and parking resources. Otherwise, infrastructure would be designed for a
condition that would occur only one time per year or less (for example the Rose Bowl on
New Years day) and the remainder of the time such circulation and parking resources would
remain unused. Typically, when too much demand exists for such resources, people will
either abandon their recreation or will find an alternative, such as parking further away from
the area. Given the typical peak use pattern identified in the parking study can be adequately
handled with the available parking resources, but it will require a short hike from the furthest
parking locations. Additional analysis would not result in any other findings, so no additional
analyses are recommended.
2
2-2 If you read the data carefully, you would have discovered that the water table at the site is
currently too deep (about 100 feet at this location) to pose any liquefaction hazard. However,
historic evidence indicated that the water table can reach depths below ground level at this
site that may contribute to liquefaction of the site. This same problem existed for the new
state building across the street, and engineering design measures were included in the design
to ensure that liquefaction would not cause significant damage to this 13 storey structure.
Your comment that the buildings will be built "below grade" is confusing since they will be
constructed at grade. The one and two storey structures at the project site will incorporate
engineered designs that can ensure the movie theater will not experience significant damage
at the site if liquefaction occurs in the future. The geotechnical engineering reports for the
state building are available for review at the City Planning and Building Services Department.
2-3 As noted above, the proposed designs for traffic flow deal with the weekday peak hour, Le.
a typical or average situation. For reasons stated above, circulation systems are not designed
for the absolute maximum traffic flow. We know of no jurisdictions that utilize such extreme
traffic conditions as the basis for assessing the significance of traffic impacts. On weekends
when major events are held downtown the local system will be overloaded, but this is not
considered a significant traffic impact. The City uses a LOS "E" during the weekday peak
hour as the threshold for measuring significant impact to traffic flow. With the proposed
mitigation, traffic impacts can be reduced below a significant level.
Future decisions about the effects of future development of the Superblock will have to be
reevaulated in a subsequent Initial Study and possible a Subsequent EIR. This will be
required because the circumstances at the site will have changed as a result of the movie
theater development, and the next phase of the Superblock development will have to identify
the increased impacts and the measures, for both traffic and parking, that will need to be
implemented to reduce impacts below a significant level. Bottom line, the timing of the
potential demand for the additional commercial space is considered too speculative at this
time to justify including this square footage in the traffic evaluation for this project.
2-4 This comment delves into City development policy, specifically socioeconomic issues, which
is beyond the scope of this Initial Study. It is far too speculative to make a guess about the
potential for this facility to succeed or fail economically, and the CEQA does not require
evaluating either speculative or socioeconomic issues as part of the Initial Study or an EIR.
The concerns identified in this comment will be provided to the decision-makers for this
project for their consideration prior to a decision.
3
~tate of (!California
~~
(~~,
""..,...~
PETE WILSON
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
LEE GRISSOM
DIRECTOR
April 21, 1997
MIKE FINN
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
Subject: SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER SCH #: 97031048
Dear MIKE FINN:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental
documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process. When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
~4.
ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
~~A~~~~~~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING II<
BUILDING SERVICES
I
970310.&
Not. Completion .nlf Environmental
cumen' TransmiUe' Form
/III.u..:SWl:CIcari . ;"'Xllclll,t\SlJt&L~o.CA"11':'-916U.1}'~I]
Sn1iOTr,.._
{,.#pAl". .
-
...~
....~.J......
..--
&. ~2.uu: LSu..H~.
C.~M,
... C~IC
oIC.W'- Twp.
~ :;:I1S-JE
t1'1l.WJWI!I
.
-----------------------------------------
7. ~Tpe
QOAl OJ'~' ~,-:~~1Di "NE'A.: 8. :!IO'OI 0'THIft:
02. -,....JOo,.._~, IfI..~S1
CD, . ,"DIe ~ -,!'IQl a.;.,.D!lftDS
0.. ~"lEIJl (j.~!'iOC 1: .lA
0... _:ro.:OD
-----------------------------
L Leul Act..... T~
01. ~"-IPIIIlC""
lD. !Ct.......
03.GDalIIPIIIl~
01. W-,.
~.:~
Ol..s,.nr.c....
o,!....~PID
01. :........
09. ~A...
1o.-"'~~
~1"'r,.T*'Nlp.ac.)
II. N't",1CDI
------------------------------
I. ~ _I-I...,....T~
OI'~~: l'~_MfW_ "'_ -o'l.;,.,...; N;.,.-'/ _'_
ft!. qr..: Sf.f:.~_lM:'~,...... CIl._'~ ~ --
CD. - .,'_" .;.aJ:.54'.f..#~_~'_ tt,.,_rr--:r.",
01. ~ J(.~_AMf_~"'- JD....OCSIallw.d
Il!. ...._hciJIdq; MG~ 1l..~'C/:llI::
Ill. T....-' 7'!P1
;;~~----~,~---------~~:;~~~---~n----
-----------------------------------------
,..~_............~
01. 'iAIaJ (If.;- &;tIDe 1"-
C. - IMlI 10.' ~l.:- II
~.'~ II.~.'. "
.. '..~_.. ".~ ,,~
::~' i~ ~. ~ _~~,..:.Clfflll...
" ~- .,;~
. , I..~.IIU ...~~.
CI.' t 16~~ :.:~
~;~~;:~~~~~--~----~~~---A(~-;~;--------
~;;~~~~:~~~---Ci~--~~-----------~-I----
;;:;.:;.:;-~;.:;--~O--~;~-~~-~~,;;?~y
win;, ..o#..r ~o",.,.;r. <ir te--h.:/ 4",~--f
-c:"'l....~
it: iIo(...~lNIifc
:~. ~Gftow\tll"""
"C-....,...
:t...~!ft'_
K\.;.,.:0Ibcr
State Review Began:
Mr. Chris Belsky
(916)44s-061l
-.1..: rJ -n
..1-..ll
'I. I(
1_ft'
Proje<t Seat to lb. foUowiDe Stat. ApII_
StlleC~Contact:
sa.1e/ColIM.er $va
_ GeDeroI_
CallEPA
ARB
~Clt.W_MpltBd
SWRCB: G.....
SWRCB: Deha
,(, SWRCB: _ Quality
_SWRCB: WIrIlialJts
-1LRq. WQCB # ~
_DTSCJCTC
Dept. Review to Agcnc~'
--1L _....
---.
c-tc-m
Coucal Consv
=: Cokndo Rw Bd
c.o--..
-1L Fisb 01: Gome #.r
_Deha_
_ Faraoy
" Porksol: ~
~Rcc_
BCDC
1DWR
OES
au Tn.., JIOIII
AonlIIIlllic:s
::::x: ClIP
-1L~#L
_T_'--"
_ H...... 01: ee..1
......W..re
_ DrioIdn& 1120
_MedicIIW_
Alene)' Rev to SCH
SCH COMPLIANCE
PInR Dote SCH Namber oa all Com meats
97031048
.... forward late co.meab directly to Uic
Lead AIPC}'
YIIIIAdII Corndlou
ConecIions
1.'t,RoI-t Co..
_ Eacqy Comm
NAMC
PUC
__MIlMtDs
-A... _ Loodo Comm
_ToboeJl&l.....
_ 0dI0r:
AQMDIAPCD 2 (Rosources:-.J., lb-
.-.'
". -~
"I ~}'i.
I ~..... ~:
-":.~,,' ;
'~~h\
I
I
I
I
,
i"
I ,.
'" '-".'; ~
1-"
I ""5;
,";:.?;.'.
I :...::,
;c~;:.
.' '-~'
:~;:.~' .
::"'.
",
"to.,
-~~. .
,CF
:~r:
," ~.
..-",'
,
:'>-'
. "'....
. "f;.::
.:X-.
:',',
'. ~
.l~:
'~;.,
.,'~,:-
~~;
~.:'~c
<;~~. .
~'..-
.:.n
---
,-.
.;:;~~:. .
..~:.-
ATTACHMENT H
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
MITIGA TION MONITORING PROGRAM
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
463 North Sierra Way
San Bernardino, California 92410
May 8, 1997
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
A. INTRODUCTION
This mitigation monitoring program has been prepared for use by the City of San Bernardino as it
implements identified mitigation measures for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project. This
program has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the State and City CEQA Guidelines.
Section 21081.6 of the CEQA requires adoption ofa reporting or monitoring program for those
measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment.
The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed to ensure compliance
during project implementation.
This monitoring program contains the following elements:
I. All mitigation measures are recorded. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists the
mitigation measures contained within the Initial Study. The MMRP establisbes the actions and procedures necessary
to ensure compliance for aU mitigation measures as outlined below.
2. A procedure for compliance and verification bas been outlined for eacb mitigation measure. In the attacbed MMRP
sbeets, the first section identifies the "General Impact" The second section lists the "Mitigation Measure." Next,
the "Specific Process" for monitaing is listed. It is followed in the MMRP sbeet by identification of the "Mitigation
Milestone" for the mitigation measure and the "Responsible Monitoring Party." Any "Prerequisite Action For" the
measure is identified and a signature block is provided for "Verification" that the measure bas been implemented.
3. The program contains a separate mitigation monitoring record for eacb mitigation measure in the format outlined
above. Copies of the MMRP and supporting data records will be retained by the City of San Bernardino (City) as
part of its project files.
4. The MMRP bas been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be
necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for implementing the Program. The total Program,
including any modifications, will be retained by the City as part of the project files.
The individual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are
numbered in the same sequence as present in the Initial Study.
PD-04<lIMMRP
Page 1
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Miti~ation Monitorin~ and Reportin~ Pro~m
B. MITIGA nON MEASURES IDENTllflED IN THE INmAL STUDY
General Impact
Development subject to landslides, mudslides, subsidence, or similar hazards.
Mitiiation Measure
l.g.l Pursuant to and in compliance with the City's LiquelBction Ordinance (MC-676), the applicant shall have a qualified
geotechnical professiooa1 (P~ Geologist or Professiooa1 Engineer) prepare a geotechnical study of the project
site prior to completing the final design of the stlUctwes. As part of this geotechnical study, the potential for
groundshaking, subsidence and IiquelBction impacts shall be investigated for this site and, if required, messures to
mitigate potential grmmdsbaking and IiquelBction hazards sball be identified. This investigation shall include an
eva1uation of historic water table levels and the role thst a rising water table could play in potential for liquefaction.
The applicant shall implement thoae messures required to protect the stlUctwes from significant groWldsbaking,
subsidence, and Iiquefilction bszards. For this project, reduced below a significant impact shall be based on a design
thst protects life and minimi7'" damage to the stlUctwes.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the geotechnical study, engineering drawings, or construction plans by the
City's Building and Engineering departments.
Mitiaation Milestone
Prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
Copies of the approved geotechnical study and construction drawings shall be kept in the project file.
Responsible Monitorina P~
City of San Bernardino Engineering and Building departments
PrereQllisite Action{s) For
Sllbmitted to the City with engineering/construction drawings.
City verification by:
PD-04OIMMRP
Page 2
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Pollutant emissions associated with the project.
Miti~ation Measure
2.a. I The 1heater opemtool shall work with Omnitrans to develop employee and attendance package(s) that provide some
benetit to attendees that use public transit to travel to the site. Such packages could include reduced ticket prices,
free goods, extended transfer hours for bus tickets, or free bus tickets.
Specific Process
A copy of the agreement between the developer and Omnitrans or notification that the tenns of this
measure have been met shall be submitted to the City of San Bernardino Planning and Building
Department prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Miti~ation Milestone
A copy of the agreement between the developer and Omnitrans or written notification that the terms
of this measure have been met shall be provided by the City Planning and Building Department prior
to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Re!\ponsible Monitorin~ PartY
City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Department.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
City verification by:
PD-04O!MMRP
Page 3
San Bernardino Entertaimnent Center
Miti!\ation Monitorin!\ and Reportin!I Prowam
General Il11Pact
Increase in noise generation.
Mitillation Measure
5. b.1 Exterior consttuction activities involving noise producing equipment shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., except in the event of an emergency.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitillation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections. Inspection
reports shall either state the contractor is in compliance or identifY the time of violation.
Responsible Monitorinl! Party
The City Public Works and/or Building departments shall keep copies of the contracts and inspection
reports in the project file, as well as, records of violations and the actions taken to remediate the
violations.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Approval of construction plans and execution of contracts.
City verification by:
PD-04OIMMRP
Page 4
,
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Miti!\lltion Monitorin" and Repor!in" Pro!\fllm
General IlllPact
Increase in noise generation.
Mitisation Measure
5.b.2 The applicant shaJl ensure that aJl construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment
(muflliers or silencers).
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections. Inspection
reports shal1 either state the contractor is in compliance or identifiy the time of violation. The
inspection report shall also verifY that remediation measures were successful1y implemented.
Rei\Ponsible Monitorini Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works and/or Building departments.
Prerequisite Action{ s) For
Approval of construction plans and execution of contracts.
City verification by:
PD-<l4OlMMRP
Page 5
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Il1\Pact
Increase in noise generation.
Mitigation Measure
5. b.3 If noise oompliants are received from residents, the applicant shall install portable noise reduction walls or barriers
to attennate sound levels to less than 3 dBA greater than background sound level.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitil:ation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections after
complaints are received. The inspection report shall verify that the remediation measures were
successfully implemented to attenuate noise levels to less than 3 dBA greater than background sound
levels.
Re!ij)onsible Monitorinl: Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works and/or Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(!l) For
Approval of construction plans and execution of contracts.
City verification by:
PIJ.OOlIMMRP
Page 6
San Bernardino Entertaimnent Center
Miti~ation Monitorin~ and Reportin~ Program
General Impact
Release of hazardous substances.
MitiW"ation Measure
7.b.1 The applicant shall require all contractors to control spills of petrolewn products and, if such spills occnr, the
contaminated soil or other material shall be collected and/or treated and disposed of at a facility licensed for
contaminated soil. Records of spills and clean-np efforts shall be retained by the developer or contractor and made
available to the City upon request.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitig:ation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections. Inspection
reports shall either state the contractor is in compliance or identifiy the time of violation. A record
of the spill and cleanup efforts sha1l be provided to the inspector immediately after the incident. This
record shall be placed in the project file.
Rel\Ponsible Monitorini Pany
City of San Bernardino Public Works and/or Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Execution of construction contracts.
City verification by:
PD-04OlMMRi'
Page 7
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(' teneral IlI\Pact
A significant increase in traffic volumes.
Mitiiation Measure
9.a.l Restripe the north and south legs of"E" Street to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and a shared through-right lane.
To accommodate this improveinent, some of the existing on-street angled parking and along the east and west side
of"E" Street will need to be eliminated or converted to parallel parking spaces.
Specific Process
Review and approval of street improvement plans.
Mitiiation Milestone
Prior to issuance of road construction permits. Prior to release of street improvement bonds.
Responsible Monitorin~ Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and City inspectors.
PrereQllisite Action( &) For
Submittal of street improvement plans.
City verification by:
Po.<l4OIMMIlP
Page 8
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Il1lPact
Road construction impacts.
Mitiiation Measure
9 J.I The oonstnJction contractor or applicant shall provide adequate traffic control resources (signing, protective devices,
crossing devices, detours, tlagpersons, etc.) to maintain safe traffic tlows on all streets affected by construction
activities. If construction beneath a road is not completed by the end of the days work, the contractor or applicant
shall ensure that an adequate traffic access route exists to all areaS where access exists at the time of construction.
Specific Process
The City Public Works Department shall review and approve a plan to manage traffic during
construction prior to issuance of road construction permits.
Mitiiation Milestone
Prior to issuance of road construction permits.
Implementation shall be verified by City insepctors. The City inspectors shall maintain a record of
non-compliance and remediation measures implemented.
Rel\Ponsible Monitorini P~
City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and City inspectors.
PrereQJlisite Action( II) For
Submittal of street improvement plans.
City verification by:
J>D.Q4O/MMRP
Page 9
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
G'eneral Impact
Road construction impacts.
Mitiiation Measure
9.f.2 Traffic hazards that may affect vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians shall be identified and controlIed by the contractor
or applicant prior to construction and resources made available to prevent or minimize these hazards during
construction.
Specific Process
The City Public Works Department shall review and approve a plan to manage traffic during
construction prior to issuance of road construction permits.
Mitiiation Milestone
Prior to issuance of road construction permits.
Implementation shall be verified by City insepctors. The City inspectors shall maintain a record of
non-compliance and remediation measures implemented.
Re!ij)onsible Monitorin~ Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and City inspectors.
PrereQllisite Action(s) For
Submittal of street improvement plans.
City verification by:
po.oo>JMMRP
Page 10
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(' .eneral IlI'\J)act
Impacts to fire service.
Mitia:ation Measure
lO.a.1 Require that the project consllUction meet the standards referenced above related to type of consllUction, materials
and installation of sprinklers during the review of planning, building, and consllUction drawings.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments shall review and approve all building and
construction plans prior to assuance of building or construction permits.
Mitiiation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Verification of compliance
will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
Re!\j)onsible Monitorin~ Party
City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments.
PrereqJlisite Action(ll) For
Submittal of building and construction plans.
City verification by:
ID<l4OIMMRP
Page 11
San Bernardino Entertaimnent Center
Mitip,ation Monitorinp, and Reportinp, Prop,ram
General Il1\I1act
Adequate water supply for firefighting.
Mitiiation Measure
lO.a.2. The applicant shall ensure that adequate infrastructure and water supply are available onsite and per City standards
to meet peak flow requirements and tbat they will be in place and operational prior to occupancy of the new facilities.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water and Building departments shall review and approve all
building and construction plans prior to issuance of building permits.
Mitia:ation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Verification of compliance
will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
Rei\Ponsible Monitorina: Parly
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water and Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submittal of building and construction plans.
City verification by:
PtJ-04OIMMRP
.
Page 12
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitil!lltion Monitoring and Reporting Prol\fllffi
Cteneral Im.pact
Adequate fire access.
Mitiiation Mea.~ure
lO.a.3 The Developer shall be responsible for the installation, maintenance, and enforcement of adequate access to all
facilities for fire equipment within structures and on the adjacent roadways.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments shall review and approve all building and
site development plans prior to issuance of building or construction permits.
Mitiiation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved' prior to issuance of building permits. Verification of compliance
will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
Re!\ponsible Monitorini PartY
City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments.
PrereqJlisite Action( s) For
Submittal of building and site development plans.
City verification by:
PD-04OIMMRP
Page 13
San Bernardino Entertairunent Center
MitiJ!ation Monitoring and ReportinJ! Prol!fOm
General Impact
Public safety.
Mitilfation Measure
IO.b.1 The applicant shall confer with the City Police Department and jointly develop a set of recommendations for
enhancing public safety within the structures and in courtyard areas. These recommendations should address both
physical installation of crime prevention deterrents, as well as recommendations for patrolling schedulres and the
recommendations shall be implemented by the applicant prior to finalizing building plans.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernaridno Police and Building departments shall review and approve building and
site development plans prior to issuance of site development and building permits.
The City Building Department shall obtain written clearance from the Police Department regarding
compliance with this mitigation measure prior to issuance of the building and site development
permits.
Mitilfation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building and site development permits. .
Verification of compliance will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to
issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitorin~ PartY
The City of San Bernardino Police and Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(!l) For
Submittal of building and site development plans.
City verification by:
PD-04OlMMRP
Page 14
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitip;ation Monitorinp; and Reportinp; Prop;ram
(' -reneral Impact
Solid waste disposal.
Mitiiation Measure
IO.f.1 The applicant/operators shall work with the City Public Services Department to integrate its waste management
efforts with a program of recycling activities by the theaters consistent with City's adopted Source Reduction and
Recycling Element. This program shall include the identification of methods to reduce wastes at the source and
increase the volwne of recyclable materials that can be delivered to markets for reuse. Specific types of programs
inclue waste segregation (cardboard, plastic, ~ etc.), delivery of waste to the City's proposed Materials Recovery
Facility, and delivery of compos table materials to the City's proposed composling facility.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department sha1l obtain a copy of a written agreement between
the developer and the City's Public Services Department which identifies the programs that will be
implemented to achieve waste reduction, segregation, and recycling.
Mitiiation Milestone
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Re!ij)onsihle Monitorini Party
City of San Bernardino Public Services and Planning departments.
Prerequisite Action{ II) For
City verification by:
PD-04OIMMRI'
Page 15
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Energy resources.
Mitisation Measure
II.a.1 The developer shall confer with the City Municipal Water Deportment regarding the ability to utilize local geothermal
resources for space beating and cooling. If judged feasible by the City and developer, the geothermal resource sball
be developed and used at the site as an energy source.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department shall review the building plans for the
project and provide written verification to the City Building Department that its recommendations
regarding the use of the available geothermal resources have been implemented.
Mitiiation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Verification of compliance
shall be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuing certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitorini PatiY
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water and Building departments.
PrereQJlisite Action( I\} For
Submittal of building plans.
City verification by:
I'D-04o.MMRP
Page 16
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prop;raID
General Impact
Cultural resources.
Mitillation Measure
13.a.1 The applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologiclhistorian who shall he onsite when any subsurface disturbance
activities are undertaken.
Specific Process
A signed contract with a qualified archaeologistlhistorian to monitor subsurface disturbance activities
shall be provided the City Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of grading and building
permits.
Mitiiation Milestone
A copy of the signed contract shall be provided the City Building Department prior to issuance of
grading or building permits.
Re!ij)onsible Monitorin~ Party
City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Department.
Prerequisite Action{ &) For
Submittal of grading plans.
City verification by:
PD-04OIMMRP
Page 17
~
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pr=
General Impact
Cultural resources.
Mitillation Measure
13.b.2 If any resources are encountered in an undisturbed condition as detennined by the arehaeologistlhistorian.
construction in that ares sba1I be Jialted until test pits can be installed. Any cultural resources encountered as a result
of the test pits shall be properly mitigated through testing, collection, docwnentation, and curation.
Specific Process
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the developer shall submit a report to the City Building
Department from the archaeologistlhistorian detailing the results of the monitoring activities includnig
the disposition of any resources recovered.
Mitillation Milestone
The archaeologistlhistorians reports shaI1 be submitted prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitorinll Party
City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Department.
PrereqJ1isite Action{ll) For
Issuance of grading and site development permits.
City verification by:
PD-04OlMMRP
Page 18
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Common Council A--
Michael Hays, Director of Planning and Building Services ~ (jJ
June 30, 1997
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
lNITIAL STUDY FOR DOWNTOWN THEATER PROJECT
COPIES:
James Penman, City Attorney; Fred Wilson, Acting City Administrator
Attached is a copy of the environmental documentation for the downtown theater project which
is scheduled for the July 7 Mayor and Common Council meeting.
[x~{hlJ
Allar; h ~ f:;'
fir 1
I
l
.Jj ~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit '3
Attachment F
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
San Bernardino, California
March 13, 1997
01/07/97
.Jl 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 0
000
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO:
Subject:
Notice of Preparation of Initial Study
Lead Agency:
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building ServiceS Department
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Contact: Mike Finn, Associate Planner
The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency for the Initial Study for the project described below. The
Initial Study has been prepared for the project applicant by Tom Dodson & Associates. The Initial Study
makes the proposed finding that with the mitigation measurea provided, the project will not bave a significant
effect on the environment. We need to know the comments and concerns of your agency regarding the
content of the Initial Study which is germane to your agency's statutory reaponsibilities in connection with
the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the Initial Study prepared by our agency when
considering your permit or other approval for the project.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your reaponse must be sent at the earliest possible date, but
not larer than 30 dJzys after receipt of this notice.
Please send your reaponse to Mike Finn at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact
person in your agency.
Project Title:
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
#97-01)
State Clearing House Nwnber:
Project Location:
City and County of San Bernardino (See attached map)
Project Description: A proposed 20-screen 115,000 square foot theater and three relsted retail commercial
structures totsling 20,000 square feet. The movie theaters and buildings will be arranged around a central
landscaped public plaza area. Parking will be provided in nearby public parking facilities. The proposal also
includes a parcel map to subdivide 5.19 acres into 5 parcels and 2 remainder parcels. The 5.19 acre site is
located at the northwest comer of 4th Street and 'E' Street in the CR-2, Commercial Regional land use
district. Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the Planning and Building Services
Department in City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, and at the Feldheym Library, 555 W. 6th Street, San
Bernardino. The public review period for the Initial Study will close on April 21, 1997. Any comments
you bave must be submitted in writing no later than that date. The item will be heard by the City's DIERC
at 9:00 a.m. on April 24, 1997, at the above listed City Hall address. The site is not located on a listed toxic
waste site.
March 17, 1997
~~
Phone: (909) 384-5057
FAX: (909) 384-5463
Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
Reference: California Administrative Code. Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) SectionslS071, and State RclOUrtCI Code Section
21092
REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Resources Agency
_ Boating and Waterways
Coastal Commission
_ Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
Fish and Game
_ Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks & Recreation
Reclamation
_ S.F. Bay Cons. & Dev. Commission
_ Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation & Housing
Aeronautics
_ California Highway Patrol
----L- CALTRANS District 8
_ Department of Transportation Planning
_ Housing & Community Development
_ Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare
Health Services
State & Consumer Services
General Services
_ OLA (Schools)
~~*~w::~mM~Wmmt?:mrem:t:!*iM:fNmr:?:f.~~mw~:~f:n:m
-.:~
Environmental Affairs
---I- Air Resources Board
---I- APCD/AQMD
_ California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
_ SWRCB: Water Quality
_ SWRCB: Water Rights
_ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board
Youth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
_ Energy Commission
_ Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
_ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Lands Commission
_ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Other
Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date~ (" ~M/ ~~ 1J997 _-
Signature ~
Ending Date:
Anril 21. 1997
Date:
March 17. 1997
For SCH Use Only:
Date Reviewed at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SeH
Clearance Date
Applicant: MDA San Bernardino. Associates Notes
Address: 300 Continental Blvd. STE 360
City/State/Zip: El Sel!llndo. CA 90245
Phone: (310) 416-1100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
PROJECTDESCRlPTION .................................................2
Introduction ........................................................ 2
Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Proposed Project .................................................... 2
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ......................5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EnvironmentalImpacts ................................................6
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 2 Site Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan .......................................... 42
Figure 4 Tentative Parcel Map No. 15038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Traffic Calculations
Appendix 2 - Traffic Study Report
Appendix 3 - Shared Parking Analysis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~\..;.;...-~
,
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Initial Study
PREPARED BY:
Tom Dodson & Associates
463 No..th Sie....a Way
San Berna..dino, CA 92410
Ma..ch 5, 1997
Independently reviewed and analyzed by the City Environmental Review Committee on
t-..VcRc.<\- ,?-, ,"'''1., , pursuant to Section 21082 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
i ~ ^ (}n:1 __
Verified by: ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction ........................................................ 2
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Proposed Project .................................................... 2
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 6
Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 2 Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan .......................................... 42
Figure 4 Tentative Parcel Map No. 15038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Traffic Calculations
Appendix 2 - Traffic Study Report (refer to City for copy)
Appendix 3 - Shared Parking Analysis (refer to City for copy)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
MDA-San Bernardino Associates, LLC (MDA) has made a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 97-01)
application to the City of San Bernardino to construct and operate an entertainment center in
downtown San Bernardino. The proposed project, the San Bernardino Entertainment Center (SBEC)
consists of a 20-screen theater, related retail commercial uses, and supporting landscape and outdoor
plaza design components. MDA is developing the proposed project with the support of the City
Economic Development Agency (EDA). As part of the City's review of this application, several
permits and approvals must be obtained from the City before the project can proceed. One of these
procedural approvals is the adoption of an environmental determination in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City. Adoption of the CEQA environmental
determination must be made prior to making a decision to approve this Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). This document contains the project description and the Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Form which serve as the basis for making the environmental determination by the City.
Location
The project site is located in downtown San Bernardino between Fourth and Fifth Streets, west of
"En Street. It will occupy approximately 3.89 acres as shown on the regional location map, Figure
1, and the site map, Figure 2. This area is part of the Central City North planning area within the City
and it is a part of the downtown commercial center of the City. The site can be located on the San
Bernardino South 7.5' U. S. Geological Survey Topographic Map. It is part of an old rancho so it
does not have a section number. All figures and appendices are provided at the end of this document
or are available at the City Department of Planning and Building Services located at 300 North "D"
Street in the City of San Bernardino.
Proposed Proiect
A development project consists of two components: I) the permits and approvals that must be issued
by the agency with jurisdiction over land use or other regulated resources (such as air and water
quality); and 2) the actual physical facilities that are proposed to be constructed and operated. It is
construction and operation of the physical facilities which cause the changes in the actual environment
while the permits and approvals grant the necessary entitlements to undertake the proposed project.
In this case, the SBEC project must obtain the following permits and/or approvals before it can be
implemented. These permits/approvals are:
1. A Conditional Use Pennit (CUP 97-01) must be obtained from the City of San Bernardino for the theater and
retail comple.'. The project land uses, movie the.1ters and retail commercial uses, arc consistent with the CR.2
zone designation for the property, but the Development Code requires approval of a CUP for these uses. The
CUP consists of a site plan and related dnlllings that illustrate the physical changes in the land that will occur
if the project is approved (including buildings, hmdseaping and other features) and the development
perfonnance requirements, written as conditions of approval, established by the City during its review of the
CUP. Figure 3 shows the proposed project site plan.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. The proposed project will require the City to vacate a small portion of the road right-of-way at the comer of
Fourth and "E" Streets as part of the project. If approved, one of the actions proposed by the City is to relocate
the bus stop on this comer to another location that is yet 10 be determined.
3. A Parcel Map must be filed with the City and be approved as part of this project. The existing ten Assessor
parcels will be reconfigured through approval of the Parcel Map to create five new parcels to meet the site
plan design shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed seven new parcels.
4. Three existing structures (Social Security Office and music and. religious retail operations) will have to be
demolished before the SBEC project can be constructed. Demolition Permits will have to be approved by the
City before the structures can be demolished and removed from the project site.
As far as is known, no other permits/approvals will be required to implement the proposed project
as it is described in the following discussion of detailed project components.
The proposed SBEC project will consist of a total of 135,000 square feet of theaters and retail
commercial facilities. The theater complex is proposed to contain 20 Cinemaster Theaters in a total
of 115,000 square feet of building space. The 20 theaters will provide an estimated 4,600 seats. The
theater footprint will encompass approximately 80,000 square feet and the structure will be
approximately 43 feet high (two storey structure). The theater will be constructed of concrete block
with detailed texture. Up to three additional retail commercial structures will be constructed that are
proposed to contain approximately 20,000 square feet (this could include one 10,000 square feet
structure and two 5,000 square feet structures). The developers anticipate that these structures will
house restaurants and other related retail shops.
The movie theaters and retail shops will be arranged around a central landscaped public plaza area
that will contain approximately 68,285 square feet of area (the building footprints encompass slightly
more than 1.5 acres). Total lot coverage is 59% for the project and the floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.79.
As part of this project about 235 existing parking spaces will be eliminated, but the project proposes
to share parking with the parking structure being constructed as part of the state consolidated office
building directly east, across "E" Street. The parking demand patterns for the state offices and the
SBEC complex will differ from each other, with demand by state employees being greatest during
weekdays and theater patron demand occurring during the evenings and weekends. This parking
structure is designed to provide about 930 parking spaces. Additional parking will be available in five
City District Parking lots, the City Parking Structure located immediately south of City Hall (corner
of"D" Street and Second Street), and possibly the Carousel Mall parking structure immediately south
of the project site. The project applicant has completed an evaluation, "Shared Parking Analysis San
Bernardino Entertainment Center, San Bernardino, California," which evaluates the effect of shared
parking by the SBEC with surrounding downtown uses.
The construction process will require nine months to a year and it is anticipated that construction will
proceed in the following manner:
. a. The thrcc cxisting structurcs. \\'hich cncompass approximalcly 20.000 square feet. \\'ill be demolished and
debris from thc demolition \\'ill be rec;.clcd and/or transported to existing landlills that accept inert
construction debris:
"
.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. The site will be graded (less than four (4) acres). underground utility connections installed. and building
foundations constructed;
c. The theater and retail shop structures will be constructed; and
d. The landscaping and exterior improvements will be completed.
When the SBEC project initiates operation. it is forecast to generate an estimated 7,010 daily trips,
with 535 of these trips forecast to occur during the PM peak hour. After taking into account a
percentage of joint trips, total traffic generation per day is forecast to be 5,610 trips. Hours of
operation for the theater will vary from early morning to late evening for the retail operations and
from early evening to late evening for the movie theaters during the week. On weekends the movie
theater may open as early as noon. In addition, the theater may conduct weekday matinee operations.
Onsite activities are expected to include retail food and beverage sales operations, other retail sales
operations and movie patronage. No activities involving the use of hazardous materials is forecast
to occur during the operation.
The traffic forecast data was provided as part of a traffic study prepared by Linscott Law &
Greenspan which was submitted to the City for review and approval. A copy of the traffic study,
"Traffic Impact Analysis Report San Bernardino Entertainment Center" is available at the City
Department of Planning and Building Services at City Hall. Trip generation estimates were based
upon the Fifth Edition of "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE). As a result of regional movie theater developments (Riverside, Ontario, Fontana, and
Redlands), it is anticipated that the majority of patrons that will utilize this facility will be local
residents with trip distances averaging five miles in each direction. As described in the traffic study,
this site is also very well served by public transit with a major bus transfer stop located directly across
from the project site.
This concludes the project description which will be used to make the environmental impact forecast.
The City's current Environmental Checklist Form follows this section of the Initial Study and it
provides the substantiation that will be used by the City to determine whether this project should be
issued a Negative Declaration as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination or whether an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared and certified before considering the permits
and/or approvals that need to be issued before the SBEC project can proceed.
4
r-=--
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
APPLICATION NUMBER AND NAME: CUP 97-01, San Bernardino Entertainment Center
OWNER/APPLICANT: Economic Development AgencylMDA-San Bernardino Associates, LLC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, including
CONSTRAINTS: See previous project description. The individual constraints for development are
identified in the discussion of project environmental impacts provided at the end of the Environmental
Checklist Form.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR-2, Commercial Regional
SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration
CITY CONTACT AND PHONE NUMBER: Mr. Michael Finn, (909) 384-5057
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
..x The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although
there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Vku=.,Q.t f-:- ~=<;; Ef2.C/P/2.C CH.41 ('L
Name and Title
y~C.~
Signature
/v\.AQC.H 1/) ,QQ7
Date
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 5
8/94
5
I
I
I
A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sheet. "No"
answers are explained on this checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environmental Description Form,
where necessary.
1.
Earth Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
Maybe
Yes
No
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)
on slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form No. D.(3)? x
b. Development and/or grading on a
slope greater than 15% natural
grade based on review of General
Plan lIMOD map, which designates
areas of 15% or greater slope in
the City? x
c. Development within the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone as
defined in Section 12.0-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the
City's General Plan? x
d. Modification of any unique geologic
or physical feature based on field
review? x
e. Development within areas defined
for high potential for water or
wind erosion as identified in
Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? x
f. Modification of a channel, creek
or river based on review of
USGS Topographic Map (Name)
? x
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 6
8/94 6
I
I g. Development within an area Yes No Maybe
subject to landslides, mudslides,
I subsidence or other similar
hazards as identified in Section
I 12.0-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48,51,52 and 53 of the
City's General Plan? x
I h. Development within an area
subject to liquefaction as shown
I in Section 12.0-Geologic &
Seismic, Figure 48, of the
. City's General Plan? lL
I i. Other? x
I 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
I a. Substantial air emissions or an
effect upon ambient air quality
as defined by South Coast Air Quality
I Management District, based on
meeting the threshold for significance
in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality
I Handbook"? x
b. The creation of objectionable
I odors based on information
contained in Preliminary
Description Form, No. G.(3)? x
I
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area as identified in
I Section 15.0-Wind & Fire, Figure
59, of the City's General Plan? x
I
I
I City of San Bernardino
I Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 7
8/94 7
I
------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Yes
No
Maybe
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces
that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard
Requirements to contain and
convey runoff to approved
storm drain based on review
of the proposed site plan?
x
b. Significant alteration in the
course or flow of flood waters
based on consultation with
Public Works staff?
x
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality based on
requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to
approved storm drains?
x
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of groundwater?
x
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards as identified
in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community
Panel Number 06071C8681 F,
March 18,1996 and Section 16.0-Flooding,
Figure 62, of the City's General
Plan?
x
f. Other?
x
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 8
8/94
8
I
I Yes No Maybe
I 4. Biological Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
I a. Development within the Biological
Resources Management Overlay. as
I identified in Section 10.0-
Natural Resources, Figure 4 I.
of the City's General Plan? x
I 1. Change in the number of any
unique. rare or endangered
I species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees based on information
I contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. B.(I) and verified
I by on-site survey/evaluation? _x_
2. Change in the number of any
I unique. rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat based on information
I contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
I Form No. E.(8) and verified
by site survey/evaluation? x
I 3. Impacts to the wildlife
disbursal or migration corridors? x
I b. Removal of viable, mature trees
based on site survey/evaluation
and review of the proposed site
I plan? (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the ground) _x_
I c. Other? x
I City of San Bernardino
I Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 9
8/94 9
I
I
I Yes No Maybe
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
I
a. Development of housing, health
I care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities
or other noise sensitive uses
I in areas where existing or
future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an
I Ldn of 45 dB (A) interior as
identified in Section 14.0-Noise,
Figures 57 and 58 of the City's
I General Plan? _x_
b. Development of new or expansion
I of existing industrial,
commercial or other uses which
generate noise levels above an Ldn of
I 65 dB (A) exterior or an Ldn of
4S dB (A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
I health care facilities or other
sensitive uses based on
information in the Preliminary
I Environmental Description Form
No. G.(I) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C., and
I verified by site survey/evaluation? x
c. Other? x
I 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
I a. A change in the land use as
designated based on the review
I of the General Plan Land Use
Plan/Zoning Districts Map? x
I b. Development within an Airport
District as identified in the
San Bernardino International Trade
I Center Specific Plan and the Land
Use Zoning District Map? x
I City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
I Page 10
8/94 10
I
I c. Development within Foothill Fire Yes No Maybe
Zones A & B, or C as identified
I on the Development Code Overlay
Districts Map? _x_
I d. Other? _x_
I 7. Man-Made Hazards: Based on
infonnation contained in Preliminary
Environmental Description Fonn,
I No. G.(I) and G.(2) will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose
I of hazardous or toxic materials
(including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
I radiation)? x
b. Involve the release of
I hazardous substances? _x_
c. Expose people to the potential
I health/safety hazards? x
d. Other? x
I 8. Housing: Will the proposal:
I a. Remove existing housing as verified
by a site survey/evaluation? x
I b. Create a significant demand for
additional housing based on the
I proposed use and evaluation of
project size? x
I c. Other? x
I
I
I City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
I Page II
8/94 II
I
I Yes No Maybe
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could
I the proposal, in comparison with the
Circulation Plan as identified in
I Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's
General Plan and based on the
conclusions of the City Traffic
I Engineer and review of the Traffic
Study if one was prepared, result in:
I a. A significant increase in traffic
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that
I is significantly greater than the
land use designated on the
General Plan? x
I b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
I structures? _x_
c. Impact upon existing public
I transportation systems? x
d. Alteration of present patterns
I of circulation? x
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? x
I
f. Increased safety hazards to
I vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? x
I g. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? x
I h. Other? x
I
I
I City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
I Page 12
8/94 12
I
I Yes No Maybe
10. Public Services: Based on the
I responses of the responsible
agencies or departments,will the
I proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide
adequate levels of service?
I a. Fire protection? x
b. Police protection? x
I c. Schools (Le., attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)? x
d. Parks or other recreational
I facilities? x
e. Medical aid? x
f. Solid Waste? x
I g. Other? x
11. Utilities: Will the proposal:
I a. Based on the responses of the
responsible Agencies,
I Departments, or Utility Company,
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
I levels of servjce or require the
construction of new facilities?
I I. Natural gas? x
2. Electricity? x
I 3. Water? x
4. Sewer? x
5. Other? x
I b. Result in a disjointed pattern
of utility extensions based on
I review of existing patterns
and proposed extensions. x
I
I
I City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
I Page 13
8/94 13
I
I Yes No Maybe
12. Aesthetics:
I a. Could the proposal result in the
I obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed
I verified by site survey/
evaluation? _x_
I b. Will the visual impact of the
project create aesthetically
offensive changes in the
I existing visual setting
based on a site survey and
evaluation of the proposed
I elevations? x
c. Other? x
I 13. Cultural Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
I a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
I archaeological site by
development within an
I archaeological sensitive area
as identified in Section 3.0-
Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan? x
I
b. Alteration or destruction of
I a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
I Reconnaissance Survey? x
c. Other? x
I
I
I City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
I Page 14
8/94 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can
be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Based on this
Initial Study:
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Yes
No
x
b. Does the project have the
to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the
environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where
tqe impact on .each resource is
relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is
significant. )
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
B.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(See attached sheets)
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 15
8/94
15
Maybe
x
x
I
I
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
I The following substantiation of findings in the Environmental Checklist Form follows the same order of presentation as found lUlder
Section B of the Checklist. A short summary of the environmental selling for the resource is presented as background information for
the substantiation discussion. References to the substantiating information are provided at the end of each topic.
I 1.
Earth Resources
Environmental Setting
I Topographically, the project site is essentially flat with a 1-2% slope to the south. The site is underlain by alluvial sediment deposited
. by runolfftom the San Bernardino Mountains. Historically, the project site, located on the west side of"E" Street between Fourth and
I Fifth Streets, has been occupied by structures, but at present several vacant lots exist where structures have been del.llolished and
removed. Parking areas cover about 20% of the existing project site and three buildings with approximately 20,000 square feet
encompass the remainder. Based on a review of geologic literature, the City General Plan and other documents, the nearest known fault
is the San Jacinto Fault located about Yo to one mile west of the project site. No active faults are occur in the project area. The site is
I subject to ground shaking when an earthquake occurs in the region and more particularly on the three nearest faults: San Andreas, San
Jacinto, and Cucamonga Faults. Figure 46 in the General Plan indicates the site may be e>.'posed to maximum credible ground
accelerations of between .6g and .8g based on the assumed maximum credible earthquakes on each of these three faults. The General
I Plan (Figures 48 and 51) indicates that the project site may be affected by two geologic hazards: liquefaction and subsidence. No other
geologic hazards are known to affect the project site.
Potential Impact
I
La.
I
I
I
I
Lb.
I
1.c.
I
I
I
I
I
The exact amount of earth movement on the project site has not yet been determined for the SBEC Project. However, given the
type of structures, no extensive foundation work will be required to construct the four buildings and support facilities. It is
probable that less than 500 cubic yards of cut aud fill will occur as part of the grading and compaction of the site. Although
a substantial amount of soil material may be disturbed on the project site as individual structure foundations are constructed,
the final grade will be comparable to that which currently exists. At the completion of grading, the site will remain essentially
flat with just enough slope to provide for continued adequate drai1k1ge of the property. No steep slopes will be created as a result
of the proposed grading activities. Based on the existing slope of the property and lack of any potential for change in topography
and creation of steep slopes on the property, the potential impact from project grading is considered a nonsignificant impact.
Potential wind and water erosion are addressed in subsequent sections of this document. The information provided in this
discussion was obtained from reviewing geologic literature citcd below, from a review of the City General Plan and Technical
Background Report, from a field inspection of the project site, and from discussions with the EDA and project developer. No
mitigation is proposed or required.
The project site has been historically graded and compacted, nnd is essentially flnt. Overall slope of the Innd in this area is
approximately 1-20/0 to the south. No slopes greater than 150/0 exist at lhis site. The information provided in this discussion
was obtained from the San Bernardino South. U,S,G,S. 7.5' Topographic Map and 11 field inspection of the project site.
The project site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (ERZ) as illustrated on Figure 47 of the General
Plan. The nearest ERZ appears to be underlain by that for the San Jacinto Fault System, located approximately one mile west
of the project site. The Glen Helen F1lUlt, which is known 10 be active. is buried and may be located about Yo mile west of the
project site. No potential for additional adverse impacts due to fault related ground rupture Iwzmds is forecast to occur. No
mitigation is proposed or requircd for the proposed activity. The information provided in this discussion was obtained from the
City of San Bernardino General Plan. Technical Background Report and Final Environmental Impact Report.
J.d.
No unique geologic or physical features me known to occur within the project boundaries, The project site has been historically
disturbed and the proposed SBEC project will not aller any geologic feature not previously disturbed. Therefore, no potential
. for adverse impact to such features can occur. The information provided in this discussion was obtained from a field review
of the project site and the City of San Bernardino Gencml Plan. Technical Background Report and Final Environmental Impact
Report.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 16
8/94 16
I
I
I.e.
I
Il.r.
I
I l.g.
I
I
I
I
I
I I.h.
I
I
I
l.i
The project site is not located in an area with defined high potential for wind or water erosion. A field review of the site
indicates that it is essentially flat. The site and surrounding area are developed with structures and urban landscaping. Finally,
the project site exhibits no signs of erosion. Therefore, no potential for significant erosion impact is forecast to occur. The
information provided in this discussion was obtained from a field review of the project site and the City of San Bernardino
General Plan, Technical Background Report and Final Environmental Impact Report.
Based on a site field survey, the project site does not contain any channels, creeks or rivers. A review of the topographic map
for the project area shows that the nearest channels are Lytle Creek, about two miles west and south and Warm Creek, about
one mile to the east. Therefore, no potential adverse impact to any channel, creek, or river will occur if the SBEC Project is
implemented. The information provided in tItis discussion was obtained from a field review and the grading plan and a review
of the San Bernardino South 7.5' Topographic Map.
Due to the shallow slope of the project site and surrounding area, no potential exists for landslides or mudslides to occur onsite
or to affect the property from offsite. However, the project site is identified as being subject to potentially significant ground
shaking from regional earthquakes and as shown on Figure 48 of the General Plan, it is also identified as being subject to
subsidence related to either ground shaking or lowering of the water table. Based on the present depth to ground water at this
location, more than 100 feet, the potential for subsidence is considered to be low. The City considers these types of seismic
hazards to be subject to standard engineering mitigation and not a significant adverse environmental impact. However, to
ensure the structural hazards related to ground shaking, subsidence, and liquefaction the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
l.g.l Pursuant to and in comllliance with the CitY'slLiquefaction Ordinance (MC-676), the alllllicant shall have a
qualified geotechnicnlllrofessional (Engineering Geologist or Professional Engineer) prepare a geotechnical
study of the Ilroject site prior to comllleting the fiunl design of the structures. As part of this geotechnical study,
the potential for ground shaldng, suhsidenee and liquefaction imjlaets shall be investigated for this site and, if
required, measures to mitigate Ilotential g,'ound shaking and liquefaction hazards shall be identified. This
investigation shall include an emluation of historic water table levels and the role that a rising water table could
Illay in (lotentinl for liquefaction. The applicant shall implement those measures required to protect the
structures from significnnt ground slulldng, subsidence, and liquefaction hazards. For this project, reduced
below a significant impnct shall be based on a design that protects life and minimizes damage to the structures.
The infonnation provided in this discussion was obtained from the City General Plan documents and the San Bernardino Valley
Water Conservation District Annual Report.
As noted in the previous discussion, the projcct site may be cxposed to high liquefaction susceptibility. This is based on
historically high ground watcr table and alluvial dcposits which could be conducive to liquefaction. A review of current ground
.water data ("San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Annual Engineering Investigation and Report (7/92 - 6/93)")
indicates Umt the current elevation of ground water in the project arca is 940 feet. The project site is situated at approximately
1050 feet elevation. Based on the depth to ground water at this location, more than 100 feet, the potential for liquefaction is
vcry low. Mitigation measure I.g.1 will be implemented to ensure that human life and stnlctures are protected from extreme
hazards during a major seismic event. No additiollClt mitigation is required.
The infonnation provided in this discussion \\~\S obtained fromlhe City Genera! Plan documents and the San Bernardino Valley
Water Conservation District Annual Report.
No other Earth Resource issues have been identified that would be affected or would affect the project.
I References
I C;ly of San Boma,d;no. 1989. FiOla! Env;,on""n'"!!",,,,," Ik""" C;lV ofS,,,, llom",d;no 0'010"'\ PI,,,,.
Bortugno, E.J. and SpiUI.:r, T.E.. 1986. G.:oloeic Man orth.: San B.:nmrdino OU:l<lnllll?.1.:. Map No. 3A (G.:ology), Seal.: 1:2.50,000
I
I
CilyofSan Bcmardino. 1989. General Plan.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 17
8/94
17
1
1 City orSan Bernardino. 1988. City orSan Il<mardino Geneml Plan Uodate. Technical Backl!found Renort.
I Geoscience Support Servioea, \nc.. 1993. San Bernardino Vallev Water Conservation Di"rict Annual Enaineerinaln_i..tion and Renort 17/92. 61931.
United States Geological Survey. 1967. Photorevised 1980. San Bernardino South Quadrangle, California. 7.S Minute Series (Topographic).
12.
AIR RESOURCES
Environmental Serting
1 The City of San Bernardino is in the San Bernardino County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600-square-mile area
encompassing Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Bounded by the
Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east, its topography and
I climate make the SCAB particularly conducive to the formation and retention of air pollution.
Meteorology
I The strength and location of a semipermanent, subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean primarily controls the SCAB's
climate. Climate is also affected by the moderating effects of differential heating between the land area of California and the adjacent
Pacific Ocean. Warm summers, mild winter, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidities
1 characterize local climatic conditions.
Because of topographic features and distance from the ocean, various microclimates exist within the overall climate of the SCAB. Since
the moderating marine influence decre.1se5 with distance from the coast, monthly and annual spreads between temperatures are greatest
I inland. Precipitation is highly variable se.1sonally. Summers are orten completely dry throughout the SCAB. There are frequent periods
offour to five months with no rain. In winter, storm fronts (low pressure systems) periodically sweep across the Pacific Ocean bringing
rain. Annual rainfall is lowest in the CO<1stal plain and inland valleys, higher in the foothills, and highest in the surrounding mountains.
I The climate of the proposed project site in downtown San Bernardino is less affected by the moderating effects of the Pacific Ocean than
are coastal areas in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Therefore, differences between summer and winter temperatures are more
ex1reme. Average temperatures in and nC<1r San Bernardino rangc from a minimum of 37 degrees F in January to an average maximum
I of 97 degrees F in July. During a 91-year reporting period ending in 1980, annual rainfall at San Bernardino averaged 16.57 inches,
with a maximum annual rainfall of21.69 inches and a minimum of7.36 inches. The project area receives slightly higher volumes of
rain due to the change in topography. About 20 inches of rain falls on the project area on the average.
I
I
Winds across the project are.1 oontrol both the initial dilntion ratc of locally generated air pollutant emissions and their regional trajectory.
In general, average wind speeds are lower in the inland vallcys than along the coast becausc seas breezes are weaker by the time they
reach tile project are.1. Wind speeds mcasured at Norton Air Foree Base.ovcr a 26-year period avcraged four mile.s per Iwur.. Winds occur
from all directions, with more than 43% coming from the west, west southwest, or southwest. Winds from this direction occur during
the day. At night, the wind flow pattern reverses, whh an offshore flow generally coming from the east or northeast Night winds are
slower than daytime breezes o[[the occan. Onshore breezes are strongest in summer and nighttime drainage winds are stronger in winter
than in summer.
I
Predominant wind patterns are broken by occasional winter storms and episodes of Santa Ana winds. The lalter are strong northerly
or norUlC<1sterly dry winds that originate from the desert or the Great Basin, primarily during September through March following the
passagc oflow pressure systems. Highest wind speeds iu the project area occur at this time when the clockwise wind circulation in the
system produces a north or northeast flow as the air is pushed southward over the San Bernardino Mountains and funneled through the
passes. Over the 26-year monitoring period at Norton Air Foree Base. the average of the highest gust recorded each year was 57 miles
per hour. Santa Ana \I;nd conditions occur about five to ten times per year. wilh each occurrence lasting for a few hours to a few days.
I
I
I
Localized meteorological conditions can create areas of high pollutant concentrations by hindering dispersal. Temperature inversions,
which are temperatures that incre.lsc with altitudc instead of decreasing. hamper dispersion by trapping air pollutants in a limited volume
of airspace near the ground. For example. the highest conccntrations of carbon monoxide occur during winter when temperature
inversions are lower and stronger (more resistant to dissipation by ground heating).
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 18
8/94
18
I
I Fonnation ofhigh ozone concentrations requires adequate sunshine, early morning stagnation in source areas, high surface temperatures,
strong and low morning inversions, greatly restricted vertical mixing during the day, and daytime subsidence that strengthens the
I inversion layer. Because of ozone's long formation time in the atmosphere, ozone concentrations are substantially affected by wind
tmnsport patterns.
I High nitrogen dioxide levels usually occur during tile autumn or winter on days with summer-like weather conditions, but when sunlight
is not sufficiently intense to fuel tile photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic compounds that form ozone.
Particulate conoentrations val)' seasonally with the summer months having high concentrations of secondarily-formed particulates due
to chemical interactions driven by intense sunligh~ and winter inversions trapping primal)' emitted particulates. Violations of particulate
I ambient air quality standards occur during all seasons, with the highest concentrations in the summer.
Ambient Air Quality
I Contaminant levels in air samples are compared to national and state standards, shown in Table I, to determine ambient pollutant
concentrations. Air quality standards are set by tile U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) at levels to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. There are national and state standards for ozone
I (0,), carlJon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), PM" (suspended particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter), sulfur dioxide
(SO,), and lead (Pb). TIle Soutll Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) also measures for compliance with two other state
standards: sulfates and visibility. The federal EP A is presently in the process of reviewing new ozone and particulate (2.5 microns
I diameter) standards, but tllese standards are not likely to be approved and implemented during the review of this project so they will not
be considered in this analysis.
Ozone (0,), a colorless toxic gas which forms in the atmosphere through a photochemical reaction of reactive organic compounds and
I nitrogen oxide, irritates the lungs and damages formation of ozone. PM" is small particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in
diameter. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless gas which interferes with the transfer of o~'Ygen to the brain. Nitrogen dioxide (NO,)
is a reddish-brown gas which can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations and which also contributes to the small particles
I that causes a greater health risk than larger particulate matter since fine particles more easily penetrate the defenses of the human
respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves and in combination with gases.
I 4.2.1.3 Regional Air Qualit).
The SCAQMD samples ambient air at monitoring stations in and around the South Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basins that arc within
its jurisdiction. National and state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM" and state standards for visibility
I arc regularly exceeded in the SCAB. In 1993, the peak ozone reading in the SCAB was almost three times the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Los Angeles urban area exceeds this standard more frequently than any other area in the United States,
and also records the highest peak readings.
I Stand.1rds for carbon monoxide arc exceeded in more densely populated Los Angeles and Orange connties, but not in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties, Los Angeles County was the only arca in the nntion which exceeded the national annual nitrogen dioxide standard,
but the SCAB was detennined to be in compliance \\1th the fedeml nitrogen dioxide standard, Le. attainment, in 1995. The state nitrogen
I dioxide one hour standard is exceeded in both Los Angclcs and Orange counties. The number of readings over the state standard
fluctuates from year to year, depending on weather patterns.
I PM" levels regularly exceed national and state standards in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and state standards
in Orange County. Sulfur dioxide and lead levels in all meas of the Basin are belol\' national and state standard limits.
I
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 19
8/94
19
I
I
4.2.1.4 Attainment Areas
I The CARB divides the state into air basins, based upon similar meteorological conditions. The SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations
throughout the South Coast Air Basin and the portions of the Southeast Desert Air Basin that it administers to record ambient levels of
regulated pollutants. If any monitoring station in an air basin records concentrations of an air pollutant which exceed state or federal
I air quality standards, the entire basin is generally detennined to be a non-attainment area for that pollutant. As long as no violation of
an ambient air quality standard occurs, a basin is determined to be in attainment. Carbon monoxide, a pollutant where highest ambient
air concentrations occur in the immediate vicinity of the source of emissions, is now treated somewhat differently by the CARB:
I designation ofattainment and non-attainment areas for carbon monoxide are by subarea, not air basin, in some cases. EPA and CARB
have designated the entire South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San
Bernardino and Riverside counties, as federal and state non-attainment areas for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM,.). The SCAB
I is in attainment with the federal nitrogen oxide standard but continues to violate the state standard. Both ozone and nitrogen dioxide
are regioual pollutants in tltat they are created when pollutants combine in the atmosphere at some distance from where they are initially
emitted. PM,. also forms in the atmosphere through chemical reactions with other pollutants, as well as occurring naturally in very fine
soil, man-made particles, and sea spray.
I
San Benmrdino and Riverside counties are designated as attainment areas for both state and federal carbon monoxide standards. Only
the Los Angeles and Orange County portions of the Basin are designated as federal and state non-attainment areas for CO. Weather-
adjusted CO concentrations in the SCAB declined by 47% between 1976 and 1990, and are projected to decline further because of new
CO standards on vehicles and use of o>.ygenated fuels in winter. The federal one-hour standard has not been exceeded anywhere in the
Basin for more titan five years, but the more stringent state-one hour standard is occasionally exceeded and the state and federal eight-
hour standards are frequently exceeded throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties. Highest concentrations of CO and the most
exceedances occurred in Lynwood in Los Angeles County over the past five years.
I
I
Local Air Quality
I
I
Ambient air qlmlity in the projcct are.1 is measured at the SCAQMD monitoring station located at 24302 San Bernardino Avenue, South
#62 in tile City of San Bemardino. The San Bernardino station monitors ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, sulfate, total
suspended particulates, and PM,.. Table 2 lists the air quality readings at the station from 1989 through 1993 for pollutants for which
the SOUtll Coast Air Basin has been dcsignated a federal non-attainment area. State and national lead and sulfur dioxide standards were
met throughout the monitoring period. There is no longer a state or federal standard for total suspended particulates (TSP), but the
measured TSP concentration is shown for compnrison to the PMIO concentrations at the site.
I
I
Pc<1k pollutant concentrations vary from year to year. depending on metcorological conditions. Ozone concentrations and numbers of
excecdances have fluctuated at the San Bernardino station ol'cr the past live ycars, although the running average number of days over
the state standard has decreased substantially over the fil'e-ycar pcriod. As in the r~st of the Basin, CO concentrations have declined.
Nitrogen dioxide levels have remained approximately the same. with some decline over 1989 levels. PM,. concentrations show
substantial decreases, but they have not been adjusted for weather patterns and such concentrations can vary substantially because of
weather.
I
4.2.1.6 Regulatory Setting
I
The SCAQMD regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout the SCAB and has authority under the California Ctean Air Act to
manage tnlnsportalion activities as indirect (nollstationary) sources, which are facilities that do not directly emit substantial amounts of
pollution but aUract large numbers of mobile sources of pollution. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the California
Air Resources Board.
I
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 20
8/94
20
I
I
I
TABLE 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
I
California Federal
Air Pollutant Standard Primary Sccondarv
Ozone > 0.09 DDm, I-hr. av~ > 0.12 DDm, I-hr. ave. 0.12DDm, I-hr. ave.
Catbon Monoxide ~ 9.1 ppm, 8-hr. avg ~ 9.5 ppm, 8-hr. avg ~ 9.5 ppm, 8-hr. avg
> 20 DDm, I-hr. ave > 35 DDm, I-hr. ave > 35 DDm, I-hr. aw.
Nitrogen Dioxide > 0.25 ppm, I-hr. avg > 0.053 ppm, annual > 0.053 ppm, annual
ave. aVI(.
Sulfur Dioxide > .25 ppm I-hr. avg 0.03 ppm, annual avg. > 0.50 ppm, 3-hr. avg.
~ 0.05 ppm, 24-hr. avg > 0.14 ppm, 24-hr. avg.
with ~ 0.10 ozone or
with 24-hr. TSP> 100
ug/m' -
Suspended avg; > 50 uglm', 24-hr. avg > 150 uglm', 24-hr. avg. > 150 uglm',24-hr. avg.
>50 uglm' annual Particulate Matter > 30 uglm' annual > 30 uglm' annual
(PM")
ceo metric mean arithmetic mean arithmetic mean
Sulfates > 25 ug/m', 24-hr. ave
Lead ~ 1.5 uglm', monthly > 1.5 uglm), calendar > 1.5 uglm'
ave. Quarter
Hydrocen Sulfide > 0.03 nnm, I-hr. aw.
Vinyl Chloride > 0.010 nnm, 24-hr. avg.
Visibility-Reducing In sufficient amount to
Particles reduce prcvailing
visibility to less than 10
miles a( rclative humidity
less than 70%, I
observation.
Note: ppm'" parts per million by volullle
uglm1 ... micrograms per cubic I\lcl~r
> .,. greater than
> = ereater than or ooualto Source: SQuthCoasl Air QualilV r-.latKlgcmcnt District 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Both the California and federal Clean Air Acts rcquire dcsignated agencies in the SCAB, which is the nation's only "extreme" ozone non-
attainment area, to prepare plans documenting actions to meet air quality standards. The SCAQMD and the Southern California
Association of Govenunents (SCAG) are the designated planning agcncies. As requircd by the California Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD
revised the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1996 to address measures needed to attain federal and state standards. The 1997
AQMP also includes mc.1sures to reduce toxic emissions and compounds which contribute 10 global warming. Attainment of the federal
ozone stpndard was projected for the year 2010. a three-year extension fromlhe allainment date inlhe 1989 AQMP. CARE approved
the 1997 AQMP in Jam11!)' 1997 with specific rescrvations regarding reliance on future, as yelundcfined. technologies to reach emission
reduction goals for ozone.
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 2 I
8/94
21
II
I
The federal attainment deadlines in this region are 2010 for ozone, 2000 for carbon monoxide, and 2001 for PM... The most recently
adopted plan that addressed federal requirements was adopted on March 17, 1989, and approved by the California Air Resources Board
I in August 1989, prior to adoption of tile 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The 1997 AQMP was adopted in November 1996 and it
addresses procedural requirements of the 1990 Amendments, as well as the three-year review requirements of the California Clean Air
Act.
I The data for this section of tile document were abstracted from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the Santa Fe "A" Yard ElR
and the District's Rules and Regulations.
I Potential Impact
2.a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The District's new CEQA Handbook contains a list of daily thresholds of potential significance for emissions and for the size
(square footage) of specific commercial uses. The first step in an air quality impact analysis is to compare the size of the
proposed facilities with these square footage thresholds (refer to Table 6-2 of the SCAQMD Handbook). For restaurants and
movk theaters, the thresholds are 23,000 square feet and 30,000 square feet, respectively. Although the square footage of
restaurants in this project is below the threshold of significance, the combined square footage exceeds the initial threshold and
shifts the evaluation into a detailed analysis of potential emissions. This analysis follows.
Demolition
Emissions associated with demolition are calculated using the emission factors in Table A9-9-H of the SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook. TIle three structure consist of brick and wood frame structures that have a footprint of approximately 20,000 square
feet. All the structures proposed for demolition are onc storey in height. Assuming 200,000 cubic feet of building volume, three
days of demolition, the following demolition equipment (Table A9-8-A, one dozer, one front loader), hauling of demolition
wastes to a dispo5<11 site, and fivc employees, the tOlal demolition emissions per day are forecast to be : 30 lbs/day PM.., 14
Ibs/d.1Y CO, 3 lb/cL1Y ROC, and 24 Ibs/cL1Y NO,. The Handbook emission thresholds for construction activities are: 550 lbs/day
CO, 75 lbs/day ROC, 100 Ibs/day NOx , and 150 Ibslday PM". Calculated values for demolition emissions are provided in
Appendix A to tlus document. All valnes fall below Handbook thresholds and air quality impacts from this phase of the project
are not considered potentially significant.,
Construction
Emissions associated with grading and construction of the retail fll1d movie stntcturcs were forecast using the methodology
outlined in thc SCAQMD Handbook. Thc assumptions uscd in forccasting these emissions is outlined in Appendix A to this
document. The daily cmissions forccast to occur during construction of the proposed project are as follows. During grading
the PM" cmissions are forecast to be 106 Ibs/day. Given the recent adoption of revisions to Rule 403which requires best
available control technology for reduction of fugitive dust, thc actual emissions are likely to be below this volume. Regardless,
tile PM" emissions during grading fall bclow the Handbook threshold. Total daily construction emissions (other than fugitive
dust during grading) are forecast to be: 47 Ibslday CO, 13 Ibslday ROC, 711bs/day NOx, 3 Ibslday SOx, and Sibs/day PM".
These daily emissions are overstated because paving activities will not occur until stmctures are nearing completion. All
construction emission values fall bclow thc Handbook emission thresholds. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts are
forecast to occur during the construction phase of the project.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 22
8/94
22
'1
I
I
TABLE 2
I
Summary of Air Quality Data
San Bernardino Air Monitoring Station
I
PoUutant Standards 1989 1990 1991 1991 1993
Ozone (0,)
State standard (l-hr.avg>O.09ppm)
Fed....1 standard (l-hr.avg>0.12ppm)
Maximum concenlration .30 .29 .25 .28 .21
No. of days state standard exCCC(kd 159 129 127 141 132
No. of cia;'" federal standard exceeded 115 78 79 85 65
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
State standard (1-hr.avg>20ppm)
Fed<ral standard (l-hr.avg>O.12ppm)
State standard (8-hr.ave9.1ppm)
Fed<ral standard (8-hr.avg2:9.5ppm)
Maximum concentration I-hr. period il 9 8 7 7
Maximum concentration S-hr. period 8.1 6.0 7.0 5.9 6.0
No. ordays state I-hr.standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
No. afdays federall-hr.stancbrd exceeckd 0 0 0 0 0
No. of days state 8-hr.standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
No. of days federal 8-hr.standnrd exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Nitror,cn Dioxide (NO,)
State standard (l-hr.avg>O.2Sppm)
Fed...-ral standard (O.0S34 AAM in PPl11)
AJUlual aritlunetic mean .0409 .0343 .0355 .0356 .0376
Maximum I-hr. concentration .18 .20 .\6 .\3 .\5
No. of days state I-hr. standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
0/0 federal standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0
Total SuspclUlcd Plt.1lcullltCS (TSP)
Maximum 24-hr. concentration 327 289 215 217 \39
62.7
0
Suspended Pa~lcuh'tcs (Pl\P') .
State standard (24~hr,avg>50 us'mJ)
Federul standard (24~hr,avg>150 uglmJ)
Maximum 24.hr, concenlrulion 27\ 235 163 136
Percent samples exceeding state standard 7--1,5 58.3 68.3 60
Percent samoles exceedinj;f federal standard 5.1 3.3 1.7 0
AAl\I "'" Annu:.] ArlthllH't1c !\1t'lUl NA ...I\'ot Applkllhl('
PPIll"" palis per mllllo11 ug/Illl -lIlkrogl'mll~ pl'l' cubit" mdC'J'
Source: South Coast Ail' QuaUh' J\bnaJJt'IlH'llt Dish'let Ail" Qualih' J)atll - 1989 throuuh 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 23
8/94
23
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ooerations
Emissions associated with operations include mobile source emissions and energy use (electricity and natural gas) emissions.
The emission calculations are shown in Appendix A. Mobile source emissions are based on traffic generation estimates
provided in the "Traffic Impact Analysis Report San Bernardino Entertaimuent Center" authored by LinscOtl, Law & Greenspan,
Engineers and subsequent information obtained regarding the mix of vehicles accessing the site. Total daily emissions are
forecast as follows: 294 Ibs/day CO, 21 Ibs/day ROC, 50 Ibs/day NO.. and IS Ibs/day of PM". The only pollutant which
approaches the daily emission thresholds in the Handbook is NO.. where the threshold is 55 Ibs/day versus the forecast of 50
Ibs per of emissions per day.
The Handbook thresholds were established as guidelines, not fixed values that when exceeded mandate a finding of significant
adverse impact and tile necessity to prepllre and Envirorunental Impact Report (EIR). There are three factors that further reduce
the importance of NO. emissions from the proposed project. First, atlending a movie is a discretionary trip, not a required trip
such as a work trip. For such trips, it is assumed tImt tile trip will occur whether this movie theater is constructed or not. Thus,
the 5,610 daily forecast trips for this project are not all assumed to be net trips within the SCAB. In this case, several new
theater complexes have been or are in the process of being constructed within the Inland Empire (Riverside, Ontario, and
Redlands). To the extent that the proposed project draws local residents to this site instead of these other theater complexes,
then tile project could actually result in a net emissions reduction within the SCAB relative to the existing situation. It is not
possible to quantify the actual emissions reductions associated with this situation, but it is potentially substantial.
Second, tile entertainment complex is located directly adjacent to the downtown's major bus transfer location. As outlined in
the traffic study, almost all major bus routes converge at this location and provide a very good opportunity for local residents
to travel to the entertaimnent comple.x on public transit. Although no specific emission reduction can be assigned to a program
to atlract movie goers on public transit, the following mitigation measure can contribute to overall emission reductions:
2.a.1 The theater operators shall worl< with Omnitrans to develop employee and attendance pacl<age(s) that provide
some benefit to attendees that use public transit to travel to tbe site. Such packages could include reduced ticket
prices, free goods, extended transfel" hOlll"s for bus ticl,cts, or fl'cc bus tickets.
The third rntionale for considering project emissions as not significant is based on the urban redevelopment and jobs provided
by tIus project in the context of the AQMP and Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and Regional Mobility Plan
(RMP). 111e laUeI' two documents were prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments and they are part of
the air quality planning e!Tort to rednce emissions sufficiently to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state ambient
air quality standards. Althongh project NO.. emissions are below the Handbook threshold of significance, the City concludes
that tI1CSC air emissions should not be considered signilieant in the cumulative, long-term context because they were consistent
with and furthered the implementation of the AQMP, RCPG and RMP. Fundamentally, the SCAQMD and SCAG have
projected. that ambient air quality standards will be met as long as future growth, including commercial development, occurs
within the growth and development framework outlined in these plans. The proposed project redevelops land within the
downtown portion of the City, provides nn estimated 200 new jobs to enhallce local jobs/housing balance, and provides good
opportunities for public tmnsit use by employees and movie attendees. The project also provides a high-quality, local
entertainment venue that can capture leakage of movie patrons to new theater complexes that arc located at substantially greater
distances.
In summary, the proposed project will generate mobile source emissions that are not forecast to exceed SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook thresholds of significance for daily emissions. Further, lifter reviewing these emissions in the context ofregional
plamung guidelines, net potential emissions, and potential public transit ulilizHtion, the Cit)' concludes that these emissions will
not cause or contribute to significant degradation of air quality in the South Coast Air Basin over the shorl- or long-term.
A review of severn I recent ErRs which included future potential for CO hotspot violations, indicates that the potential for such
hotspots to occur is below 11 signilicantlcveL Given thnt CO emissions Hnd violations lire being reduced within the region, none
. of the intersections identified as being affected by the proposed project are forecast to exceed the one- and eight-hour CO
standmds. No mitigation is required to l1ddress this issue.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 24
8/94
24
r'l
I
2.b.
I
I 2.c.
I References
I
No activities, materials or chemicals with odors are proposed for use or implementation at this project site. Therefore, no
potential exists for adverse odor impacts from this project. The information supporting this conclusion is ba~ on a review of
the activities that will be conducted in the movie and retail structures. No chemicals or other odor producing materials will be
used or affected by the proposed uses in the project structures.
The project is not located \vithin a high \vind hazard area. No potential for adverse impact from exposure to high wind hazards
exists. The infonnation provided in this discussion was obtained from the City of San Bernardino General Plan.
City orSan Bernardino. 1996. Inland Center Moll E;\'llansion Final Environmentnl Imnnct Reoort.
City of San Bernardino. 1994. Suoerblock Final EnvironmentnllnlPnct Renort.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1994/1997. Air Ounlitv Manal!ement Plan.
I Soodl Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEOA Air O"ality Handbook.
13.
Southern California Association ofGownUllents. 1994. Rel!ionnl C011lnrellt."11Sivc Plnn nnd Guide
WATER RESOURCES
Environmental Setting/Project Impact
I 3.a.
I
I
I 3.b.
I
3.c.
I
I
I
I 3.d.
I
I
The project site is presently developed in urban uses and all areas are paved, compacted or covered with structures. Under
existing circumstances tile nmoff coefficient for the projecl area is estimated to be between 95-100%. The proposed project will
ultimately result in the whole site having a comparable runoff coefficient when the extensive landscaping is included. The
potential change in impermeable surface is negligible within the 3.86 acre site. Runoff from the site in the future will remain
essentially tile s.1lne and the site runoff wi II be delivered to the downtown storm drainage system which carries flows from the
site in the street sections and subsurface drainage pipes. The direct of drainage will remain the same with the surface runoff
being delivered to the Lytle Creek Channel south of the Inland Center Mall. Just soulh of where this drainage intercepts the
Lytle Creek Channel, Lytle Creek and the Sanla Ana River merge just west of the 1.10 and 1.215 Interchange. No potential for
significant impacts in site runoff arc foreeaslto occur and no mitigation is required. The information in this discussion was
obtained from a field review of the sile and a revicw of the San Bernardino South 7.5' Topographic Map.
Stonn runoITfrom the project site will be directed to the existing drainage systems located within the streets which bound the
property. This is the same drainage pallern which presently e,ists. No potential to change the course or flow of flood waters
hasbcen identified and no miligation is required. The information in this discussion was obtained from a field review of the
site and a review of the San Bernardino South 7.5' Topographic Map.
The potential for altering discharges into surface water will exist only during construction. Otherwise, future surface runoff
will be from comparable buildings and paved areas. The applicant will comply with the City's Stonnwater Prevention Program
(SWPP) for the grading component of the project as required by e,isting regulations. Implementation of an SWPP for the
project site will ensure that runoff during constmction docs not cause significant water quality degradation. No mitigalion
measure is required to ensure HUll this Plan is submitted since it is a mandatory requirement by law. After the project is
construeted,the nmofffrom the project site will be equivalent to thaI from the exisling projecl site based on similar commercial
and parking uses. No potential for degradation of water quality is forecast to occur if the project site is developed with the
proposed retail and movie stmcturcs and uses. No mitigation is required. The inrormation in this discussion was provided based
on a review of the regulations requiring National Pollulant Dischargc Eliminalion Syslell1 construction general permits for storm
water discharges and a review of the future uses of the project site as defined by the applicant.
The proposed projcct has no potential to directly change the quality or quantity of ground water. The issue of water consumption
. is discussed underthe water supply subsection of the Utilities section of this Checklist (Section II). The conclusion regarding
no direet effects on quantity and quality of groundwater is bascd on the depth 10 ground waler at the project site (estimated at
more than 100 fect below Ihe ground surface), the assumed 100% runolT of surface water from the site, and the lack of change
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 25
8/94
25
I
I
I
3.e.
I
13.f.
I References
in uses and types ofstruc\ures once the project is completed and in operation. In addition, no chemicals or other materials will
be brought to or used at the site that could cause any contamination of groundwater. The infonnation in this discussion was
provided based on a review of the site design and a review of future uses at the project site as defined by the applicant.
A review of tile site and the flood hazard map in tile General Plan indicates that the project site is not subject to severe flooding.
Therefore, no significant potential for exposure of people or property to flood hazards is identified for this project. No mitigation
is required. The infonnation provided in this discussion is based on a field review ofthe site and review of the General Plan,
Technical Background Document and General Plan EIR.
No other water resource issues have been identified that would be affected by or would affect the proposed project.
City orSan Bc:mardino. 1989. Final Environmentallmrmct Renort City of San Bernardino Genernt Plan.
City orSan Bernardino. 1989. General Plan.
I
City orSan Bemardino. 1988. City orSan tkmardino General Plan Undate. Technical Backnround Reoort.
Stomlwater Quality Task Force. 1993. Cnlifomin Stonn Waler Ekst Mana2ement Practice Handbook.
I Thompson Pubtishing Group. 1992. Stomn.a'" Penni' Manual. Volu",., I and 2.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
I Environmental Selling
I The project site has been converted to urban uses and facilities and no nntive or natuml ecosystems remain within or adjacent to the SBEC
project site. Very limited non-native landscaping can be found on the project site.
Potential Impact
I
I 4.e.
I
The project site does not contain any natural habitat and there is no potential for adversely impacting biological resources from
implementing the proposed SBEC Project. No mitigation is required.
4.a-d.
The project site does not contain any mature trees that will need to be removed. No potential for adverse impact exists and no
mitigation is required.
The infonnation for this discussion is obtained from a field .survey and the General Plan Natural Resources Overlay, Figure 41.
References
I City ors,u B.mardino. 1989. Fin,1 Environ",.n"II",",., R.nol1 Citv ors,,,, Il<nmrdino O.n."II'I"n.
CityofStln D~mardino. 1989. Gcn.:ral Plan.
I City ofSnn B.:mardino. 1988. CitvofS:m n~nlard;no General Plan Undal~ TCl,.'hnical Backl!round Rcnort.
I
I
I
I
5. NOISE
Environmental Selling
The project site is located in the middle of downtown San Bernardino. It is a highly urban location with significant background or
ambient" noise levels. The primary source of the existing ambient noise environment is traffic. According to data contained in the
General Plan Tcchnieal Background Report (Table 6~) traffic noise at 100 feet from the centerline of 5"' Strcet and E Street ranges from
66-68 dBA, L..,. Based on traffic volumes identified in recent stndies, this level of ambient noise is still considered adequate for the
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 26
8/94
26
I
I
current noise setting in the project area. Note that single noise events, such as trucks, demolition equipment, police and fire vehicle
I sirens, may exceed 90 dBA, but the composite (Ldn) background noise is still in the same general range, i.e. 65-70 dBA. Given the lack
of residential uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, the ambient noise environment is not considered significant at the
project site.
I Potential Impact
The proposed project does not contain any noise sensitive uses that would be exposed to the ambient background sound levels
that could pose a significant constraint to their development. No potential for significant impact to new sensitive land uses exists
and no mitigation is proposed. The information provided in this discussion is based on a review of the proposed project land
uses and the background noise data contained in the General Plan, Background Technical Report, and the General Plan EIR.
5.a.
I
I 5.b. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S.c.
References
I
The major access routes to the project site are expected to be the 1-215 Freeway, 2"' Street, 4'" Street,S'" Street, and 6'" Street
from the east and west, and E Street, F Street, D Street and Arrowhead Avenue from the north and south. Of these streets, only
5'" Street (west orE Street), 6'" Street, and Arrowhead have noise sensitive residential uses adjacent to them. Based the traffic
distribution in the traffic study completed for the project, the potential exists to increase noise levels on the streets containing
residential use by some amount less than 3 decibels (considered significant in most jurisdictions). Construction noise can create
a nuisance for residents on 5'" Street, between E and F Streets. This potential can be mitigated by implementing the following
measures:
5.b.l Exterior construction activities involving noise producing cquiJlmcnt shall be rcstrieted to the hours between 7
a.m. and 6 Jl.m., cxceJlt in the evcnt of au cmc,'gcUC)'.
5.b.2 The aJllllicant shall enSUI'e that all construction equiJlment be opernted with mandated noise control equiJlment
(muffiers or silence,'s).
5.b.3 If noise comJllaints arc receh'ed fmm ,'esideuts, the aJlJllicant shall install JlOliable noise reduction walls or
barriers to altenuate sound levels to less than 3 dBA greater than bacl;ground sound level.
Implementation of these measures can ensure that no significant noise impacts will result from constructing the proposed
project.
Permanent operation noise levels "ill consist of thosc associatcd with rctail commercial and movie patronage activities. These
activities are consistent with the background sound levcls and are not forecast to generate exterior noise levels that equal or
exceed the existing background noise levels that arc dominated by traffic. No mitigation is required.
No other noise impact issues have been idenlified that would be afTecled by or would afTeet the proposed project.
City orSan Bemardino. 1989. Final Environlll~lllalllllpacl Reflort City ofS:1l1 Bcm:mlino Gcncrall'lall.
City ofS:l.I1 Bcmardino. )989. GCl\cml Plan.
I City orSan Demardino. 1988. City or San Acmardino (kncra\ I'lanUndah:. Technical nachround Rellort.
I
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 27
8/94
27
I
I I
6.
LAND USE
I Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the "Downtown" portion of the City of San Bernardino which has been given a Commercial Regional (CR-2)
I designation. The identified uses in tile General Plan are government, professional, and corporate offices; hotel and convention facilities,
entertainment; cultural/historic; supporting retail uses; restaurants; and residential (market-rate and senior/congregate care). The
mandated FAR (Floor/Area Ratio) for commercial and office uses is 3.0. The existing land uses in the immediate area include retail
I commercial, government and professional office, and service uses.
I
Potential Impact
6.a.
I
I 6.b.
I
6.c.
I
I
6.d.
References
The proposed SBEC Project would establish a 20-theater movie venue and retail commercial activities, including restaurants.
These uses are consistent with the current General Plan designation. The project will conform with the existing FAR of 3.0.
Based on the consistency of the proposed land uses with the existing land use designation, the SBEC Project will not cause a
significant land use impact. No mitigation is required. The information provided in this discussion is based on a review of the
proposed project land uses and the background land use data contained in the General Plan, Background Technical Report, and
the General Plan EIR.
The project site is not located near any airport, nor is it located within an Airport District. No potential for conflicts with airport
uses e.xists and 'no mitigation is required. The information provided in this discussion is based on a review of the background
land use data contained in the General Plan, Background Technical Report, and the General Plan EIR and an area field survey.
The project site is not located within a Foothill Fire Zone nor is it located within the high wind hazard area of the City. No
potential for conflicts with wildland fire hazards exists and no mitigation is required. The information provided in this
discussion is based on a review of the background land use data contained in the General Plan, Background Technical Report,
and the General Plan EIR and an area field surve)'.
No other land use impact issues have been identified that would be affected b)' or would aITect the proposed project.
I City or San nomardino. 1989. Fi"at Envimn",enlall",,,a'l R,,,.,,, City ors"" n,mard,,,,, G,,,,,..ll'la,,.
City ofS:m D~m3rdino. 1989. G~ner,,1 Plan.
I
Cily orSan Demardino. 1988. City orSan n~'mardillo General Plan Undak. "("(''''mical BackerQlllld Renort.
7. MAN-MADE HAZARDS
I
Environmental Selling
I
I
I
I
I
Based on a review of existing uscs on the project site. no Il1fln-madc hazards related to hazardous malcri<lls or wastes was identified.
This conclusion is based on a review of the Phase I Environmenlal Site Assessmcuts for properties located within the project area. The
site contains no known current or historic underground storage tanks, and alihough the properties have been in use since before 1900,
none orihe historic uses were identified as releasing hazardous materials onsile.
Potential III/pact
7.a.
During construction the project will use petrolcum products for fuel and lubrication of construction equipment. Mitigation for
. any accidental spills is provided under issue 7.b., belo\\'. The project consists of Occl}p)'ing and ulilizing retail commercial and
movie space. Common houschold cleaners and other maintenance chemicals (such as mnmonia. solvents,pesticides, etc.) will
be used in these facilities, but it is not anticipatcd lhatlarge andlor continuous quantitics of Iwzardous materials will be utilized
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklisl
Page 28
8/94
28
I
I
I
17.b.
I
I
I
17.C.
I
17.d.
based on the proposed uses. Consequently, no large and/or continuous quantities of hazardous wastes will be generated that
would pose a hazard to humans. Based on the type of uses, no potential for significant use, storage, transport or disposal of toxic
or hazardous materials will occur. As noted above, mitigation is proposed below to address accidental spills during construction.
TIle information in this discussion is obtained from a review of the allowable uses and activities that might cause significant
man-made hazards in the future.
During construction one potential hazard may be created by construction activities. As part of construction activities, petroleum
products will be delivered to the project site to supply construction equipment with fuel and lubricants. The potential for
contamination caused by accidental release of such chemicals can be fully mitigated by implementing the following mitigation
measure.
7.b.l The aplllicant shall rcquirc all contractors to control Sllills of Ilctrolcumllroducts and, if such spills occur, thc
contaminatcd soil or other mate,.;al shall be collected and/or treatcd and disllosed of at a facility licensed for
contaminated soil. Records of Sllills and clean-ull effOlis shall be retained by the develoller or contractor and
made available to the City upon requcst.
The information for this discussion is obtaincd from review of the proposed project land uses and construction activities. and
an evaluation of potential hazmdous activities associated with the project.
The potential health and safety hazards associated with constmction activities have been outlined under issue 7.b.. The proposed
uses of the project site, retail commercial and movie theater activities, do not have any potential to cause health and safety
hazards beyond those normally accompanying such uses. Programs are already in place to manage human safety without
creating any significant health or safety hazards. No significant hazards are forecast from implementing these uses and no
mitigation is required. The information for this discussion is obtained from review of the proposed project land uses and
construction activities, and an evaluation of potential hazardous activities associated with the project.
No other man-made hazard issues have been identified that would be alTected or would alTect the proposed project.
References
I City of San B~mnrdjno. 1989. Final EI\\'ironlll~nl:\llnmll~t R.:-nort City orSan nenlardino Gel\~ral Plall.
City or San B.:-mardino. 1989. General Plan.
I CityofSllll &mardino. 1988. Citv orSan Rcmardillo General Plan Undal.:. Tcdlllical naCki!fOllnd Rcoort.
Ecologies Lehf, Inc. 1997. PhaJ<e I Environmental Sile A"",O:~!'i1l1C111 Conducted :11452 N. "E" Street San Bemardino. Culilomia.
I Ecologies Lchr, Inc. 1997. Phas~ I Environmental Sit~ A<;ses.<:m~nt Condllcl~d nl470 N. "E" Slr~~t San B~m:lrdino. Cnliromia.
Ecologies Lehf, Inc. 1997. Phase I En\'ironlll~nlat Sit.:: A<;~~SSlllenl Comhlcted al 530.550 41h Street San Bemardino Calil'omia.
I 8.
HOUSING
Environmental Setting
I
According to recent housing data summnrizcd in Inland Business magazinc, home valucs continue to drop and real estate foreclosures
are up 64% (12,000 units) compared to the first ten months in 1992. Thc o\'eralllrend in housing is for more homes on the market than
I can be absorbed by existing demand. Through October 1997 the trend in jobs for the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino
County), when seasonally adjusted, is up, with unemployment now in the 7.5% range. Based on Ihese data, Ihe current housing
inventory is assumed 10 exceed the dcmand and no improvcment in demand is forccast to occur in the near term future.
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 29
8/94
29
I
I
Potential Impact
Is.a.
I
I
Is.b.
The proposed project will not remove e.xisting housing or reduce available housing units within the City. It is arguable whether
the project will increase demand for housing over the short-term. The proposed project will provide jobs for an estimated 200
persons. The net increase in home demand is forecast to be very low for these persons since it is anticipated that the majority
of jobs will be low income entry level jobs and the projects will draw upon the existing available labor pool. No potential for
significant impact to housing resources is forecast to occur. Regardless, given the substantial number of homes backlogged
on the market, the potential demand for homes from full development of this project is not forecast to be significant. The
infonnation provided in this discussion was obtained from a review of the project size, General Plan, Technical Background
Report, and the housing, commercial office space, and general business information provided in the Inland Business magazine,
January 1996 edition.
No other housing issues have been identified that would be affccted or IVould affect the proposed project.
References
I City orsan Il<mardino. 1989. 0"'....1 Plan.
City orSan Bemardino. 1988. City orSan B~nmrdillo Gcnernllllan Und:ll<:. Technical Dackl!rotllld Rcnort.
I VincollrPublishing. January 1996. "Inland Bnsin,..".
9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
I Environmental Selling
The traffic data used in preparing the General Plan and Gencral Plan EIR (summarized in Table 12 oflhe EIR) demonstrated that the
I surrounding streets operate at an acccptable level of capacity. However, at buildout volumes the Geneml Plan E1R forecast that levels
of service anc;l/or volume/capacity ratios on "E" Street and 5'" Street would exceed the capacity of these streets. Regarding other
transportation/circulation mailers, adequate public transit capability, provided by Omnitrans, exisls on the surrounding street system.
I Adequatc public parking for existing businesses within the arca currently exists on the project site on adjacent areas. The project site
docs not provide any air or rail traffic service.
I As determined in the Linscott, Law & Greenspan traffic study. all nine of the affected intersections are currently operating at a Level
of Service (LOS) that meets the City's standards. LOS D during peak hour. A copy of the text of this slUdy is provided as Appendix B
of this document. Exhibits 4 and 5 of Appcndix B summarize thc cxisting roadway conditions for roadways and intersections.
I Potentia/Impact
9.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
The traffic study forecasts that the proposed projcct will gcner:lIe an eslimaled 5.610 trips. When combined with background
traffic growth in 1999, the project will cause tramc now during the PM peak hour to degrade. bul with one exception, no
significant impact \\ill Occur bascd on comparison with Cit)' impact crileria (LOS D during peak hour). The one exception, is
the intersection of 5'" and "E" Street whcrc thc PM pcak hour trame now will be reduccd 10 anunacccptablc Icvel of impact.
Mitigation is idcntifled below which can eliminate this signiflcanl impact. By the )'ear 2002. the projcct and cumulative traffic
impacts remain nonsignilicanl, including the 5,h and "E" Street intersection with the assumed improvements. To mitigate
impacts at this one intersection, the following improvements must be implemented:
9.a.1
Rcstl'ipe the north and south le~s nt' "E" Street to provide exclusive Ict'l-lurn lanes and a shared thl'Ough-right
lane. To accommodate this improvcmcnt, some or the existing on-street angled parking along the cast and west
side or "E" Street will need to he eliminated or com'cl"ted to llarallcl p:ll"ldllg spaces.
"Implementation of this measure can illlprove tramc now at this intersection so thai no significant delays. using City criteria,
are experienced.
Cily of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 30
8/94
30
I
I
9.b.
1
I
19.C.
I 9.d.
I
1 9.e.
1 9.f.
I
I
I
I
I
9.g.
I 9.i.
The project will eliminate 235 parking spaces, but proposes to rely upon shared use of the Superblock parking structure,
immediately across the street, and other off site parking lots and structures in the general vicinity of the project. A parking study
has been completed for the project which demonstrates that its use of offsite parking resources, primarily during evening and
weekend hours, will be adequate to meet the City Development Code requirements. A shared demand exists for 3,022 spaces
and the area has a total oD,I08 spaces available. No signifiCant adverse parking impacts are forecast to occur. The information
provided in this discussion was obtained from a review of the project description, Development Code parking requirements
outlined in Article 3, Chapter 19.24 of the Code, and the parking study which is attached as Appendix 3.
The public transportation system currently provides adequate service to the area, and if demand increases, it can expand to meet
the demand for transit services to the project site. No potential for adverse impact is forecast to occur and no mitigation is
required. The infonnation in provided in this discussion was obtained from the General Plan Technical Background Report
and EIR.
The proposed project will not alter any present patterns of circulation in the downtown area. It may result in shifting the
. location of movie patrons in the community, but the physical circulation patterns will not be altered. No significant impacts
to existing circulation patterns is forecast to occur and no mitigation is required. The infonnation provided for this discussion
was obtained from a field review of the existing circulation pattern and a review of available access to the project site after it
is developed.
The project site is notlocnted on or nCllf any rail or air transportation facilities. No adverse impact is forecast to such facilities
ifthe SBEC Project is implemented. No mitigation is required. The information provided in this discussion was obtained from
a field review of the area and a review of the General Plan and supporting documents.
The project may create fO<1d hazards as a result ofconstmction activities. During constmction, E Street, 5'h Street and 4"' Street
would be affected by constmction activities. This crcates the poteutial for a short-term increase in traffic hazards on these roads
which will be adjacent to constmction activitics. The following mitigation measures shall bc implemented by the applicant to
reduce such potcntial hazards below a signilicanllcvcl.
9.f.l The constmction contl'llctor or llppliellnt Shllll provide adequate t.-affie control resources (signing, protective
de\'ices, crossing devices, detours, na~wcl's()ns, etc.) to maintain safe traffic flows on all sh'ccts affected by
construction activities. If eonstme!ion benellth a rOlld is not completed by the end of the dllYS wod<, the
contractOl' 01" applicant shull ensure that an adequate traffic access route exists to all areas where access exists
at the time of constructioll.
9.f.2 Traffic hllzllnls thllt nH1)' atTeet \'Chicles, hic)"Cles, or pedestrians shall he identified and controlled by the
contractor or applicant prior to COIlStl1lctioll and resources made available to pre\'ent or minimize these h~\zards
during construction.
The information provided in this discussion \\'as obtained rrom a redew of the project deseriplion and tbe local circulation
system.
The proposed projcct \\i11 not aileI' the e.\isting pallern or roads. No potentia' ror lldverse impact to road pallerns is forecast to
occur and no mitigation is required.
No other transportation/circulation issnes Illlve bcen identified thai would be aITecled or \\'onld aITect the proposed project.
I References
City of San D~m:lrdil\o. 1989. rimll Ell\'iro1ll1l~nlalI1lln:.cllkll\)rt Cil\' of San B..:rnardino (kn..:ral Plan.
I C;lyofS,nl3,n"rdino. 1989. o",,,,,tl'l,,n.
I
I
City of San Dcnmrdino. 19&8. Citv of Sail lkmanlino GCllcral PI;'II t rp~lat..:. 'l'c,;I\lI;..:all~ack~roulld 1~~'P\}11.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 3 I
8/94
31
I
I
10. PUBLIC SERVICES
I Environmental Selling
a. Fire
I The City Fire Department maintains II fire stations spread strategically throughout the City. In addition, three California Department
ofForestIy (CDF) and one Central Valley Fire District (CVFD) stations are located in close proximity to the City. City Fire Station #1
I is located approximately 11. mile from the project site on 3'" Street, just east of Sierra Way. Adequate resources are available to respond
to the project site in less than the three minute threshold of significance identified in the General Plan EIR. The Fire Department uses
the Uniform Fire Code, the National Fire codes, and the California Code of Regulations as the basis for it's enforcement programs. In
I addition, the City has adopted more stringent fire regulations in areas of building construction which requires automatic fire sprinklers
in all new commercial buildings over 5,000 square feet in area.
b. Police
I The General Plan ties future demand for police services to gro"1h in population. The proposed project is not forecast to cause any direct
increase in population as the project is expected to draw upon the existing labor pool for most of the 200 new jobs. The Department is
I striving to maintain a officer/population ratio of 1. 7 officers pcr 1000 persons in order to ensure adequate protection. With the Police
Department located two blocks north and the project area already on routine patrols, the response time to the project site should remain
within one minute response time.
I c.
Schools
Educational facilities are provided by the San Bernardino City Unified School District whose boundaries encompass the project site. The
I General Plan identifies tlk1t tile District facilities in 1988 will reach 99% capacity for elementary schools, 83% for intermediate schools,
and 97% for high schools. The School District bclongs to the State School Building Program which allocates monies for school
construction. Assembly Bill 2926 was passed in Scptembcr 1986 granting school districts thc ability to lcvy developer fees on new
construction at a rate of up to 25 cents per square foot for commercial development. This fce has since been adjusted by legislation in
I 1992. When AB 2926 was passed the legislature dctermined these fees provide adequate mitigation to lessen project impacts to a point
. that they arc not environmentally significant. The City has establishcd a mitigation fee le\~' is expected to be applied to the project..
I d.
Parks and Recreation
The project site docs not contain any park or recreation facilities and docs not provide any recreational services. The closest park to the
I project site, Pioneer Park, is located about one block north at the corner of 6'h and E Streets. Seccombe Lake Park, a State urban
recreation area is loeated three blocks cast of Ihe project site.
e. Medical Aid
I Emergency Medical Services are provided by City Fire Department trained personnel through the EMT-Paramedic program (see fire
above). The closest hospitals to the site arc San Bernardino Community Hospital, County Hospital (until it is relocated) and St.
I Bernardine's Hospital. All hospitals are within a five to ten minute drive from the project site. Existing uses on the project site create
a small. unquantifiable amount of demand for emergency I11cdicnl aid.
I f
Solid Waste
Solid waste collected from the project site is presently disposed at landfills in the cast valley, either Colton, Mid-Valley or San Timoteo
Landfills, that arc operated by the County. A small, but unknown, volume of solid waste is generated from the project site at this time.
The Coltpn Landfill is schednled to closed within the next five years, but Mid-Valley and San Timoteo arc being permitted for more than
five-years, the current planning horizon established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board for operating landfills.
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmenlallmpacl Checklist
Page 32
8/94
32
I
I
g. Other
I No other public service issues have been identified where a potential environmental impact may occur.
I Potential Impact
a. Fire
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed project will replace some existing structures with new and substantially larger structures. The potential increase
in demand for fire protection services was addressed as part of the cumulative demand forecast in the General Plan, Technical
Background Report, and General Plan ErR. The project's contribution to cumulative demand for fire protection services. To
mitigate potential impacts upon fire protection services and the Fire Department's ability to provide adequate levels of service,
the EDA shall implement the following measures:
10.a.l Rcquire that the project construction mcct thc standards rcfcrcnccd abovc rclatcd to typc of construction,
matcrials and installation of sprinldcrs during thc rcvicw of planning, building, and construction drawings.
10.a.2 Thc aJlplicant shall cnsurc that adcquatc infrastructurc and watcr supply arc availablc onsitc and pcr City
standards to meet Ilcal< fire flow rcquh-cmcnts and that thcy will bc in lllacc and opcrational prior to Occullancy
of thc ncw facilitics.
10.a.3 Thc Dcvclollcr shall bc rcsponsiblc for thc installation, maintcnancc and cnforccmcnt of adcquatc acccss to all
facilitics for fi,'c cquipmcnt within structul'CS and on thc adjaccnt roadwa)'s.
The information provided in this discussion was obtained from a review of the project description and the General Plan and
supporting documents.
b.
Police
The net effect on police services from dcveloping the SBEC Projcct should be approximately the same as the current downtown
demand because the uses arc consistent (retail and entcrtainment) with existing or historic uses in the project area. Potential
impacts on the site CCln be oITset by implementing the following milig(ltion measure (0 minimize crime potential through design.
10.b.l The applicant shall confcr with the City Policc Depa..tment and jointly devclop a set of rccommcndations for
cnhancing public safety within thc strueturcs and in courtya..d arcas. These rccommcndations should addrcss
both ph)'sieal installation of crimc p..e,'cution detc....cnts, as well as recommendations for patrolling schcdules
and thc ..ccommendations shall be imlllcmented b)' thc applicant prio.. to finalizing building plans.
The information provided in this discussion ,ras obtained from a review of the project description and the General Plan and
supporting documents.
c.
Schools
The proposed project is not forecast to cause tlll)' direct increase in school attendance. No indirect elTect is forecast to occur
because the project will represent an increase in jobs that can bc fillcd by the existing labor pool. The information provided in
this discussion was obtained from a review or the project description and the General Plan and supporting documents.
d.
Parks and Recreation
.The proposed project \\ill create a location for recreation activities, entertainment, \0 occur. No new demand for downtown park
and recreation scrviees is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 33
8/94
33
~
I
I
I
I e.
I
I
I j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City uses tIle State Quimby Act, as amended, the City Municipal Code for fees and land dedications, and the City Capital
Improvement Program to establish standards and schedules for acquisition and development of new park or rehabilitation of
existing parks and recreation and special facilities, i.e. tot lots, or water facilities such as fountains. Policy 9.1.14 of the General
Plan requires that new commercial development provide open space facilities on-site for passive and active recreation or
contribute fees for the public development of such facilities. The proposed project contains a courtyard that will provide for
public gatherings and passive recreation. No mitigation is required. The information provided in this discussion was obtained
from a review of the project description and the General Plan and supporting documents.
Medical Aid
The need for increased medical aid services at the project site can be correlated to increased population in the region, but not
increased use of the project site. Based on a review of retail commercial and movie theater uses, only a few medical aid
emergencies occur during office hours. Some unquantifiable, but small, increase in demand for emergency medical service may
occur due to development of the proposed project. However, tIle impacts from a minor increase in demand as would be expected
from the SBEC complex is not identified as causing a significant effect on medical aid levels of service. No potential for
significant impact is forecast to affect this service. No mitigation is required. The information provided in this discussion was
obtained from a review of the project description and the General Plan and supporting documents.
Solid Waste
San Bernardino County utilizes a per capita annual waste generation rate that does not apply to commercial or industrial
projects. Riverside County has defined waste generalion based upon developed square footage, and although the County of San
Bernardino does not calculate waste generation in this manner, the use of the square footage forecast methodology seems best
suited for this project. Given the proximity of the site to Riverside County and similar types of population, it was judged that
use of Riverside Counly data would be appropriate for making a forecast.
Based upon a generation factor of I pound per day for cach 100 square feet of building area, the proposed facility is forecast to
generate 1,350 lbs of solid waste per day or about 210 tons of was Ie per year, or about 145 cubic yards of waste based on 1.2
tons per cubic yard when compacted in the landlill. Based on the County's recent reductions in waste generation (personal
eOlmnunication Jim Walsh, Noreal) and the availability of capacity for land disposal at County landlills over the next five years,
no potential for signilicant impacts to the solid waste system arc forecast to occur.
The demolition project will result in the one time disposal of an estimated 3,000 cubic yards of inert building material. This
can be disposed of at anyone ofscveral inert wasle disposal sites located in the Inland Empire or at the County landfills without
exceeding the capacity of the existing landlills.
The City has developed a Source Reduction and Recyeling Element in response to AB 939 which forecasts a 25% waste
diversion by 1995 and a greater than 50% diversion by the year 2000. While development of the SBEC project will contribute
to the ongoing increase in solid waste gCllcrCltioI1 and thcrcrorc. contribute to the continued cumulative exhaustion of available
landlill capacity, the participation by individual businesses in source reduction programs will actually reduce tolal wasle
delivered to landlills over the life of proposed development. To ensure effeclive participation of future development in these
programs the following measure shall be implemented by facility operators.
10.f.l The applicnntlope,'nto,'s shnll 11'01'1< with the Cit~. Puhlic Services Depmiment to integrate its wnste manngemeot
efforts with a progrnm of recycling activities h~' relocated ornee activities consistent with City's adopted Source
Reduction and Rcc)'c1ing Element. This IH'ognull shall include the identification of methods to reduce wastes
at the source and increase the "olnme of ree)'e1able matel'ials that can he deli"ered to mnrl,ets for reuse. Specific
t)'pes of progntms include waste segregation (cardboard, plastic, metals, etc.), delivery of waste to the City's
pl"Oposed Materials Recorel')' Facilit~., and deli"ery of eompostahle materials to the City's proposed composting
, faeilit)'.
Implementation oflhe above measnre will minimize solid \\'asle generation and fnrther reduce lhe proposed project's effects on
the solid wasle management system. The information provided in this discussion was obtained from a review of the project
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 34
8/94
34
I
I
description and the General Plan, Background Technical Report, General Plan EIR, City of San Bernardino Source Reduction
and Recycling Element, Final Draft, County of RiVerside County Solid Waste Management Plan and County of San Bernardino
San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Plan 1989-1990 Update, Preliminary Draft.
I
g.
Other
I
No other public service infrastmcture is forecast to be impacted and no mitigation is required.
I
References
City orSan Benlardino. 1989. Final Environmenlollmnact Reoort.
I
City orSan Bernardino. 1989. General Plan.
City orSan Bernardino. 1991. Source Reduction and Recvcline: Element. Fin:\1 Drnft
City orSan Ikmardino. 1988. Technical a.1chround Reoort
I Counly orRivenide. 1989. Riverside Countv SoHd Wa,le Mono..",.nl Plou.
County orSan Bernardino. 1989. San Bernardino Countv Solid Waste Mao:u!.cment Plan 1989.1990 Uod:tte. Pn:limin:uv Draft.
I
11.
UTILITIES
I
Environmental Selling
a. J. Natural Gas
I
Natural gas is supplied to the project site by The Gas Company. The existing buildings on the project site consume small quantities of
natural gas for space and water heating. No information is available regarding the specific volume of gas used on the project site.
I
0.2.
Electricity
I
Electricity is supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison Company. The existing buildings on the project site consume
small quantities ofelectricily for indoor and ouldoor Iighling. No information is R\'ailable regarding the specific amount of electricity
used on the project site.
.
0.3. lValer
I
Water service to U,e project is provided by the City of San Bernardino Water Department. Ii is lhe responsibility of the City to provide
water to development \\~thin it's service nrca if adequate \Yater supplies arc cwailablc. No CStilllCltc is available on the current water usage
at the project site.
I
0.4. SelVer
I
I
Sewer service to Utis project is provided by the City of San Bernardino Water Department. It is the responsibility of the City to provide
sewcr service to development "ithin itls service area ir adequate sewage treatment capacity is available. No information is available on
the current volume of sewage gcneratcd at the project sitc. Major sewage (runk mnins arc located (Idjacent (0 the project site to carl)'
wastewater to the water reclamation plant localed althe soulhern end of Ihe City adjacent to Ihe Santa Ana River.
0.5.
Olher
I
. No other utility issues have been identified that would be aITeeted or would aITeet the proposed project.
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 35
8/94
35
11
I
Potential Impact
I 0.1.
I
I
I
I
I
0.2.
I
I
I 0.3.
I
I
I
I 0.4.
I
I
I
I
Natural Gas
Based on data provided by tile project architect, the proposed structures will consume an estimated 2,168,000 million BTU per
year. TIle City General Plan and policies address reducing consumption of energy resources through policy statements contained
in Chapter I L The project site is situated over a geothermal resource which is available for use in structures at this location
and which provides a unique opportunity to the applicant to utilize this resource for space heating. The vast majority of the
natura1 gas consumption at tile site is used to provide space heating, and the potential exists to offset the consumption of natural
gas resources, which are considered to be nonsignificant (as discussed below), through use of the geothermal resources. A
mitigation measure is proposed below which is not mandatory since the natural gas consumption is not considered significant.
11.a.l The developer shall confer with the City Municillal Water Department regarding the ability to utilize local
geothermal resources for sllace heating and cooling. If judged feasible by the City and de\'eloller, the geothermal
resource shall be de\'elolled and used at the site as an energy source.
The California Energy Commission (CEC 1995) has reviewed energy resource availability for California and determined that
natural gas resources are available over the next ten years when the project will be developed. Based on adequacy of
commercially available natural gas resources, the proposed project will not cause a significant adverse impact on the
environment. No mitigation is required.
Electricity
Based on data provided for retail stmcture use of electricity, the proposed stmctures arc forecast to consume an estimated
2,000,000 kilowatt hours per year. The California Energy Commission (CEC 1995) has reviewed energy resource availability
for California and determined that adequate c!ectricity resources arc available over the next ten years when the project will be
developed. Based on adequacy of commercially available e1cctricity resources, the proposed projcct will not cause a significant
adverse impact on the environment. No mitigation is required.
Water
The proposed projcct is forecast to consumc approximatcly 13,500 gallons per day, or about 12.5 acre-feet per year, based on
313 opcrating days. Thc Gencral Plan EIR projcctcd cumulative watcr consumption within the City at build-out would raise
total water consumption from about 43,000 acre-fectto 59,000 acre-feet. Adequate water supplies were identified in the General
Plan Em. to c.1sily meet this incrc.1scd consumption of 16,582 acre fect through build-out of the City. To verify that the forecasts
"ithin the Em. arc still adequate, the volume of production for the whole Bunker Hill Basin was rcviewed from 1988 through
1992. The data shows that consumption ovcr this period declincd each year from about 256,774 acre-feet in 1988. In 1992
approximately 229.400 acre-feet ofwalcr were produced from the Basin. Based on current data, the approximate incrC<1sc in
water consumption by 12.5 acre-feel per year will not cause a signilicant impact on waler resources or water supply to the project
site. Mitigation identificd under the Fire issuc abovc requircs that water mains be sized to provide adequate fire 110ws to the
project site. No additional mitigation is required. The inrormalion provided in this discussion was obtained from a review of
the project description, the Geneml Plan and supporting documents, and the Water Conservation Districts Annual Engineering
Investigation.
Sewer
The proposcd project is forecast to gencratc approximatcly 11,000 gallons of sewage per day requiring treatment. The General
Plan Em. projected cumulative scwage flows at City bnild-out or 14.1 MGD. This cumulative demand required the construction
of new and/or upgraded wastewater treatment and collection facilities which has been completed. Ncw connections to the sewer
system arc rcquired to pay a fec which funds future cxpansion of the regional wastcwater reclamation systcm. Adequate fees
. are being proddcd by development to fund thc rcquircd cxpansions in a timely manner according to the City Staff. Adequate
trunk lines are available adjacent to the project site as a rcsult of the Superblock developmenlto delivcr the project's sewage to
the water reclamation plant. No mitigation is requircd. An estimated 9.5 million gallons of excess treatment capacity currently
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 36
8/94,
36
I
I
I
I b.
exists at the Reclamation Plant. The payment of connection fees is a standard requirement for new development and does not
need to be made a mitigation requirement. The information provided in this discussion was obtained from a review of the
project description, the General Plan and supporting documents, and discussion with the City Public Works and Water
Department Staff.
All utilities are available at the project site and no ex1ensions will be necessal)' to serve the proposed project. No potential exists
to create a "disjointed" pattern of utility ex1ensions. No mitigation is required. The information provided in this discussion was
obtained from a review of the project description and the General Plan and supporting documents.
I References
California Energy Conunission. 1995. Electricitv
I CityofSanBcrnardino. 1989. FinatEnvironmenlallmonct Renort.
City orSan Ikrnardino. 1989. General Plnn.
I CityofSanlkmardino. 1988. Teclmicnl Backf!round Reoort
San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. 1993. Annual Enl!in~rilH! Investie:tlion and Reoort (7/92-6193).
112.
AESTHETICS
Environmental Selling
I The project site is p<1rt of the "Downtown" District as defincd in the City General Plan. This area contains government, cultural, retail
commercial, office and a wide range of residential uses. According to the evaluation in the General Plan, the design styles in the
Downtown District val)' substantially, "as does the scale, landscaping quality, and site coverage from block to block. The General Plan
I notes that the large office buildings in the Central City/Civic Center area are a major landmark because of the concentration of large
structures in tlus area. The City has idcntified the DOlll1toll'n District as subject to urban design guidelines contained in the General Plan
and tile Main Street Guidelines. Because of the largc seale of structures in thc Downtown District, no major views to the north and east,
I the primary scenic views, arc available from street )C\'cl.
Project Impact
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12.a
The proposed project lIiII result in an intcnsification of thc Dowutoll'n District as a major retail centcr and as a major gathering
place for entertainment. The main stnlcture lI'ill be only tll'O storcys in height II'hich is comparable to the adjacent stnlctures,
and small relalive to nearby civic buildings and the Superblock, Caltmns stnlcture. The General Plan EIR recognized that this
intcnsifiC<1tion would occur in thc DOII'ntoll'n District (Scc Visual discussion in Chapter 4.3.3) and concluded that this would
be a beneficial impact to the prQicct arca. No sccnic vicll's from ground levcl lI'iII be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
Vicws from the existing high rise buildings to thc north and II'cst not be altered. No significnnt obstnlction of scenic views is
forecast to occur and no mitigation is rcquircd. Thc information providcd in this discussion was obtained from a review of the
project description nnd the Gencral Plan and supporting documcnts.
l2.b
The City General Plan and Main Street design guidelines prescribe specific design guidelines for stnlctures and adjacent
. streetscnpes constmcted lI'ithin the DOII'ntoll'n District. The project area has been in transition for the past several yenrs and
about one-third of the projcct sitc is prescntly uscd for dOll'ntoll'n parking space. The proposed projcct has the potential to
contribute to positive changes in the aesthetic c1WnlCler of the downtown area by converting low intensity use parking areas to
high qunlity buildings and interior courts. No mitigation is rcquircd. The inrormation provided in this discussion was obtained
from a review orthe project dcscription, and the General Plan and supporting documents.
12.c
No other aesthetic issues have been identified that 1I'0uld bc aITectcd or would aITect the proposed project.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 37
8/94
37
I
I
References
I City orSan Bernardino. 1989. Final Environmenlallmnact Reoort.
City orSan Bernardino. 1989. General Plnn.
13.
I City orSan Bernardino. 1988. Technical Back2l'ound Reoort
CULTURAL RESOURCES
I Environmental Setting
A IeView of the City historic records indicates that the Lier Music building and the Bible retail store are not identified as being historic
I structures. TIle remainder oCthe project site has been e.~1ensively graded and developed over the past 100 years. However, due to known
fill across the street (as much as 10 feet deep) and more current development activities, including paving parking areas, no potential
cultural resources are known to occur on the project site. The California Theater, a recognized historic monument, is located adjacent
I to the proposed project.
Potential Impact
I
l3.a-c. Construction of the proposed SBEC buildings has a low potential to cause significanl impact to possible prehistoric resources
and historic resouroes. The reason for this is the pasl dislurbance of the ground surface, including extensive fill, over the past
hundred years. TIle type of structures proposed, maximum of two storeys and normal construction, means that foundations are
not e"pected to extend into areas where potential resource recovery can produce any meaningful data. However, it is possible
that during installation of building foundalions, undisturbed resources may be encountered. To address this issue, measures
will be implemenled to mitigate this pOlenlial adverse impacls. The following measures shall be implemented.
I
I
I
I
I
References
I
13.a.1 The applicant shall retain II qualified IIrchlleologist/historilln who shall be on site when any subsurfllce
disturbance activities UI"C undcrtnl,:cn.
13.b.2 If any resources lire encountered in an undisturhed condition liS determined by the archaeologist/historian,
construction in that arell shall he hlllted until test pits clln be installed. Any cultural resources encountered as
a result of the tcst pits shall he j)l'ollcrly mitigated through testing, collection, documentation and cunltion.
Based on the implementation of these measures. lhe pOlenlial cultural resourcc impacls can be mitigated below a significanl
level. The information provided inlhis discussion was obtained from a rcview of thc projecl description, the General Plan and
supporting documenls, and the Phase I Archaeologieallnvesligalion Report prepared by Archaeological Consulting Services
for the Superblock building across lhe strect..
Archaeological Consulting Services. 1993. llisloric Prcscmllioll Investigatiolls or nlock 29. City orSan fkm:mlino. Count\' orSan D~nlardino. Cnlirom;a: 11lc Archivnl
R~carch Prol!ram.
I
City ors:1l\ (kmardillo. 1989. Final En\'ironlll~nl:llll\\l1act !{~rxlI1,
Cil)' orSan D~nulrJino. 1989, G~n<::r:ll Plan.
I
City orSan Do:mardino. 1988. Tedlll;cnl Background R~n0l1.
I
I
I
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 38
8/94
38
1
114.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1 The proposed SBEC Project consists of the redevelopment of a large portion of oae block in the City of San Bernardino's Downtown
District. Because this site has been utilized for urban activitics and facilities for more than 100 years, the potential natural resource
impacts are considered nonsignificant. The site has potential cultural resource values that may require a substantial effort to mitigate
I below a significant level, and a monitoring program will be implemented to ensure that no cultural resources that remain within an
appropriate context will be damaged or lost. The measures to accomplish this mitigation are included as a requirement of this Initial
Study. Certain wban services, such as fire, police and school services will require some mitigation to reduce impacts below a significant
level. These measures have also been made a requirement in this Initial Study. Traffic impacts were determined to be mitigable to a
I nonsignificant level based on improvements at E and 5th Streets. Air emissions associated with operation of the project were determined
to be below a significant threshold level and based on consistency with regional plans no short- or long-term significant air quality
impacts are forecast to occur. Based on the data contained in this Initial Study, the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment Center is
I not forecast to cause any significant adverse impacts, and the City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 39
8/94
39
1
I
& 'v 1/ I" T .,. '" - I " " I::...... f: .,. :itl-
/ ~. II __-,'00 i(j:
,0. ~ /' ~i .
" ,-:> tt... .. ~ ~ I
- l; BASE~E ~v .~, 1 ."t~' ,
11TH ST ~ S, _
8M J: l; 1 6T ~ 1./ \ I 1\ I ( ) h -k'~
-I/:: 11 ~ -. it. "7 u II~"" I'" ~.~ .
-V ..!.. _ 7f D , > ~~ I...m" ~'P~~k ~ ~ L"';-.JL~
.J.. r & I tOal' .... / J. ~ I fTH I.'. ScCI ~ :'.n.~~&T
P~~ 5t E.. 'O~~ ~ D , !7 ~ ~ Hom.. ~.."''' _J~~"" I k. --J-"I J. 14Ji.: ~ . II.!!:;! . ',-
- :!=;r.."i{ ,,~..,.".l-;"".::;-r-"I;' :'}'II\' .\
_ . ,. i7 "f<. / / - 'I.:: S'"'." .rl -'" P'qn . ~ J: ; ,.., . ...\.:->.'......, .;, I' ",
L.:....::i ... JrHlc Seh. Hem ~.~ r..,,'" L_._ .:(__It~_... 0
. " - . = 11" " '00...(1 ~
/8~109., Cern. o.:'IBM~"."1 Ir'~ .~..I ':t
1/ ... I h,.....ll1 D. _ . ./ ~~':;1"'\ ll!~i.,.J...j... A:\ \r.:~~'l1:t! '., .
'":2 I :t1r - .. ,'S':dJ, I "71 r.o 'II "". : J. o.u
=!~ .....~ . 00 ..... '. :
. .>Wn.. ~rrrrC;0aCl ~ii I"---.. Jl....;W.ll, .
.X.... aut. e .0 0 oJ " ';J:'
~ST .""C"J - "'" =J'-= I~' o' ~ :. . z." ! "'- :..,~ .,~ '. ..
fiRhOP .' ',' .::,:,:..... ~I." ~.. ,. .:, i:/. ".n",,,S,',,{,,,,
I - ~ ~;'.... J:E!" C t ; ~. .:. _=.J'
, : iiii ::-',.i~- . PROJECT :':':'::': ~:e'~ L ~:;/ , ':':'1 '::'."'H '. '. ,
.' - SIT'E fI"P C h"houl~ ' ~,I N'V,'.i)on.i!l!p-~!gru""::i;::':{; :'i .,\:041. i. .... ".
. ...~ r-=-' .1'.----:; ~ PB'C'Y~ ......... '
B ,) ,1.D '0 It.r~all ~ll"'-':T ~.:a.':::-:".... . oJ.... ::Atr..... .' :: '0 1lIt-!. 1053....
" - .~.'7..u. ."'&.~~4.:'.if ,0 LJI~~''''':,'~;:il.iJlqJ. 'Oll'. i-:, ;:.......;.~~. ',": "~';'
;='--~;" '~.. +. .",~...."J':.. /"r'O ~1:~'.!'I"'d'" 0_ '. .. .". ',". ' .: ....;:. .. '0.
. ~"",!],t...~ . 1 . .'" u W!I'" H., 0" ..
__,.;:. -~ , 1~.~. '!';':W:r~W' "" L..J.~/." r <:....L~ . ,.1 _~~Ha)!..2~..!: :.....1 ~ :.J.~ "
c,'U7 -,;,;r 7. ~gw~';I' [O[1'IIf.:;.. ." I .1t::tJ103'1.. I::: 1:- ~,~'I..L' ; i
.,,,. . "''11' \", -hwi't. ..:.:1[-0. I il' I ~~";""-r";;'==..",,"~:~',.,l.~
- "I" h ,~, ~'7-~ :~L1~~ f'<::ETr"~i}T.:' i of "B .'~7~',''t .
~,- ~r , ~' I- D. ..I1i"'~;;~";:: ~j'~~ ~~ M.~~~:-rl\ ~1.4 tt!" ::"':--" 'buo "':~ ~.:
.Il. In~, .~ "jl I I r '-I~: l,' ~ "p~.I'--! ~~ 'J: .. I"' ,"", \.. ::1"0'
~.;-' ,: .0, .". "'1.'" fI, F:o. ~.j .;::: 8t4"~'---7 .....1..:. p...-"-_-.....:;:.__
...."L"i"l ":;~"_,,,,- _n -- y .', ". b.F,:..J~ .,_,' \ :j.__.~: '.' . ( . ! '['j
;.:":":' =-l'1,~=..J i h' j \~.,:, ~i r I' '. I ,'. ~;' , :< .::' '-r'" ...,....f"'! . ".
f~::i;.,;;-:-r~' ,"'--:OHI!'~: <~., j'i::~>:iI ~- ;.....' ~ r'~; i ....,T (,,~;I!"i:-]]i-'~!' -,t.-"":.:7-.-.-.-.1 .... ," I'! .1,lI"..a,"
)cnr.El<'-'I' ,'," I~' "'",.~("...' .... ~ : "I'd ',,,,lIet...... ..... 11:.1 ~....' : (I ~:.'.,~,.~..~t
~;"' I""'. I ,. -!.....lJ: OJ':;i{. " l ,: ; "~I . {", '. 'i" i '.' 'I...,W/ ,"; 1~:!!Uti,i [~,~j
-""'iilC'::JI-_'J' i--"I\,:'n~'OTO",i -J'J -lJ)""-!1: I" 1\ (j, ~":I~:' . : 1: !:,~i,:..l
]"'h-~-J;>:""ifh'''''O'' IL1.tIKckCI..'5] "'~,: '! i'~' ';;"1""'" 0 i :1.;.....u . \ I;:....~:. -'C\\""~_-
-li.~t.'!.\JLilfJH,:"it~;;~~~. ~'~ii;i~!-N'"':~I~;;:;a'~'~t ol';!?' l ._.{~ "'~~';~~~r:'~-:-:~{.ft~:';.';,'~'r.-,;-~~.~:!~;l'~! ~.?: ;;~'~~:1-.' ,:;
n'I:,.~m.,II;~' , 1"':I~tl~I"i:m"~' )/~ili"'\'o'~!; :n~'~'l: .'1'~/;S .J ~:~~~~. !..:.....\..(:.~...>".":::.:-..::.:i.
."..' ---~..,...."..,. , . _I ~ ~ pi6I, . ,< Jl. - . ,'. I \ . 'll--""! II ".\...d.'''',:\" ":." :' . .......
. 1:1!f1 i'-~r-'~"'c'~i" I ~J ...i \ 'I ",.~G1. '''0'''',._ ,.:.. J I. I." I.', ,......,].-0...".. oc..,........;
(-~.~.,;..-II~;~;;::illill :...~J T !1'i~,...~~.;~I~"~"'~' :Ilii' ]:G ~:-.~ I;'":'~--I~- I .4'\_11 .~<:' In' ". !~x'~ . ~~:: . I;: r-':'M_~'
.,' . " . . .....1 '.'.^',o' ,-, \. ~' ,". '. I....... 0' U'.. I,' I
_~I,.).t..l';:l' . -, .:;:::::1. , ..: J" .1> ~ "'.1" ' " 1 ; ....:._-.v~,./. .~.. . I
~ ~~:... ~l=-=I"~l\=' .:~I~~'J.%~i\SI""PII~."l..-.-!..-: \: 1(', i!~II' .J.\~ ,:. .~"f',',:: ..1
~ I' . "1' I '~Y,I~' i.~'":$ c .;t"",l'\ 'l-':I' I OJ'), a ., ., I (jM_1914l' ,....: ".... :':., .' I .
\. " r::_._ ,,1" \: ',' / 'J .. ..:-.,;' ., "',' .""'. .:', .j' 1.........-. ,,~?.:..:.;:.:...,O'. ' C(.;fJ,;i-':\~':
t' l.J rf i" ~.;l I I l I I:" ':., . .'# \-. , . ,.'
(::':=i'I;"]i~'-l~ly.r~],)., '~'-0lf);-i\;:' ''i.-'P'--;''".l' i; .:i:':::U:' .~",..:: \~i.";
r:l",II\\~1 I ..'1" '" ~.4J~},I:":,;;,,1.'l6 ,!?"il'J(-j ;.;' ':(':.in; '::" . ::. -c..,."~:;'t:
ir'~i"--J,'<~IW2S~Nqi'T" ,^~.,. ./,1) /!] I:a .!I~ :'Q;.;~:I, ;h,V. ,-iA ;.- n'!;. D' I "N .
\~ ~ \ "", /al1.f rl-z...; /.J.-J:-J.:J :IV 'I~.'t Z., .Mnr.l '" ..'
.,~.,. ",,,,. t'... .J.' .. 1-..-;..-.-.- \,/." ,"'. 0'. ,.......,.:.;'~:.~.....;.,.....:..'- ,.....:..:.-..,
I : ..:--')~'. :',,' "';'1' '.. ...J... . ,. V~\""I' =. '",' " ' d":' .~: .I"'o!,..... ..... . ..... "i' .... . .
~ 1 ') " C3U"lg. fl _:~ r'.~....; . .' ........... I... .
~I' :\1--' : 1;.. ,..,.~ ,,,,, fOr> 5"}'00 ',>, -,,'., 1 ... l I! :: ,.... r \".. " ":.:.:~.." .,' :;:",' .::.. -,:
II , /.'/ "-.. l'.',~ . i(i")__._. --"-., . , . U '0" . ...
It :....~..:1'. :/'~,~. /....... :-r,,' / "'-'-. " ./!:.~. I .... _.'.;. :,.' ' . .'\'\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 1:
REGIONAL LOCA nON
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
I
Source: USGS 7.5' Series Topo, San Bernardino South Quadrangle
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6TH ST . r,'.". ~fiJ1\1
~ ~'''\~ ~~rr~' . f1r,:::;'~-j~::::;I' ':H~m '. !:~:.~ kl f1 ~I
, ~ I ....... : [(I; ~:" ~ ~ 1"J~"!j iL .
1 . 'AttIC "l.ArAJ~"~1 ~ : ~ lrj'l I~ l E5 ~I: tl : ; I
I I f7.'F'iI' l~ ~ ,. -., L.:.J _ _ ~ =E'~- ~--.;
: . '1 .'..:.l '}, . ~ \,. ._"m1l1ll1 ~' J' ~ ~. 'Ii ~:_:. .
ti, """'w' , III i .' '''m'':-I,in =';_='~';: "
\:) I :.' .., \" '" ,-. 1.L D! ... ....-... ! ! IlL : T :: ~ -. ~
tD.--i~r4':' ':' . 'll :~. I II; i ~
' ~r ~~IL I ~ " " .~...... .
I MbrlL -', 0 '. TH ST .
'. ...... ". ~5TH ST .
. 5TH ST. . ~ 1-.............1"......,--.. .".
-'~r =tiiEFl'" ':~~~:-rcU"'! I:~:~~' .rjj'rnH;i';: >>~~!~ 1___"" .:;!:j ...~ '.,
: ill ..ft"": LL !;, J I' Ul SP . ImHHI IWlI I L.~lw:i}\Jl1l ,_...._......1."...... U',
! ~ .' "UI.. .: :'~_~..J ~ lD,~~~li,.I.::...:};--'~-~IU't l=='~:' :::. ~ - ~;;
, '.-.~..~~".I l-.rl1ltl!tlttlltlll!lt ."I"'IW, "_"_
::;; 't'm' . t.,.,,:.,.; : . ~. ,;. . .......... Ul .lttllIIlIlHllIlIlH-- . ...-.... L ......;
1.1- ,~__.. "C'. J..k ~R!J.'L_ ! . ....__.... ,. . . ...__...,
(!) I 11;~~,,~"tM ,.,;:. ,mttitci1Tl'1i ~ lL WII4W . . ,
J1l1l1 ',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. _ ~ _... . ..." .
~~'I" ~ ,_~ lil!l- '1ft! ~ : mmj t; ~~~ ~~~
. ltJrU L ".~ UJ] ~.".{ R J:l.. I ~ ~ ~ ____
r '...WIL lit"" lTH' S -'J . . ._.- w mm lTH ST _-'-
'HO PRKHG' l TH ST , . - .+'._ r.ili'-III j:'!', I~ ............11
-'-' I'I'~ Il!li!P' I 1"11~(~ ~.'~ II ~ T, Sf 1!1
I - -~ I I 150SPI b'......' I!.;o;.;
O I' I ,.., . I...- -- . ~'l' _ .'
; , i ! , . Il. . r .t."
'---,.. -----. ..........:.. I /~ ' , .' P.^RKING', ,J~;. :;. ,.;.""..:,: I
-:---. ~_.'--' .. ." I.. . '-r:. . ~t:::tl'" .
~ :~.DmI0D PROJECT ;$~7~;~~:E; J..- ~. 'I-~ '
~; '~ .. if~I,,1:\~~1' ~Um~l ~ S~TI:TE :"1' ii:I:!tL ': .rlm!~!tl1:!"J' :')1:; 1:~!I:;WO~ .<s:~ g'~tt~1~1"
,:qi\"~'.''-~.' 'U:"I~n'..l'~~ .~ID"I.~.li\I'I'I:"'l: .' ']."rt;.:~ .,....--,."',...J ,"'.
.: :" ~'. .',. ~'. "..:, ':. , il .\f k . " ,~,' trr,i,1(j' L-J--I1-: . . . ; ~'. f
. ....r :~ ":. I:}:! ;I; III fI '. ~.. .!. , , . "-"'1": -=-' "',
~n~.l~iM:I~I'~(~~H~~::~:~~~;'~;'lil\L',rj'i!li;1;n.I~::!',: Irl'!',"':lIn: 0 'r~'~~~~'~~~ @.:
i=!lJ',I::~'I,Lft~.., "lit\ :';:[!!!.ill~Jij].'J"" .', ,: ,;,..Iil: 1-' I
" " "1" l!lli!." J . .1, .' H""",' '~\' .
~~\ ,\ \l ~~oo.I~-----~---U----l-~---a~---~-~-~' u R': tiE ~ z ~~~i __~,
\ ~\J \ r u, "'. " ~
. - R"~ ~
L .m_. : ..__ _ " ---'
Figure 2:
SITE MAP
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
Source: City of San Bernardino
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5TH 5T .
J
.
i
i
o
i
~.._..
,.a.to.NtY
O(l"M:tWCM1
.".ON.
."",:n
..,
"I'""T
l-
(/)
u..
tllSl..cCJ(,"~A
~ 111(..,1(1{
f'("~5""[
.......ONC HILA
P(ItY1SJ<<.t
......0.0: M(A
"
4TH ST
tlOSTr<.....-s stOl'
Figure 3:
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
Source: Stoutenborough, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
~I! Iii
:~:15111~
~O!:=()
...ze=~~
c~ ~ 1I.0~
ffi:l~~~~
... :.!t::>C/l
c.>o
()
I . I
...Illt.
t'ol"I~
I I I I r I
i:II'lli,\:;n
II .JulUI
IIII-Ifi, 'j ~ I
I' 'I'~ l
11IIU~!. ~,
I ,
!-tl\!!
lId II lei
1;'\'1,.21
1'1',' Pill
!I 'r1~
liD" 1.111
.11'" I
m "~Ii
i" -I ,iI
.II!i :J
,.... ~ II
.",- .. 11'1
filii R tJ.1
1'" "I'."
'''d~1
. lh!ill
II!' =, I
lidGJlld!l
,1,1
. ~I!i II
IUUlll
I, I .11
I UllU kl
" 111"" 1111 .
I! I -Ill r-
1111111111 lil-'l'""
I ! ;. ! I'''. ! d !! !!
t= - ..!!!!-... -",.,,, .
I -r:-rmlJl
l 'I -I I
I : .: h!if ii,'
I'. . I' 'L~r-""'I
I,' I I! )F"',\'I
~ I 'r ~ I ~
.,. .-- -q. +-~ .
. I I I '"
'I (it I I f ~
. I - -I :,,: I
. I .. 1 . I. ..... I.
'l'. I , I!I 10I!i I
:I I I I I
.1..-:..:-:: ~~_+ -=.L---1
l - 1t.. .-.
d I
1= I
.1 II
~, ,
e~ &
e:[
.
I 00
'"
I. <:>
III
....
0
Z
p..
~
...:l
r>o1
U
p:::
~
~ ....
0-,
I. - Eo-< 0-,
-
" . ~ ~
.j.! -
"
I " Z '"
-
'Itl! r>o1 -=
Eo-< ~
"
III I!.' 0
u
II~~ UJ
I!, .' ~i u
.... ~
...
.. <.i
::s ~
t)l) g
ii: ffJ
APPENDIX 1
TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS
Building Demolition: Table A9-9-H
One story, 20,000 square foot wood frame building
V = 10'h x 20 000 ft2 = 200 000 ft3
, ,
Assume 3 days to demolish and remove
200,000 ft3 + 3 = 67,000 ft3/day
67,000 ft3 x 0.00042Ibs/day = 28 Ibs/day PMIO
Demolition Equipment: Table A9-8-A
Assume one dozer and one front loader
Assume dozer operates 8 hrs/day and loader operates 4 hrs/day
~
..".:
CO
ROC
NOx
SOx
PMIO
Dozer
8 x 0.675 = Sibs/day
8 x 0.15 = Ilbs/day
8 x 1.7 = 14lbs/day
8 x 0.143 = Ilbs/day
8 x 0.14 = Ilbs/day
Front Loader
3 x 0.0675 = 3 Ibs/day
3 x 0.15 = Ilbs/day
3 x 1.7 = 7lbs/day
3 x 0.143 = Ilbs/day
3 x 0.14 = Ilbs/day
Disposal Demolished Building: Table A9-5-K-4
Of the 200,000 ft3 of building volume about 120,000 ft3 is air space (6 x 200,000). This leaves about
80,000 ft3 of material. Haul trucks have a capacity of about 2,000 ft3. This results in a total ofabout
40 truck trips or about 13 trips/day (40 + 3). The c10sests available disposal site is the Colton Landfill
which is located about 10 miles away.
13 trips x 20 miles = 260 miles
Assume average speed of 40 mph
~
CO
ROC
NOx
PMIO
...
260 x 8.27 + 454 = Sibs/day
260 x 1.06 + 454 = Ilbs/day
260 x 5.42 + 454 = 3 Ibs/day
260 x 0.51 + 454 = 0 Ibs/day
Demolition Workers Commute:
5 employees AREA 3 - San Bernardino
Table A9-5-D 27.8 miles roundtrip
5 x 27.8 = 139 miles/day (VMT) @ 35 mph
Table A9-5-J-4
CO 139 x 3.94 + 454 = Ilbs/day
ROC 139 x 0.36 + 454 = 0
NOx 139 x 0.51 + 454 = 0
PMlO 139 x 0.105 + 454 = 0
PD-<>lOl App-0I(nowY022197
Page I
Total Demolition Emissions:
CO = 141bslday
ROC = 3 Ibslday
NO. = 24 Ibslday
SO. = 2 Ibslday
PMLO = 30 Ibslday
Demolition Emissions are non-significant.
Site Grading: Table A9-9
4 acres disturbed
PMLO = 4 x 26.4lbslday = 1061bslday
Grading Equipment
(I) Dozers
(I) Scrapper
(I) Water Truck
(I) Grader
The dozer, scrapper, and grader operates 8 hrslday
Water truck operates 2 hrslday
Table A9-8-A
Dozer
CO
ROC
NO.
SO.
PMlO
8 x 0.675 = 6 Ibslday
8 x 0.15 = Ilbslday
8 x 1.7 = 14 Ibslday
8 x 0.143 = Ilbslday
8 x 0.14 = Ilbslday
Grader
CO
ROC
NO.
SO.
PM,o
8 x 0.151 = Ilbslday
8 x 0.039 = 0
8 x 0.713 = 5 Ibslday
8 x 0.086 = 0
8 x 0.061 = 0
Grading Workers Commute:
5 employees AREA 3 - San Bernardino
Table A9-5-D 27.8 miles roundtrip
5 x 27.8 = 139 mileslday (VMT) @ 35 mph
Table A9-5-J-4 (1997)
PD.0401 App--Ol(n~w)l022197
Construction Thresholds
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook):
CO = 550lbslday
ROC = 75 Ibslday
NO. = 100lbslday
PMLO = ISO Ibslday
c
l
r
Scrapper
CO
ROC
NO.
SO.
PMLO
8 x 1.25 = 10 Ibslday
8 x 0.27 = 2 lbslday
8 x 3.84 = 311bslday
8 x 0.46 = 4 Ibslday
8 x 0.41 = 3 Ibslday
Water Truck (Table A9-8-A)
CO 2 x 1.8 = 4 Ibs/day
ROC 2xO.19=0
NO. 2x4.17=8Ibslday
SO. 2 x 0.45 = 0
PM,o 2 x 0.26 = 0
r
I
,
'.
Page 2
CO 139 x 3.94 + 454 = Ilbslday
ROC 139 x 0.36 + 454 = 0
NO, 139 x 0.51 + 454 = 0
PMIO 139 X 0.105 + 454 = 0
Total Grading Emissions:
CO = 22 Ibslday
ROC = 3 Ibslday
NO, = 58 Ibslday
SO, = 5 Ibslday
PMIO = 110lbslday
Construction Thresholds
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook):
CO = 550 Ibslday
ROC = 751bslday
NO, = 100lbslday
PMIO = 150lbslday
Grading Emissions are non-significant.
Construction Emissions:
Workers Commuting
Table A9-17 and 17A, B, & C
115,000 ft2 of theater
20,000 ft2 of retail
Cost of theaters = $63.88 / ft2
Cost of retail = $45.15 ft2
Theater and Retail Construction Workers:
115,000 x 63.88 x 9.2 x 0.392 + 1,000,000 = 26
20,000 x 45.15 x 9.2 x 0.392 + 1,000,000 = 3
Total Construction Workers = 29
Workers Commuting Emissions:
Table A9-5-D 27.8 miles roundtrip
29 x 27.8 = 806 mileslday (VMT) @ 35 mph
Table A9-5-J-4
CO 806 x 3.94 + 454 = 7lbs/day
ROC 806 x 0.36 + 454 = 1 Ibs/day
NO, 806 x 0.51 + 454 = 1 Ibs/day
PMlO 806 x 0.105 + 454 = 0
Building Materials Deliveries (concrete, blocks, steel, pipes, etc.):
Assume a maximum of 30 truck trips/day delivering materials. Average roundtrip 30 miles @ an
average speed of35 mph. (VMT 900 mileslday) Table A9-5-K-4
CO 900 x 9.1 + 454 = 18 lbs/day
ROC 900 x 1.22 + 454 = 3 Ibs/day
NO, 900 x 5.3 + 454 = 11lbs/day
PMlO 900 x 0.51 + 454 = Ilbs/day
PD-().JOI i\pp-O 1(ncwY022197
Page 3
Building Equipment:
It is anticipated that a forklift and small crane will be needed to construct the buildings. A backhoe
and compactor will be used to install underground utilities. Using Table A9-8-A it is projected this
equipment will generate the following emissions based on the forklift and crane operating 4 hrslday
each. Backhoe 6 hrs/day and compactor 6 hrs/day.
Forklift, Backhoe and Compactor
CO 16 x 0.52 = 8 Ibs/day
ROC 16 x 0.17 = 3 Ibs/day
NO. 16 x 1.54 = 25 Ibs/day
SOx none
PMlO 16 x 0.093 = Ilbs/day
Small Crane (Misc.)
CO
ROC
NOx
SOx
PMlO
4 x 0.675 = 3 Ibs/day
4 x 0.15 = Ilbs/day
4 x I.7 = 7lbs/day
4 x 0.143 = Ilbs/day
4 x 0.14 = Ilbs/day
f
i
L
AC Pavement Construction (parking area)
(I) Paver
(I) Roller
Table A9-8-A (Misc.) Both pieces of equipment used 8 hrs/day
r
l
CO
ROC
NO.
SO.
PMlO
16 x 0.675 = 111bs
16 xO.15 = 5lbs
16x I.7=271bs
16 x 0.143 = 21bs
16xO.14=2Ibs
'-
Total Construction Emissions:
CO = 47lbslday
ROC = 13 Ibs/day
NO. = 711bs/day
SOx = 3 Ibs/day
PM,o = 5 Ibslday
Construction Thresholds
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook):
CO = 5501bs/day
ROC = 75 Ibs/day
NO. = 100lbs/day
PMlO = 1501bslday
Construction Emissions are non-significant.
Note: This is considered an overstatement of emissions because parking area paving will not occur
while buildings are being constructed. Actual NO. emissions will probably not exceed about
50Ibs/day.
PD-040/ App-Ol(nc:wY022191
Page 4
Operations Emission:
Work trips for theater and restaurant per Traffic Study = 257 trips
Trip length 13.8 miles per Table A9-5-D (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Work trips VMT = 257 x 13.8 = 3,547 miles
Table 7 of Traffic Study
45% traffic on freeways
55% traffic on surface streets
No heavy trucks associated with work trips
Work VMT on freeways = 45% x 3,547 = 1,596 miles
Work VMT on streets = 55% x 3,547 = 1,951 miles
Table A9-5-F (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Freeway speed with partial HOV mitigation = 45 mph
Non-freeway speed (San Bernardino County) = 35 mph
Freeway work traffic emissions
CO 3.08 x 1,596 + 454 = lllbslday
ROC 0.21 x 1,596 + 454 = Ilbslday
NO. 0.48 x 1,596 + 454 = 2 Ibslday
PMlO 0.15 x 1,596 + 454 = Ilbslday
Surface street work traffic emissions
CO 3.94 x 1,951 + 454 = 171bslday
ROC 0.36 x 1,951 + 454 = 2 Ibslday
NO. 0.51 x 1,951 + 454 = 2 Ibslday
PMlO 0.105 x 1,951 + 454 = Ilbslday
Non-work trips for theater and restaurant per Traffic Study = 5,353 trips
Trip length 7.3 miles per Table A9-5-D (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Non-work trips VMT = 5,353 x 7.3 = 39,077 miles
Of these trips 20 or 146 miles are heavy trucks (Traffic Study) used for deliveries, etc.
Non-work VMT on freeways = 17,585 miles
Non-work VMT on roads = 21,492 miles
Non-work VMT on freeways (cars) = 17,517 miles
Non-work VMT on freeways (trucks) = 66 miles
Non-work VMT on roads (cars) = 21,412 miles
Non-work VMT on roads (trucks) = 80 miles
Non-work VMT on freeways (cars) Table A9-5-J-4
CO 3.08x 17,517+454= 119lbslday
ROC 0.21 x 17,517 + 454 = 8 Ibslday
NO. 0.48 x 17,517 + 454 = 191bslday
PMlO 0.15 x 17,517 + 454 = 6lbslday
PD..040f App-Ol(newY022197
Page 5
!
Non-work VMf on freeways (trucks) Table A9-5-K-4
CO 7.87 x 66 + 454 = 11bslday
ROC 0.94 x 66 + 454 = 0 Ibslday
NO, 5.94 x 66 + 454 = 11bslday
PMIO 0.51 x 66 + 454 = 0 Ibslday
Non-work VMf on roads (cars) Table A9-5-J-4
CO 3.08 x 21,412 + 454 = 1451bslday
ROC 0.21 x 21,412 + 454 = 10 Ibslday
NO. 0.48 x 21,412 + 454 = 23 Ibslday
PMIO 0.15 x 21,412 + 454 = 71bslday
Non-work VMT on roads (trucks) Table A9-5-K-4
CO 7.87 x 80 + 454 = 11bslday
ROC 0.94 x 80 + 454 = 0 Ibslday
NO. 5.69 x 80 + 454 = 11bslday
PM10 0.51 x 80 + 454 = 0 Ibslday
~
Daily Natural Gas Emissions:
Table A9-12-A
135,000 x 2.9 x 12 + 365 + 1,000,000 = 0.013
CO
ROC
NOx
SOx
PMIO
20xO.013=0
5.3 x 0.013 = 0
120 x 0.013 = 21bslday
none
0.2 x 0.013 = 0
L
Total Operations Emissions:
CO = 294 Ibslday
ROC = 211bslday
NO. = 50 Ibslday
PMIO = 151bslday
Operations Threshold of Significance
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook):
CO = 550lbslday
ROC = 551bslday
NOx = 55 Ibslday
PMIO = 150lbslday
[
j
l
L
PD-0401 App-Ol(ncw)/022191
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
Lt\W &.
CREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R S
<=>
'*
"
!3
z
<=>
N
-0
r-
""
'* '*
00 ...,
'" '"
'" 00 ...,
<=> .... '"
r- ~ ...,
N' N on
=:
~ rn
!-<
Z ~ '* '*
r.1 N r-
U ~
!-<
Z 5 '" N r-
r.1 '" <=> '"
I N N
<
~
< 0' ":fF,liI!I <=>
~ f~ ..., - ....
r.1 -
'"' ~ as.
<( .."Q.
~ 1;; a
~ ~ I>ill>il
r.1
0 !-< !l ....
~ < 1:1 '"
'"' <=>
~ r.1 '" 00
~
=: '" ~
< ,
u
~ .... ..... <=> <=> <=>
... ..lllr- ~ '" -
r.1 ... ~ ]"~ r- oo ~
Il:I ~ N N on
~ !-< ~
=-
rn ..e
~ !; <=> <=>
00 00
=- 0 0
'-~
'Or.<
-<
;,.;.':tl#:.. <=> <=> <=>
..~~ '" ~
-s: ....~ .... '" <=>
r- of ~ ,.) ,.) ,..:
=
w "
- e
I:j "
~ w E
.. 0 w
.. 0 ~
.. '"
Q .... ~
C. "
a w' 6....
Q .. E'"
tJ ~
'il ~ ,,0
<.J E-O w
- w .0
"= I:jo .c o~ s
e ~'" .~M 0
i:l. :r: E-
.;
c.
"B
~
~
g
"
i
B
'"
"
;:l
.; c.c.
~
" "
e ~
i; ~
1 ]
05 ~
"i~ll
. ~ ~ ~ s
~ ..... > 0 b{)
+> .. ';}; 'a "il
!l s g Fl ">I
u lU Ul iiJ ll.l
ij.s 8005 800
5 ~- ,., <<: 1;1
";a"B"':"~ t:I bll
t:: ;, 'C: IS ~ '5
~~~br;;ij
O~B<~ij1;l
;g'''gES~
a-.E5O~S"d
6en~~~~
" "8'.g -= 0 a
P'l-"llolCl0
;::: il) > c:l 4-. (.,)
C'::I Vl III 0 en
tf} ~ d)..... ........
. bOll)l-l..::.t:
1i ~ e Iil"~ <.J
~ 8 !;? !:l"~ E
l!:' a-. ~ . g..c::
~tE~~~~
g_OO]<<:Ul
"'" ~ 1;1 '" ~.;
e g '@j 0 .~ .~
ll.lC':lEl......OdJ
_~ S '1::.~ g ~
0-0 frUlVJ~
IS 1l 00 "5 05 -g
fi"'" :!l " >, ..
E- " 0 e:. '" 3
w ,000",,;
o~bO-aiU~
.~ ~ .~ S '0 Il)
e S"E ll.l .a ~
r;l., '0 ~:::1 a 0
r""l"tSil)~O'd
" " "0 O..c:: ~
-0 "@,""
~ '.:1 -- a-.,o
Cl1 (.) 0 c<:I
f-l = ~ c:l ~ ~
"2'Eo~~a
..c: a-. -a l1) ;::: '.0
OiU~bOOUl
f! ;g Iil fi 00 "
C';l..1. M ~ ~ Cd
~'3&~2B
C/}S!.lU ,,>.
a; ~ 'S ~ ~ ~
~~","m]6
r5l<<:<UJ.s~
"2~e'U'~~Q
-- --'-"'--"-"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
APPENDIX 2
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, California
Prepared For:
MDA-SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATES, LLC
clo METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
300 Continental Boulevard, Suite 360
EI Segundo, California 90245
Prepared By:
LINSCOTf, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 641-1587
FAX: (714) 641-0139
2-961850-1
March 3, 1997
(original dated January 28, 1997)
Prepared By: ~~
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
ENGINEERS & PlANNERS . TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 . Costa Mesa. California 92626
Phone: 714 641.1587 . Fax: 714641-0139
March 3, 1997
Mr. Jason Kamm
MDA-SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATES, LLC
c/o METROPOLITAN DEVEWPMENT
300 Continental Boulevard, Suite 360
EI Segundo, California 90245
Subject:
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT (fmal report revised per City comments)
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
Downtown San Bernardino, CA
Dear Mr. Kamm:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this final Traffic Study Report for
the San Bernardino Entertainment Center, a planned retaiVcommercial center, located in downtown
San Bernardino, California. This study has been revised to address City staff comments. The proposed
project consists of an 80,000 SF, 20-screen multiplex theatre with 4,600 seats, and 20,000 SF of
retail/commercial floor area.
Our study investigates the potential traffic impacts as well as circulation needs associated with the
development of the proposed entertainment center. Per City requirements, the analysis evaluates the
relative traffic impacts of the project at nine study intersections upon opening and full occupancy of the
project (Year 1999) and three years afterward (Year 2002), and presents specific recommendations as
to local area circulation improvements. Briefly, based on the results of our analysis, the project will
have a significant impact on the operating conditions at only one of the nine study intersections. An
Executive Summary sets forth a summary of findings and conclusions on the following pages.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this investigation. Should you have any questions regarding
this analysis, please call us at (714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
~~~~
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer ill
Philip M. Linscott, r.E. {Ret.l
l,lCk M. Greenspan, P.E.
William A. law, P.E. (Retl
Paul W. Wilkinson, r.E.
John P. Keating, r.E
David S. Shender, r.E.
lISOCQV.DOC
Pasadena - 818 796-2322 . San Diego. 619 299-3090 . Las Vegas. 702 4S '-1920 . An LG2WB Company
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NUMBER.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .................................................................................. 2
EXISTING STREET NETWORK....................................................................................................... 4
EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 8
EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDmONS .................................................................................... 8
HCM Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)................................................................ 8
Existing Level of Service Results................................. ....... ........ ............................................. 13
PUBLIC TRANSIT ............................................................................................................................ 13
TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 16
PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................... 17
San Bernardino Entertainment Center Project Traffic Generation.......................................... 17
Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................ 19
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDmONS ...................................................................................... 19
Ambient Traffic Growth ...................... .... ... ............................................ ................................. 19
Related Projects Traffic Characteristics ................................................................................... 19
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGy........................................................................ 29
Impact Criteria and Thresholds......................................... ....................................................... 29
Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios............................................................................................ 29
PM PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................30
1999 Horizon Year .................................................................................................................. 30
2002 Horizon Year ................................. ......... ... ..................................................................... 32
AREA TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................. 33
"E" STREET IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................................................................34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R 5
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NUMBER
A TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT DATA................................................................... A-I
B HCM METHODOLOGY AND LOS CONCEPT PLUS
CALCULATION SHEETS .................................................................................... B-1
C SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CMP GUIDELINES FOR T1A REPORTS .... C-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
LIST OF EXIllBITS
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NUMBER
1 VIClNffY MAP.......................................................................................................... 3
2 DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO LAYOUT ........................................................5
3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN.............................................................................................6
4 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDmONS AND
INTERSECTION CONTROLS .................................................................................. 9
5 EXISTING 1997 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................... 10
6 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC............................................................... 11
7 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................... 20
8 PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................................... 21
9 AVERAGE DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................ 22
10 1999 FUTURE BACKGROUND
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................. 25
11 1999 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES wrrn
ENTERTAINMENT CENTER PROJECT TRAFFIC .............................................. 26
12 2002 FUTURE BACKGROUND
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................. 27
13 2002 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES wrrn
ENTERTAINMENT CENTER PROJECT TRAFFIC .............................................. 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................... 12
2 EXISTING 1997 PM PEAK HOUR
LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................................................ 13
3 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST ................................................. 18
4 RELATED ("SUPERBLOCK") PROJECTS
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST .................................................................. 24
5 1999 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARy........................................ 31
6 2002 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARy........................................ 32
I I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, California
INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center (SBEC) Project. The potential traffic impacts of the proposed project have been
evaluated in years 1999 and 2002 by analyzing future Levels of Service (WS) during the PM peak hour at
nine key intersections in downtown San Bernardino.
Further, this report identifies recommended intersection improvements that may be required to
accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service, and/or mitigate
the impact of SBEC project traffic. This report is intended to satisfY the traffic impact requirements of the
City of San Bernardino and be consistent with the 1995 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for San
Bernardino County.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
· The San Bernardino Entertainment Center project site is generally located north of 4th Street and west
of E Street. Existing development on the project site consists of the United States Social Security
Administration Offices, the Lier Music Company, and a Bible Supply Store; all of which will either be
demolished and/or relocated.
· The proposed retaiVentertainment center project consists of an 80,000 square-foot (SF), 20-screen seat
theatre, with 4,600 seats and approximately 20,000 SF ofretaiVcommercial floor area. It is envisioned
that the retaiVcommercial pads will be occupied by a combination of specialty retail shops and/or
restaurants/food services.
· At buildout, the SBEC project is expected to generate an (net) additional 5,610 daily trips, with 296
trips produced in the AM peak hour (151 inbound, 145 outbound) and 428 trips produced in the PM
peak hour (263 inbound, 165 outbound).
~
I .
I.
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
.
.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDmONS
· Based on existing traffic volumes and cwrent street geometries and intersection controls, all nine key
signalized intersections in downtown San Bernardino currently operate at Level of Service C or better
during the PM peak commute hour.
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDmONS
· Horizon year background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using the growth factors
recommended for use by the City of San Bernardino. Per City criteria, traffic growth has been
calculated at 2% per year. This growth factor is assumed to account for "small projects" outside the
study area and regional traffic growth.
· Currently, only one cumulative project is planned in immediate vicinity of the project site or within
the project study area. This project is identified as the San Bernardino "Superblock" project and
consists of up to four office buildings and a parking structure. The "Superblock" project is
located directly east of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project site, east of E Street.
· The "Superblock" project will be developed in two phases. Phase I consists of a 14-story,
331,660 GSF office building, a six-story, 201,870 GSF office building with a 7,820 GSF
auditorium and approximately 60,350 GSF ofretail space.
· Phase 2 of the "Superblock" Project consists of two commercial office buildings with a total
office floor area of approximately 595,000 SF. The cumulative traffic impacts of this phase of the
"Superblock" project have not been analyzed in this report.
· The "Superblock" Project, upon completion and full occupancy, can be expected to generate 21,485
daily trips, with 2,047 trip ends (1,807 inbound, 240 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and
2,478 trip ends (715 inbound, 1,763 outbound) generated in the PM peak hour.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
· A review of future 1999 and 2002 traffic conditions indicates that future background traffic will
adversely impact the PM peak hour Level of Service at one location. E Street @ 5th Street is expected
to operate at LOS Elf. The addition of background traffic is not expected to result in any changes to
the existing service levels at the remaining eight key intersections.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
· Traffic associated with the SBEC will have a significant impact at only one of the nine key intersections
when compared to the City LOS standards and impact criteria. The E Street/5th Street intersection is
forecast to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The project is expected to add 1.0% and
0.09% to the VlC ratio at this impacted intersection in the Year 1999 and 2002, respectively.
AREA TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
· Based on this analysis, areawide traffic improvements are required at the intersection of E street and
5th Street (CMP intersection) to alleviate unacceptable traffic conditions caused by ambient traffic
growth, cumulative project traffic and SBEC project traffic. The improvements, which would restore
acceptable traffic conditions, consist of the following:
E Street @ 5th Street: Restripe the north and south legs ofE Street to provide an exclusive left-
turn lanes and a share through-right lane. To accommodate this improvement, some of the existing
on-street angled parking along east and west side of E Street will need to be eliminated or
converted parallel parking spaces.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS
· Since the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffic is expected to have a significant impact
at this CMP intersection and further deteriorates forecast adverse operating conditions, the project may
be required to participate in the improvement costs on a fair-share basis.
· Our calculations indicate that the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project would be responsible
for approximately twenty-seven percent (27%) of the costs associated with the improvements
recommended at E Street and 5th Street.
1850EXEC.DOC
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, California
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Study Report addresses the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the
development of a retail/commercial and entertainment center known as the San Bernardino Entertainment
Center. The project site lies general1y in the northwest quadrant of the E Street/4th Street intersection in
the downtown area of the City of San Bernardino.
The Scope of Work for this project has been developed based on discussions with Mr. Anwar Wagdy, City
Traffic Engineer, as well as our review of the Guidelines for Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Reports in San Bernardino County (1995 update). However, since
the theatre project's trip generation potential is well below the CMP threshold of I ,000 two-way peak
hour trips for retail projects, a "CMP TIA" has not been prepared. Nonetheless, this report is
intended to follow the CMP guidelines and remain consistent with the City of San Bernardino
requirements.
The project site and study area have been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and
intersections made. A vai1able daily and peak period traffic count information has been compiled and
supplemented with manual peak hour counts conducted at nine locations. Prior traffic studies have been
reviewed and information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the
project have been researched. Based on our research, only the San Bernardino "Superblock" Project (now
under construction) is currently proposed in the immediate vicinity of the project site or within the study
area.
The traffic study focuses specifically on evaluating the potential traffic impacts of the proposed San
Bernardino Entertainment Center project on the streets and intersections in the vicinity of the site and uses
the City of San Bernardino Level of Service standards and the County CMP criteria to determine
significant project impacts. The transportation system that may be affected by the proposed theatre project
includes existing local arterials and regional highways. Nine key intersections in the City of San Bernardino
have been selected as the locations that have the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. Five of
the nine intersections are part of the County's CMP network.
Per City criteria, this traffic report analyzes existing traffic conditions and future peak hour traffic
conditions upon opening of the project (Year 1999) and for a near-term (Year 2002) setting. The nine key
intersections selected for evaluation provide both regional and local access to the site area in downtown
San Bernardino.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
1) H Street @ 6th Street (CMP Intersection)
2) H Street @ 5th Street (CMP Intersection)
3) H Street @4th Street (CMP Intersection)
4) G Street @ 2nd Street
5) F Street @ 4th Street
6) E Street @ 6th Street
7) E Street @ 5th Street (CMP Intersection)
8) E Street @ 4th Street
9) E Street @ 2nd Street (CMP Intersection)
As mentioned above, the key intersections analyzed in this study were selected for evaluation based on the
criteria of the City and application of County of San Bernardino CMP impact criteria. The intersection
delay values (second per vehicle), volume-capacity 01/C) ratios and level of service (LOS) investigations
for the PM peak hour at these nine key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts
associated with anticipated area growth, adjacent cumulative developments and the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center. Further, this report identifies recommended intersection improvements that may be
required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service,
andlor mitigate the impact of theatre project traffic.
Included in this Traffic Study report are:
· Existing traffic counts
· Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment
· Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/assignment
. PM peak hour analyses for existing conditions and
future conditions without and with project traffic
. Area Traffic Mitigation measures
PROJECf DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The project site for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center (SBEC) is located north of 4th Street and
west of E Street in downtown San Bernardino. F Street borders the project site on the west, with 5th
Street to the north. Exhibit 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the genera1location of the project
and depicts the surrounding street system The project site currently contains the United States Social
Security Administration offices, the Lier Music Company, and a Bible Supply Store; all of which will either
be demolished and/or relocated.
'-
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ?<':'il"" ': ( I :: illsT , ,r, .m, ?< ..0 .tf!< 8~ ~..:.~~'~-
.~~.~ OM ~u . '.f" '.. -. Ii; B^S iNtt; ST ?<'" E9 ~EL1NE 9
0) "~ 300 J =: C)lWl(',( nOG Sf lOll", t-.....tOO W 100 SOl) i 40 JOG ORANGE .. Sf r -: ,.. _.~.
?< 8. > "l .'2 t; li., 8 ~. Inc< =< 8 > . . or
~ .. 0: < Sll,rn..,r:::_ f Sf -'I w :: ~ 1'0 1....... Sf [ lint Sf
. ~..;;.. 400 ... li! - 200
:ii V 1400 ~! OLlYE 1000 Sf t; I~=::c V _,,!1' ~ soo.., OliVE -=:> Sf [ OlIYE
.~ V -=1 1300 OTK.~ IZOO Sf ~_~ .v- ~~ l;; Ell 10TH h- ST '10TH ST
I - -0 ~~ --,. ...
. -. '7 .~ ~ ~ .-, J 9~ ~ ~ 'll 't" It E I I'IIl~
I ,<00 \300 I ... 1100 9l'<. <:::' 600 . .,o. ... e "" ~?< . ZOO' '-' ~
V '''''ON ST FS _ < ~ t; t;iJ-'1 1;;1 ~1 52 '" u I ;"l1'1OO81l1- II lli ~ 1ST i!i
~~ 8TH1"" a . . t-
o- V !i: VINE lZ~n r PROJECTn-, _!!I'ztll ~ .!!I ~ .:. ~
V ?<!! ~ili!i~l SITE !!., IlIG "" ~.
?< ~~ ~~.\...A.. 2sr-: I" I" ~ ~...~ !! ~ "0 f. mil:' I) sr
v.~ :;;: 6TN'''' ,":z5 sri I ~ sr_.
~ ~ -is f1' v:ll: SPRlJCE ~llQO .. ': .. 0 600 ~~~ "~;c z: 4P t-. ~
~W' _~ (W)':'" '5TH II z 11';0 5T I>..- II W 5TH ii' II Sr"'1I CI> ·
-= ~ l,~\!?Yl~ 1200 ooo~::: Sf 00 ~ ~ . N CD I !l' :I~:~~_~;
w 4TH ST 1\:l;;wt;4THdSTtIl o. o. I 4111
. '_ .QJ\r", ~~~ -f:i'!.m "'sr?<_ "I..., 'COURT It;ST
$E _ '-'3RD s<.>G 0.. :C:.JL 3'" 0 ST E ~ FS
'\ \ '\ /v. , II~ t; : II ':.' t; ~ ~ "-.6' l;; Ill'; . o. ;;;;'" , 15 8RY.\IfT
I [l~ 2N1l ?r"', ~~w 2ND H 2t; ST - I. w 500 <<l, "2ND 2ND: STST
I.?< :z: a i,,,,t; sr W -~t 8' '. ~~. '4:: Lo.J, b vI' KING' ST - , K,NG ST i
W ~ ~;; _ RIll ~ ~-W' ~ _:z: .1 J, ^v z .:;; E ,R mo
. 500: ~ 1300 '2 .r;1~~~t;; 1100 ,~qqoJ.m\J~~ ATG)~':l_ 6OO~,r ~ ]OIJtSF zoo RR 100 RtXJK t-
~:;;:~~l ':,~; V ~IBElliVlIllt; ST l..,..ks -~~:'I;; l;;l! '4. V \j!!!!l!JW :;c" 'JULlAln -if"'.-
:: Wi?;:; ~ ~7~j~..,,1 Sf \I S5 Sf. ai COHGRESS'~~.. . Iii 5 9 J!.! U9 A'f~ \~ST z .... :c
": i . :" dl Mb~5 HEOERSOfl LH -W I.....~I.~~ "AT&; TW >' ,.. ~, ~ v.
11'1 :1>o!>i,-~i~ 1'~!li"!1: ~ t; t; -"'. '''-I'';-'''''=' ~ ~ '"' ~I 'ii' ~tlUST"
~~-<', ~ ~ a V DElTA,!!' .M sr~i :' - ~ " . tu ,. :s ST I
" :STj lWJIJl'''' .... l nE t;; 8 i\: ,., v v:=< Sf ~ E '''''.I.LEY
S '600!:!? t V :z: 'I~ ST~ 0 N ~_ : :aAAo~ ST I:i ~ sr !; .r- ~ '.~ ST
iI Q. ~C'::; : ~ '< ~ >.,!.":'t. en ',;.( E SHAY Sf
" "w ~ POPI Sf : Sf.... 8 3:IE: en.... Sf ........
-:~~" 0.. ~.... Sf : I-!LROl CT W ~ alll ~ ~ ug . E rfflI HE lEAA'(
~.LX V ~ V ST~ I" JR~ '\ ~ Lo.J II ~; '"
~~:.I:.,,\. >' ST ~:;; '< W ST HS: ....:I~ ~ ~ LL: i'1 ~ ~.. '1":; S;"'::I~ .
'.-:f :'. I. IIJFfi'l,.2L-t;, " ~...>_ ~':,.15-<ST ~ . .:...."'L.
! co 53 I 51 'Il? 49:- .I."F<~STr".
i:. .::c E B V ~JJ. ZA Sf I e en ~ Ii V 1.
i'!<!;; ;;!i:ll fi ViJ rrERSON V fJl!lli" OR ,
'. ~,,. _._~ ..11 I~!! z ~ ~,j~' Vl ~
{ ~:::J~~I!CI.. ~. .__ .u I ~ ...~ L~
:. ~-~~ l5":~ -I' ;" ~i w.lEl ~ UI .~ ~V~ j -.
~" ;tljlll~ ~:~' ~_, , ~!" 13 ~o. .- -
~..~><':I'd~~: ~--- .... !V!dK'rAVc;r l\l o. 0' ~
~j( !~W1;~iJ?<~ ~U; ~ A ~ .>>;; ! ~
. .~. "-~-m. yo
..1 ~ 200
-< B~EDICT
sr
on V
HILLCREST
ST
. 1;;1 '/'
E "~. Mj{t~
100 ~_./ ~ >Yi.
y - -< I
\'~ ~ ~I,~
"" ~ EVIl:..
(" z DRAKE a
w
~
~ -<
L AV E ~ CENTRA
VI ::c j
~
'5
8
z
:::
~::c
z
~
.....
~
'"
~
o
li\ ~
\
~
i!l
0()
!Xl
~o SC^LE
LINSCOTT
lAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
MAP SOURCE: THOMAS BROS.
1
VICINITY MAP
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
3
r' ,~,~, ":'''-'k.i,~:''.'~.'
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Existing development in the vicinity of San Bernardino Entertainment Center consists of a mixture of uses,
including office buildings, retail and commercial uses. Existing office commercial uses located within the
same block of the project includes the Concorde Career Center, Southern California Gas Building,
California Theatre of Performing Arts, and the San Bernardino County Department of Social Services.
Directly to the south is the Carousel Mall regional shopping center. East of E Street is the future home of
the Caltrans District 8 Headquarters and the State Agencies Consolidated Office Building (Superblock
project). North and west of the project site is St. Bernardine's Church and Plaza, and the Stater Brothers
Shopping Center, respectively.
Exhibit 2 presents a conceptual plan for downtown San Bernardino and shows the location of the
proposed SBEC (Multiplex Theatre) project. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed conceptual site plan for the
theatre project prepared by Stoutenborough, Inc. Review of the current development program indicates
that the proposed Multiplex Theatre project consists ofan 80,000 square-foot (SF), 20-screen theatre with
4,600 seats, and 20,000 SF of retaiVcommercial floor area that will be occupied by a combination of
specialty retail shops and/or restaurant uses (quality and/or in-line food court uses). For analysis purposes
(and to remain conservative), we have assumed all 20,000 SF ofretaiVcommercial space will be occupied
by in-line restaurant/food court uses.
The proposed project is expected to be completed by the middle of 1998. Parking for the entertainment
center is expected to be provided at the proposed 930:t space Ca1trans parking structure. This facility,
located directly east of the site, will primarily be used by Caltrans during the day, but will support the
planned 4,600 seat Cinema during late weekday afternoons, early evenings, and weekends. The five (5)
City District Parking lots, as well as the City Parking Structure located just south of City Hall adjacent to
Radisson Hotel, are also expected to be utilized by patrons of the SBEC project. It is also possible that the
proposed theatre project will have access to the Carousel Mall parking structure to the south.
EXISTING STREET NETWORK
Regional access to the project site will be provided primarily by the Interstate-2lS Freeway, which
generally runs in a north-south direction through the City of San Bernardino. This freeway facility,
located directly west of the project site, is a major highway which extends from the Interstate-IS
Freeway, near the City of Temecula, on the south to the Interstate-IS Freeway, near the Community
of Devore, on the north. The freeway provides three to four travel lanes in each direction between
Interstate-IO and State Route 259. Direct freeway on-ramp connections to the north and south are
available at 4th Street. It is anticipated that most of the outbound entertainment center project traffic
to 1-215 Freeway will use this on-ramp. Off-ramp connections are available at 2nd Street and 5th
Street. 2nd Street is located two block south of the project site and 5th Street is one block north. The
1-215 Freeway, as is most freeways, is part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Roadway
Network of San Bernardino County.
r
,
,
L
L
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
~.;;= ftl ~ :i!3. ~ ~
ImL/aa""J I ,
..'llWWIHttNlllllliUKlf!
w
.:"'~
.....
~
'"
~
15
'"
w
o
'"
<Xl
~
~--~-
i Wi' L
INO p,,"NG' I. TH ST
\ .
~o SCALE
UNSCOTT
LAW&;
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
SOURCE: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
2
5
L6/6T./IO t30S91
t":l
iili
:Q_liI
c.i
~
I- :i
c.:l
lI) :>
:I: 0
'. l- e::
"'" 0
[ll
-i z
IX ~
I~ ~ :>
~
I ~ 1Il
. !
~ W
'" !
., (J
!! e::
:>
0
1Il
l-
ll)
:I:
I-
10
,
!
!
i
i:
lS .:l
~ ~II
~I-
_z
m ~ II
A <( I
rz:Il-
me::
O~I
ll.z
Ow
~o
ll.z
il
z
e::
I.u
:1
<(
u;
1
l,
I
~I
t
I
I
i I
,
L
r
~
~ ~I"
01= 0.1
~8~~1::,
_ V'l~...~,
IlII"4 z<~ ,
:J.J(j ,
I
6
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Principal local streets expected to serve the SBEC project are E Street, F Street, G Street, H Street, 2nd
Street, 4th Street, 5th Street and 6th Street. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these
key area streets. These descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions.
E Street, a north-south street, is designated as a Major Arterial on the Circulation Plan and forms the
eastern boundary of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center. It generally has one traffic lane in
each direction, plus left -turn lanes at 4th and 2nd street. On-street parking, mostly time restricted, is
available on both sides of the street at most locations. A raised median ends about 300 yards north
of 2nd Street and a painted center line continues to the north. Traffic signals control the study
intersections on E Street at 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Streets. The posted speed limit on E Street is varies
between 25 miles per hour (mph) and 35 mph. Daily traffic volumes on E Street, bordering the site,
totals approximately 11,600 vehicles per day (vpd).
F Street is a minor north-south arterial that borders the project site on the west. . This roadway has
two travel lanes in each direction with a divided median between 4th and 6th street. Curbside parking
is permitted on both side of the street. F Street terminates at the 4th street and continues from 2nd
Street for about a quarter mile to the south. A traffic signal controls the study intersection ofF Street
at 4th Street. Daily traffic volumes on F Street, bordering the site, totals approximately 5,850 vehicles
per day (vpd).
G Street, a north-south street, is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Circulation Plan and
located one block west of the site. It generally has two traffic lanes in each direction. On-street
parking is not permitted between 2nd and 3rd street on either sides of the street. A traffic signal
controls the study intersection of G Street at 2nd Street The posted speed limit on G Street is 35 mph. .
Daily traffic on G Street, north of 2nd Street, is estimated at 11,750 vpd.
H Street, a north-south street, is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Circulation Plan and
located two blocks west of the site. It generally has two traffic lanes in each direction, plus left-turn
lanes at 4th Street and 5th Street. No parking is permitted on either side of the street between 3rd
Street and 6th Street. Traffic signals control the study intersections on H Street at 4th, 5th and 6th
Streets. The posted speed limit on H Street is 35 mph. H Street is estimated to carry daily traffic
volumes on the order of9,350 vpd to 11,750 vpd.
2nd Street, an east -west street, is designated as a Major Arterial on the Circulation Plan and located
two blocks south of the site. It generally has two to three traffic lanes in each direction, plus left-turn
lanes at G and E Street. On-street parking is permitted on one or both sides the street along certain
sections of this roadway. The posted speed limit on 2nd Street is varies between 25 mph and 35 mph.
Daily traffic on 2nd Street, east of G Street, totals 20,250 vpd.
4th Street, an east-west street, is a local street that forms the southern boundary of the site. It
generally has two traffic lanes in each direction, except between G Street and 1-215 where it has three
lanes operating one-way in the westbound direction. On-street parking is permitted on either one or
7
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on 4th Street is 25 mph to 35 mph. Daily traffic on
4th Street, adjacent to the site, totals roughly 9,500 vpd.
5th Street, an east-west street, is designated as a Major Arterial on the Circulation Plan and forms the
northern boundary of the site. It generally has two traffic lanes in each direction, plus left-turn lanes
at H Street, G Street, and E Street. On-street parking is permitted on one or both sides of the street.
The posted speed limit on 5th Street is 25 to 35 mph. Daily traffic on 5th Street ranges between
14,000 vpd and 15,050 vpd.
6th Street, an east-west street, is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Circulation Plan and
located one block north of the site. It generally has two traffic lanes in each direction, except between
1-215 and G Street where it has three lanes operating one-way in the eastbound direction. On-street
parking is permitted on one or both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on 6th Street is 25 to
35 mph. 6th Street is estimated to carry daily traffic volumes on the order of 6,850 vpd.
Exhibit 4 presents the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections evaluated in this
report. This exhibit identifies the number of travel lanes and controls for the nine study intersections.
EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing PM peak hour traffic volumes for the nine existing key intersections evaluated in this report were
obtained from manual evening peak period turning movement counts conducted by West Coast Traffic
Counts in January, 1997. These intersections were designated for evaluation based on City of San
Bernardino requirements and in consideration of the criteria outlined in the San Bernardino County CMP
Transportation Impact Analysis (rIA) Guidelines.
Exhibit 5 presents the existing PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study intersections. Please note that
the traffic volumes illustrated in Exhibit 5 have been adjusted to account for the seasonal variation of traffic
volumes in downtown San Bernardino. At the direction of City staff, a 13% adjustment factor was utilized
and applied to the detailed PM peak period traffic volume count data contained in Appendix A. The
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on key area roadways in the project vicinity, which are estimated
based on PM peak hour traffic flows, are shown in Exhibit 6.
.-
,
L
L_
EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS
HCM Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections)
In conformance with City and County of San Bernardino CMP TIA Guidelines, existing PM peak hour
operating conditions for the nine existing signalized intersections were evaluated according to the methods
presented in Chapters 9 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation
Research Board [Special Report 209].
8
l- I- l- I- I-
VI VI VI VI
VI
on
~~
I
20-' .,!:l.. '--32
179- N""N -148
90 6TI-l ) I ,69 ST
lk- ~~ ~ 25&-1~.h
~ 17~ 62~ -;:;-
ST
I-
VI
3RD ST
ST
(UNtc ....yl
PROJECT
SITE
co,.., '-41
2ND ~o;;:;: -1053
) I ,92 ST
124 I ~
346-01::
45, "'...
i
I
L-
" '"-
Cl L
,...
~
OJ
~
15
on
w ~
co
-
~O SCALE
UNSCOTT
LAW&;
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
KEY
-XXX = PM PEAK HOUR \/OlUME,
BY IN1t:RSECTlON MOVEMENT
5
EXISTING 1997 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFF1C VOLUMES
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
10
:~ i.,~", '. '
.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
For intersection and roadway analyses, six service levels, A through F, have been defined. Levels of
Service (LOS) A through C are representative of acceptable operating conditions. LOS D is typically the
level for which a metropolitan area street system is designed. LOS E represents volumes at or near the
capacity of the street which might result in stoppages of momentary duration and fairly unstable traffic
flow. LOS F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with
stoppages oflong duration.
For signalized intersections, the HCM methodology defines Level of Service in terms of average seconds of
stopped delay, which is determined using an analysis method relating traffic volumes, geometric conditions,
traffic signal timing and phasing conditions. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, fuel consumption, and
lost travel time. The HCM method for signalized intersections calculates total weighted average delay
(seconds per vehicle) as well as the volume-capacity (VIe) ratio.
A determination of the LOS at an intersection can be obtained through a weighted average of the delay for
vehicles at that intersection. Once the weighted average of the delay is calculated, the values indicated in
Table t can be used to determine the applicable LOS. However, in accordance with the County CMP
requirements, any intersection with a VIC ratio of 1.0 or greater must be designated as LOS F, even if the
delay value is within an acceptable leveL
The City of San Bernardino uses a criteria of Level of Service E, except where current LOS is worse than
LOS E, and a VIC ratio value ofless than 1.00.
TABLEt
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Level of Stopped Delay per -
Service (LOS) Vehicle (Seconds) -_._- Description of Oueratin!! Characteristics
A ,; 5.0 Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a
single cvcle.
B > 5.0 and" 15.0 Light congestion; an occasional approach phase is
fullv utilized.
C > 15.0 and,; 25.0 Moderate congestion; occasional backups on
critical approaches.
0 > 25.0 and,; 40.0 Congestion on critical approaches. but
intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait
through more than one cycle during shon peaks.
No long-standing lines fonned. Used as the
desirable design level for many urban areas.
E > 40.0 and" 60.0 Severe Congestion with some long-standing lines
on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection
may occur if traffic signal does not provide for
protected tuminR movements.
F >60.0 Forced Flow with stoppages of long duration.
I
!
l.
l
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Per County of San Bernardino CMP TIA Guidelines, the HCM calculations use a lane capacity value of
1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for left-twn, 1800 vph for through and right-turn lanes, and a dual turn lane
capacity of 3,200 vph. A 2 second "lost time" (per signal phase) was assumed in each Level of Service
calculation.
The HCM method of analysis and LOS concept are described in more detail in Appendix B. Appendix B
also presents the PM peak hour Service Level calculations at each of the key signalized intersections. For
this study, the LOS calculations, based on the HCM operations/delay methodology, was detennined using
the Comprehensive Analysis Program for Single Signalized Intersections (CAPSSI) software.
Existing Level of Service Results
Table 2 sununarizes the existing PM peak hour service level wculations for the nine study'intersections.
based on existing traffic volumes, current street geometry, intersection control and signal phasing
(intersection phase diagrams and traffic signal timing plans were provided by City staff). Review ofTable 2
shows that based on the HCM method of analysis, all nine signa1i7.ed intersections currently operate at
acceptable Levels of Service (LOS C or better) during the PM peak commute hour.
TABLE 2
EXISTING 1997 PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
.Ke . Intersection
1. "H" Street 6th Street
2. "If" Street 5th Street
3. "H" Street 4th Street
4. "G" Street 2nd Street
5. "F" Street 4th Street
6. "E" Street 6th Street
7. "E" Street 5th Street
8. "E" Street 4th Street
9. "E" Street 2nd Street
Control
T
30Si
20Si
20Si
80Si
60Si
20Si
20Si
60Si
80Si
PUBLIC TRANSIT
VolulD.e--Capacity....
I Ratio
0.44
0.45
0.38
0.75
0.30
0.67
0.88
0.33
0.61
Level of
Service S
B-
B-
B+
B-
B+
B-
C+
B+
B-
Omnitrans provides fixed-route service throughout the San Bernardino area. Many of the Omnitrans
bus routes provide radial service to downtown San Bernardino. Some lines start in a community
some distance from downtown, travel through downtown and end in another community on the
opposite side of downtown. Other lines begin or end at the Fourth Street Transit Mall. Accordingly,
13
~""'..""'-.', '~..~' ,
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSP/\N
ENGINEERS
the hours of operation listed in the following section reflect conditions on the Fourth Street Transit
Mall.
When Omnitrans began operating the Fourth Street Transit Mall in 1991, the agency also instituted a
new transfer policy governing the use ofpaper transfers. This policy allows transferring in downtown
San Bernardino only along the Transit Mall, not at other locations within the downtown area. By
policy, all downtown transfers are concentrated on the Transit Mall.
The following routes serve the project site:
Route 1 (Colton - Del Rosa) connects Colton with North San Bernardino, serving Colton City Hall,
San Bernardino City Hall, San Bernardino Valley College and San Bernardino Hospital, as well as the
Fourth Street Transit Mall. Southbound trips use stop E and northbound trips use stop F. Trips
operate in each direction through the Transit Mall about every 15 minutes from 7:30 AM to about
7:00 PM, and about every 45 minutes prior to 15 minutes schedule starting at around 6:00 AM and
7:00 AM, northbound and southbound, respectively. Trips operate until about 10:00 PM Monday
through Friday, providing services every 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Omnitrans provides 30 minute
service on Route I on Saturdays from about 7:00 AM through about 6:00 PM and hourly service on
Sundays from about 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Route 2 (Cal State - E Street - Loma Linda) operates between Cal State San Bernardino on north to
approximately 1.5 miles east ofI-1O and 1-215 junctions on south, serving Cal State San Bernardino,
San Bernardino Stadium, Inland Center Mall, Loma Linda Medical Center, as well as the Fourth
Street Transit Mall. Northbound trips use stop F on the Transit Mall. Southbound trips use stop E.
Trips operate in each direction through the Transit Mall about every 15 minutes from 7:30 AM to
about 7:00 PM. The first two trips of each day, however, are scheduled to provide service every 30
minutes. Omnitrans provides 30 minutes services after 7:00 PM until about 10:00 PM Monday
through Friday. On Saturdays, 30 minute services are provided from about 7:00 AM through about
7:00 PM and hourly service on Sundays from about 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Route 3 (San Bernardino - Baseline - HigWand) begins at the Fourth Street Transit Mall and serves
DMV, City Hall, and Beaver Clinic. Both northbound and southbound trips use stop G on the Transit
Mall. Trips operate every 15 minutes from about 7:00 AM to about 6:00 PM and about every 45
minutes after that until 9:30 PM Monday through Friday. Omnitrans provides 30 minute service on
Route 3 on Saturdays from about 7:30 AM through about 6:30 PM and on Sundays from about 8:00
AM to 6:00 PM.
Route 4 (West San Bernardino - HigWand) travels east-west connecting Fourth Street Transit Mall,
San Bernardino Community Hospital, and Berver Clinic. Eastbound trips use stop G on the Transit
Mall. Westbound trips use stop D. After a few early morning trips, service operates in each direction
through the Transit Mall about every 15 minutes from about 7:00 AM to about 7:00 PM and about
every 45 minutes after that until about 10:00 PM Monday through Friday. Omnitrans provides 30
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
minute service on Route 4 on Saturdays from about 7:45 AM through about 7:00 PM and 8:00 AM
to 6:00 PM on Sundays.
Route 5 (San Bernardino - Del Rosa - Cal State) connects the Fourth Street Transit Mall with Cal
State University. Both northbound and southbound trips use stop G on the Transit Mall. Trips
operate about every 30 minutes from about 6:00 AM to about 10:00 PM Monday through Friday.
Omnitrans provides 30 minute service on Route 5 on Saturdays from about 7:30 AM through about
7:00 PM and on Sundays from about 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. .
Route 6 (San Bernardino - Muscoy - Cal State) operates between Fourth Street Transit Mall and Cal
State San Bernardino, serving San Bernardino Connnunity Hospital and continues as Route 5 from
Cal State San Bernardino. Omnitrans provides 30 minutes service from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM
weekdays and 30 minutes weekend service from 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM and 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM on
Saturdays and Sundays, respectively.
Route 7 (North San Bernardino - Sierra Way - Downtown San Bernardino) connects the Fourth
Street Transit Mall with North San Bernardino area. Omnitrans provides hourly service on weekdays
from 5:30 AM to 7:30 PM and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays and 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM on
Sundays.
Route 8 and 9 (San Bernardino - Montone - Yucaipa) operates between San Bernardino and
Yucaipa, serving County Health Department, Lorna Linda Medical Center, Redlands Mall, Crafton
Hills College, as well as the Fourth Street-transit Mall~ Eastbound trips use stop H on the Transit
Mall. Westbound trips use stop E. Trips operate in each direction through the Transit Mall about
every 60 minutes from about 5:00 AM to about 9:00 PM Monday through Friday. Omnitrans
provides hourly service on Route 8 and 9 on Saturdays and Sundays from about 7:00 AM through
about 8:30 PM and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, respectively.
.t'
Route 10 (Fontana - Baseline - San Bernardino) provides the service between the Fourth Street
Transit Mall and Fontana. Trips operate hourly Monday through Saturday between the hours of 6:30
AM to 7:30 PM and 7:30 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and Saturdays, respectively. Omnitrans
serves Eisenhower High School, Miller High School, and Metrolink in City of Fontana_
Route 11 (Downtown San Bernardino - Muscoy) connects downtown San Bernardino with Muscoy
and serves Carousel Mall, and governments offices. Omnitrans serves Monday through Saturday on
Route II from 6:00 AM to 7:30 PM and 7:30 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and Saturdays,
respectively.
Route 12 (Sterling - Downtown San Bernardino) runs from San Bernardino to the Highland area,
serving San Bernardino City and County offices, Carousel Mall, Norton Air Force Base, Aquinas
High School and the Fourth Street Transit Mall. Both northbound and southbound trips use stop F
on the Transit Mall. Trips operate about every 30 minutes from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM Monday
15
2.:t"'!'i ."
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
through Friday. Omnitrans provides hourly service on Route 12 on Saturdays from 7:30 AM through
5:30 PM.
Route 14 (Fontana - Foothill - San Bernardino) connects Fourth Street Transit Mall with Fontana,
serving Carousel Mall, Senior Center, City Hall, and Metrolink in City of Fontana. Route 14 provides
15 minute service from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM after a few early morning trips and continually serving
hourly until 1 0:30 PM Monday through Friday. On Saturdays, Onmitrans provides 30 minute service
from 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM and hourly service on Sundays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Route 15 (Fontana - Rialto - San Bernardino) connects the Fourth Street Transit Mall Fontana,
serving Carousel Mall, San Bernardino Stadium, San Bernardino Valley college, and San Bernardino
County Court Building. Trips operate hourly from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday.
Onmitrans provides hourly service on Route 15 on Saturdays from 7:50 AM through 6:00 PM and
8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays.
Route 100 is a regional line connecting San Bernardino and Riverside. Route 100 uses stop C on the
Fourth Street Transit Mall and operates hourly from about 5:30 AM to 10:00 PM Monday through
Friday. Route 100 operates hourly on Saturdays from about 7:30 AM until about 9:30 PM and 7:30
AM to 7:30 PM on Sundays.
Route 110 is a regional line connecting San Bernardino and Montclair. Route 110 serves Ontario
Airport, Montclair Plaza, Kaiser Hospital as well as the Fourth Street Transit Mall. Service at the
Fourth Street Transit Mall runs approximately hourly from about 4:30 AM to 9:30 PM Monday
through Friday. Omnitrans provides hourly service on Route 110 on Saturdays from about 5:30 AM
through about 7:30 PM and on Sundays from about 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
Although adequate public transit service is provided in downtown San Bernardino, we have assumed
that patrons of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center will mainly arrive/depart the site via a
private vehicle.
c~
TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
,
L
In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics 0 f the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment Center
project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total
arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by
applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation.
The second step 0 f the forecasting process is traffic distribution which identifies the origins and destinations
of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on
demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
L
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R S
The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and
intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimi711tion of travel time which mayor may not
involve t.lJ.e shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic
distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates
specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the
study area.
With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the project
is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future
traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for site-specific and/or cumulative local
area traffic improvements can then be evaluated.
PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
San Bernardino Entertainment Center Project Traffic Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either
entering or exiting the generating (project) land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic
forecasting procedure are found in the Fifth Edition of Trip Generatio!!, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1991]. In most cases, the ITE manual displays curves
which are fitted to plotted points representing tabulations of data gathered from studies of the traffic
generation potential for various land use categories. Each of the curves is described by either a linear or a
logarithmic equation, and has a correlation value which measures the fit between the plotted data and the
computed curve. Where the correlation value is below 0.50, average generation factors are used to provide
the best approximation of estimated future traffic. This is also done when the independent variable (e.g.
building floor area, etc.) used in the forecast is too small.
The most common independent variable for commercial use is trip ends per thousand square feet of gross
floor area (TE/1000 SF). Thus, the future traffic generation for these uses can be estimated by simply
applying the independent variable (building floor area in thousands of square feet) to the generation
equation, or by multiplying by the stated generation rate, whichever is appropriate.
Table 3 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the impact of San Bernardino
Entertainment Center project, and presents the forecast peak hour and daily project traffic volumes for a
"typical" weekday. As shown, the proposed Multiplex Theatre project is expected to generate 7,010 daily
trips, with 296 trips (151 inbound, 145 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 535 trips (329
inbound, 206 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour.
To account for multi-use trips or "captured" trips internal to the site (downtown San Bernardino
area), a 20% multi-use reduction is incorporated into the daily and PM peak hour forecast. This
"multi-use" adjustment results in a net trip generation potential of 5,610 daily project trips and 428
PM peak hour project trips (263 inbound, 165 outbound).
17
LINSCOTT
Lf\W &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 3
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERA nON FORECAST
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
... :;:I............. ... ....... I...... .... ........:tAMPeilkRour.... ...... I ........ ........ ..'PMPeaidlourC "0-"'__"
.' ....... ........ ......... ..... ..::T... ..'
Dailv". .In.... '..".()uf' .'.Total 'In ..... :'Out.,::. "Total}:.
Generation Factors:
. Movie Theatre wlMatinee 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06
(TElSeat) I
. High-Turnover Restaurant 177.87 7.55 7.26 14.81 7.24 5.68 12.92
(TElIOOO SF)'
. Specially Retail 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60
(TEIIOOO SF)'
Generation Forecast:
. 20-Screen Multiplex Theatre 3,450 0 0 0 184 92 276
(4,600 Seats)
. In-Line RestaurantIFood Cowt 3,560 151 145 296 145 114 259
(20,000 SF)
Total Project Trips 7,010 151 145 296 329 206 535
Net Trips After Adjustmeot for -1.400 - - - -66 -41 ....:!!!1
Multi-Use Trips: 20% Reduetioo' 5,610 151 145 296 263 165 428
March 3. 1997
.
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D. C., 1991. Daily trip
generation rate estimated based on PM peak hour trip rate, which assurnes PM peak hour traffic is 8% of total daily traffic
[Trip Generation - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), May 1995].
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), February 1995 Update to the 5th
Edition, Washington, D. C., 1995.
Source: Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation - Rates for the San Diego Region - Sam Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) - May, 1995. Although future tenants of the proposed retail/commercial floor area are expected to be
a mixture of specialty retail shops and restaurant uses, we have assumed all 20,000 SF will be occupied by in-line restaurant/food
court uses.
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C., 1991, "Multi-use
Developments/Quantifying Capture Rates, page 1-41. To account for multi-use trips or "captured" trips internal to the site
(downtown San Bernardino area), a 20% multi-use reduction was incorporated in the daily and PM peak hour forecast.
Please note that data available in Trip Generation, 5th Edition, specifically in the case for "captured trips" at multi-use
developments allow up to a 24% reduction and are applicable to sites outside of downtown. Because of the very diverse
mixture of uses in the Central Business District (CBD) or downtown area, multi-use trips or "captured trips" can be
expected to be higher. Hence, the use of a 20% reduction in this traffic analysis is considered conservative and
appropriate.
L_
,
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Please note that data available in Trip Generation, 5th Edition, specifically in the case for "captured
trips" at multi-use developments allow up to a 24% reduction and are applicable to sites outside of
downtown. Because of the very diverse mixture of uses in the Central Business District (CBD) or
downtown area, multi-use trips or "captured trips" can be expected to be higher. Hence, the use of a
20% reduction in this traffic analysis is considered conservative and appropriate.
Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment
The traffic distribution and assignment pattern for the proposed project is presented in Exhibit 7. With the
site envisioned to have a combination of local and sub-regional attractions, project traffic volumes in and
out of the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based upon the following
considerations: I) the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (e.g., 1-215 Freeway); 2) expected localized
traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals; 3) access/egress
availability at site driveways; 4) parking .allocation/availabi1ityand 5) existing peak hour turning movement
counts. The project trip distribution pattern illustrated in Exhibit 7 assumes that parking for the site will be
provided at the Caltrans parking structure and City District Parking Lot # I, adjacent to the site.
Exhibit 8 displays the (net) added project traffic volumes for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center at
adjacent intersections during the PM peak commute hour. Exhibit 9 presents the added daily project
traffic assignments on the key roadways in the study area.
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDmONS
Ambient Traffic Growth
Horizon year background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using the growth factors
recommended for use by the City of San Bernardino. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to
account for "small projects" outside the study area and regional traffic growth. Per City criteria, traffic
growth has been calculated at two percent (2%) per year. Applied to existing 1997 traffic volumes results
in a four percent and ten percent growth in existing volumes at the nine key intersections to horizon years
1999 and 2002, respectively.
Related Projects Traffic Characteristics
Based on discussions with City staff, only one cumulative project is planned in immediate vicinity of
the project site or within the project study area. This project is identified as the San Bernardino
"Superblock" project and consists of up to four office buildings and a parking structure. The
"Superblock" project is generally located in the northeast quadrant of the E Street/4th Street
intersection, directly east of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project site. Based on
information provided by the City, the "Superblock" project will be developed in two phases.
19
> ~ l- I- l- I-
<( Vl Vl Vl Vl
9TH
N
on
- 8TH 5T
,
7TH 51
N N
0 0
~ -
6TH 5T ,
30ll: "'-
<lOll: 5TH ~10ll: ~10ll: 5T
10ll:~ lOll:> lOll:> ~ ~
>
<( :z W
is 5 5T
::&
z
0
z 3RD 5T
lk:
W <5%
>
NN
00
t-5 _<'I
2ND t-V 5T
10ll:..( A
Nl:lN a(
a( '-' "- on
on on-on <'I Cl
t- <5% RIAL TO t-V~ ~5ll: AV
10ll:..( A 5%>
L
~ Cl
0
- <(
w
:c
~ <(
0 e>::
e>:: e>::
l- e>:: w l
~ w <( Vi
Na(
on on i
<5% MILL t-~ ~5% 51 L
"
5ll:..( 5%> .g:,
~ A Ol
g N ~
V 0 E
'"
"
~
on
III
-
~O SCALE KEY 7
< XXll: = OUlBOUND PERCENTAGE
~ XXX - INBOUND PERCENTAGE
UNSCOTT
LAW " PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
GREENSPAN
ENCINEERS 5AN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
20
6TH . 840 . ST
!llIIE::i'E(>
~ ~
5TH . 660 . . 840 . ST
r J
:I: ~l i-.J L,
L_--, I
< ON~ WAY I I
4TH .1.266. .1.266. J ST
..2.240 .
f-
Ul
3RD ST ~l
PROJECT
SITE
f-
Ul
I-
Ul
f-
Ul
f-
Ul
I-
Ul
2ND
. 660 .
ST
I
1-
"-
w
Cl
....
~
OJ
~
~
o
ffi
o
on
.,
~
r
~
~o SCALE
UNSeOlT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENCINEERS
KEY
X.XXX - CAlLY lRAFfIC VOlUMES
. ..
9
AVERAGE DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
L/\W &
GREENSI'Ai'-J
ENGINEERS
Phase I consists of the development of two government office complex buildings (in two stages) on
the western portion of the site, fronting E Street. The building located on the northeast corner of E
Street and 4th Street will be 14 stories, including a basement level, and will contain approximately
331,660 SF of floor area, plus 3,120 GSF for a garage storage and auto shop facility. This building
(Phase 1 A) will be home to the Caltrans District 8 Headquarters. It is currently under-construction
and is scheduled to be completed by 1998.
The proposed building at the southeast corner of E street and 5th Street will be six stories with
approximately 201,870 GSF of floor area (Phase IB). An adjoining auditorium will contain
approximately 7,820 GSF. This building will be occupied by other State agencies. In addition, there
will be approximately 56,400 gross leasable area (60,350 gross square feet) of retail use developed in
the ground floor level. Phase IB is scheduled to be completed by year 2002.
Phase 2 of the "Superblock" Project, which is scheduled to be completed by the year 2010, consists
of two commercial office buildings with a total office floor area of approximately 595,000 SF. The
cumulative traffic impacts of this phase of the "Superblock" project have not been analyzed in this
report.
Table 4 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the impact of the "Superblock" Project,
and presents the forecast peak hour and daily project traffic volumes for a "typical" weekday. As shown,
the "Superblock" Project, upon completion and full occupancy, can be expected to generate 21,485 daily
trips, with 2,047 trip ends (1,807 inbound, 240 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 2,478 trip
ends (715 inbound, 1,763 outbound) generated in the PM peak hour.
Exhibit 10 presents future 1999 background traffic volumes (without San Bernardino Entertainment
Center) at the nine existing key intersections during the PM peak hour. Exhibit 11 illustrates forecast
1999 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the inclusion of the Multiplex Theatre project traffic.
Exhibits 12 and 13 presents future 2002 traffic volumes, without and with San Bernardino Entertainment
Center, respectively.
23
"'-.i ,.,
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 4
RELATED ("SUPERBLOCK") PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
I .. .... ..;,.'...,.;' """';""";;.. ,'" .;..;' I.';, . ',:AM1>eakBour ...:'....., ,....',. , ..PM 1>eftkBour '.'
..,
Proiect Descriotion.'\(/;"; ;'. Dailv 'In' 'Ouf< . .Total'.' 'In= Out... Tot:il
Generation Factors:s
. Government Office 25.0 2.00 0.25 2.25 0.89 1.97 2.86
(TEl I 000 SF)
. Retail/Commercial Uses 43.8 0.66 0.37 1.03 2.02 2.02 4.04
(TElIOOO SF)
. Commercial Office 9.1 1.14 0.14 1.24 0.20 0.96 1.16
1TF1IOOO SF)
Generation Forecast:
Phase I
. IA - Caltrans District 8 HQ 8,370 670 83 753 297 661 958
Offices (334,786 SF)'
. 1 B - State Agencies Offices 5,242 420 52 472 186 414 600
(209,691 SF)'
. 1 B - Specialty Retail 2.470 -Il. ---1l --.i!! ---1!.1 -'.H ---.ill.
(56,400 GLA)'
Subtotal Phase 1 Trips 16,082 1,127 156 1,283 597 1,189 1,786
Phasc 2
. Two Office Towers 5,403 680 84 764 118 574 692
(595,000 SF)'
Total "Suocrblock" Trins 21,485 1,807 240 2,047 715 1,763 2,478
Existing Uses - TriD Credits
. Police Station (416 Employees)' (1,706) (137) (17) (154) (62) (133) (195)
. Retail Shops (14,300 GLA)' (2.096) ill} lli.l (52) (95) W (90)
Subtotal - "Trin Credits" 13,802) (170) (36) (206) (157) (228) (385)
Net "Sunerblock" Trin Generation 17,683 1,637 204 1841 SS8 1,53S 2093
. With TDM Reduction' 16,732 1,460 183 1,643 498 1,372 1,870
i
L~,
March J. 1997
,
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C., 1991.
Source: Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Report for San Bernardino Superblock Project, prepared
Crain & Associates, dated October, 1994.
A conservative TDM reduction factor of to% was applied to all non-retail PM peak bour project trip.; 5% was applied to
the daily forecasts.
24
..... ..... ..... .....
V) V) V) V) .....
C/l
Oil!
;;;
I
21..J - '--33
212- 6TH ~Il!~ -152
94 )1 ,72 ST
ill- k~ am:m:> 269- _~~
~ 1~" 147,
~~... '--54
_NCO -780
) I ,264 5TH ST
524- ..~f
1~ -
:r
ST
.....
V)
w
3RD ST
PROJECT
SITE
2ND
1::;1; '--83
_N~ -1486
) I \...,9.
217 '\1 (
682- 2...~
~ ....
~2!N '-045
","5... -1125
) I ,95 ST
~~1&
.7, ..~
o
"-
,
I
L
,
0 ,.. L
~
en
~
0
-
~
'"
III
-
~O SCALE
UNSCOTT
LAW&:
GREENSPAN
ENOIMEERS
KEY
-XXX = PM PEAK HOUR VOlUME,
BY INTERSECnON MOVEMENT
1999 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH
ENTERT~ENT CENTER PROJECT TRAFFIC
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
11
26
l- I- l- I-
V) V) V) V) l-
V)
~Ill
I
22J ~ '--35
222- 611-1 1'; l!l-I60
99, ) I r76 ST.
~t~~ ~ii*
~ 1~~
r;;~o '--67
- ""-965
) I r280 511-1 ST
614- ,J~
191--, ...
J:
-
ST
l-
V)
3RD ST
2ND
PROJECT
SITE
c
;1;1';", '--so
......... -1212
) I l rt01 ST
251-' ~ (
380-... ,...
so--, "'., '"
l
"-
w
,
o ,... L.
~
CD
~
5
'"
~
on
'"
-
~O SCALE
UNSCOTT
LAW&;
GREENSPAN
ENCINEERS
KEY
-XXX - PM PEAK HOUR VOWME,
BY INTERSECllON MOVEMENT
13
2002 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH
ENTERTAINMENT CENTER PROJECT TRAFFIC
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Impact Criteria and Thresholds
The relative impact of the added project traffic volwnes generated by the San Bernardino Entertainment
Center during the PM peak hour was evaluated based on analysis offuture operating conditions at the nine
key area intersections, without, then with, the proposed commercial/entertainment center project. The
previously-discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay values,
volwne-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The
significance of the potential impacts of proposed theatre project at each key intersection was then evaluated
using the traffic impact criteria of the City of San Bernardino and the County CMP guidelines.
As, mentioned earlier, it is critical that both capacity and level of service be fully considered to evaluate the
overall operation of a signalized intersection. Capacity analysis results in the determination of a V/C ratio
for individual movements and also an average VlC ratio for the entire intersection. Level of Service is
based on average stopped delay per vehicle for all the movements within the intersection. For any given
V IC ratio, a range of delay values may result, because the VlC ratio does not consider signal timing factors.
For this reason, both the V/C ratio and vehicle delay must be examined carefully.
Any V/C ratio greater than 1.00 is an indication of actual or potential breakdown, representing little
capacity in critical movements to absorb the traffic demand increases, thereby requiring improvements to
the overall geometrics and/or signal operations. Therefore, an intersection must be designated LOS F
when the VlC ratio is equal to or greater than 1.00, regardless of the delay value.
Under the San Bernardino County CMP, each local jurisdiction determines which traffic conditions it
considers the minimwn acceptable. The City of San Bernardino uses a criteria of Level of Service E,
except where current LOS is worse than LOS E, and a VlC ratio value ofless than 1.00. Appendix C
contains the adopted 1995 Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Reports in San Bernardino
County.
Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios
Per the direction of City Staff, the following scenarios are those for which LOS calculations have been
performed:
I) 1997: Existing Traffic Conditions (presented previously)
1999 Horizon Year
2) 1999: Future Background (Existing plus Ambient plus Superblock Project Phase IA)
3) 1999: Future Background with San Bernardino Entertainment Center Project Traffic
4) Condition (3) with Mitigation, ifnecessary
29
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
2002 Horizon Year
5) 2002: Future Background (Existing plus Ambient plus Superblock Project Phases IA & ffi)
6) 2002: Future Background with San Bernardino Entertainment Center Project Traffic
7) Condition (6) with Mitigation, if necessary
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECI10N CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Table 5 summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the nine study intersections for the 1999
horizon year. The first colunm (I) of values in Table 5 presents a summary of existing PM peak hour
traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 2). The second colunm (2) lists 1999 background
traffic conditions based on existing intersection geometry, but without any San Bernardino Entertainment
Center project traffic. The third colunm (3) presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of
theatre project traffic.
1997 Existine: Conditions
As previously presented in Table 2, review of this table indicates that existing PM peak hour operating
conditions at all study locations are within satisfactory ranges based on City's LOS standards. All nine
study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak commute hour. Further,
review of the VIC ratios at all nine study intersections indicate that they are well below the "threshold
capacity" of 1.00, ranging 0.30 and 0.88.
1999 Horizon Year
1999 Background Traffic Conditions
An analysis of future (1999) traffic conditions indicates that background traffic growth and traffic
generated by Phase IA of the "Superblock" project will deteriorate the PM peak hour Level of Service at
one location. Review of colunm 2 of Table 5 shows that E Street @ 5th Street (CMP intersection) has an
acceptable Level of Service based on projected average stopped delay of 31 seconds per vehicle (LOS D).
However, closer inspection of the corresponding VlC ratio indicates a value of 1.00. Any VIC ratio equal
to or greater than 1.00 is an indication of potential breakdown and must be designated LOS F.
f
,
L
,
L
The addition of background traffic is not expected to result in any changes to the existing service levels at
the remaining eight key intersections.
1999 Backe:round Conditions with San Bernardino Entertainment Center Proiect Traffic
Review of Columns 3 of Table 5 shows that traffic associated with the San Bernardino Entertainment
Center will have a significant impact at only one of the nine existing study intersections when compared to
the City LOS standards and County CMP impact criteria. With the exception of the E Street/5th Street
intersection, all remaining intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak
hour upon opening of the project.
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
At the intersection of E Street and 5th Street, theatre project traffic will increase the VlC ratio values by
0.14 and further deteriorate the PM peak hour adverse service level. To offset the impact of San
Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffic, as well as future background traffic, intersection
improvements at this key intersection are required. Detailed evaluation of this CMP key intersection
indicates that exclusive left-turn lanes and shared through-right-turn lanes on E Street for northbound and
southbound traffic are needed to restore acceptable operating conditions. Review of column 3 of Table 5
shows that the implementation of the above improvements results in a forecast LOS B condition for the
PM peak hour. This, in fact, is better than existing conditions (see column I).
TABLES
1999 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
.. .... (1) (2) (3)
1"'l.Exjsting Traffic 1'" Cumulative J:raffic 1'"FutU!"e.'l'Tafficwith
, Conditions Conditions . .. SBl',c.l'dlJeti . .
D~hlY VIC D~ay: VIC ., . .Delay .. tV/C.
Key Interieetion . ..... (seclV~h) Ratio >LOS (set/velt) Ratiif LOS (sei:!Veltr: '.Ratio LOS
1. "ff' Street @. 6th Street 13 .44 B- 13 .46 B- 13 .48 B-
2. "If' Street @. 5th Street 7 .45 B+ 8 .47 B+ 8 .53 B+
3. "H" Street @. 4th Street 6 .38 B+ 6 .40 B+ 6 .40 B+
4. "G" Street @. 2nd Street 12 .75 B- 13 .7' B- 13 .79 B-
5. "F' Street @. 4th Street 6 .30 B+ 6 .32 H+ 6 .34 B+
6. "E" Street @. 6th Street 11 .67 B- 14 .74 H- 15 .79 B-
7. "E" Street @ 5th Street 18 .88 C+ 31 1.00 D (F) 51 1.14 E (F)
Imoacted Intersection 7' .64 B+
8. "E" Street @.4th Street 6 .33 B+ 6 .35 H+ 6 .36 B+
9. "En Street @. 2nd Street 10 .61 B- 12 .69 H- 13 .74 H-
Represents anticipated LOS with implementation ofinterscction improvements recommended to mitigate the impact of
future non-pr~iecl trame, as well as San Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffic. See text for discussion.
31
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
2002 Horizon Year
2002 Background Conditions with San Bernardino Entertainment Center Proiect Traffic
Table 6 presents a summary of the 2002 HCM calculations and corresponding LOS values. The structure
of this table is simi1ar to the 1999 capacity analysis summary presented in Table 5. Presuming that project
traffic is fully additive to the Year 2002 Background conditions (if approved, project traffic would actua11y
be in place well before buildout of the "Superblock" project), the addition of project traffic is expected to
have a significant impact, again, at only one intersection.
Review of columns 2 and 3 of Table 6 shows that E Street @ 5th Street (CMP intersection) is forecast to
operate at LOS F during the evening peak commute hour (without or with project traffic). However,
implementation of previously recommended improvements will more than off-set the impact of future
background and theatre project traffic. The recommended improvement restores the intersection's forecast
adverse operating condition to an acceptable LOS.
TABLE 6
2002 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
(1) ...........(2) (3) ..
1997 Existing Traffic 2002 Cumulative Traffic 2002 Future Traffic witb
Couditions Conditions SBEC Proiect
Delay V/C Delay' VlC Delay V/C
Kev Intersection . (sec/vebl Ratio LOS (seclveb) Ratio LOS (sec/veb) Ratio LOS
I. "H" Street @. 6th Street 13 .44 B- 13 .48 B- 14 .51 B-
2. "H" Street @. 5th Street 7 .45 B+ 9 .56 B+ 9 .65 B-
3. "H" Street @. 4th Street 6 .38 B+ 6 .42 B+ 6 .43 B+
4. "G" Street @. 2nd Street i2 .74 B- 14 .82 B- 14 .83 B-
5. "F" Street (QJ 4th Street 6 .30 B+ 6 .34 B+ 6 .36 B+
6. "E" Street (QJ 6th Street II .67 B- 18 .82 C+ 19 .86 C+
7. "E" Street @ 5th Street 18 .88 C+ 57 1.14 E- 208 1.23 F
Impacted Intersection IF) 9' .71 B+
8. "E" Street (QJ 4th Street 6 .33 B+ 6 .38 B+ 7 .37 B+
9. "E" Street (QJ 2nd Street 10 .61 B- 14 .77 B- 19 .81 C+
L
,
Represents anticipated LOS with implementation of intersection improvements recommended to mitigate the impact of
future non-project traffic, as well as San Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffic. See text for discussion.
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
AREA TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
For those intersections where future traffic volumes are expected to result in poor operating conditions, this
report recommends improvements which change the intersection geometry to increase capacity. These
capacity improvements involve roadway restriping and/or parking prohibitions to reconfigure (add lanes)
specific approaches of a key intersection. The improvements identified below are expected to: I) mitigate
the impact of existing, future non-project traffic, as well as project traffic, and 2) improve forecast adverse
Levels of Service to an acceptable range.
Year 1999 and 2002 Improvements
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, only one of the nine key intersections is projected to operate at unacceptable
service level during the PM peak commute hour. The intersection of E Street @ 5th Street, which is a
CMP intersection, is forecast to operate at LOS F if no improvements are made.
The intersection service level of E Street @ 5th Street can be improved by implementing the following
improvements:
· E Street @ 5th Street: Restripe the north and south legs of E Street to provide an exclusive
left-turn lanes and a share through-right lane. To accommodate this improvement, some of the
existing on-street angled parking along east and west side of E Street will need to be eliminated
or converted parallel parking spaces.
Since the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffic is expected to have a significant impact at
this CMP intersection and further deteriorates forecast adverse operating conditions, the project may be
required to participate in the improvement costs on a fair-share basis.
The project's cost responsibility or fair-share obligation is based on the proportion of Year 1999 plus
project traffic increase in traffic that can be attributed to the proposed project. Our calculations indicate
that the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project would be responsible for approximately twenty-
seven percent (27%) of the costs associated with the improvements recommended at E Street and 5th
Street.
Please note that an estimated Traffic System Fee of $86,714 will be required by the City of San
Bernardino and is separate from the costs associated with the above mentioned improvements. The
City's Traffic System Fee is based on a rate of $15.46 per each (net) additional average daily trip
(ADT) generated by the project. Hence, the Traffic System Fee attributable to the proposed 20-
screen Multiplex Theatre totals approximately $42,670 ($15.46 x 2,760 ADT). The remaining
$44,044 ($15.46 x 2,848) of the total $86,714 fee can be attributed to the 20,000 SF of
retail/restaurant space.
33
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
"E" STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The "E" Street improvements, as illustrated by Stoutenborough, Inc. in Exhibit 3 of this traffic study
are conceptual in nature and SUl!l!ested improvements to the City of San Bernardino Economic
Development Agency. They are ill!! proposed by the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project.
The suggested improvements are intended to make "E" Street, between Fourth Street and Fifth
Street, more "pedestrian friendly."
The SUl!l!ested midblock pedestrian crosswalk on "E" Street, located approximately 200 feet north of
Fourth Street, and associated street "narrowing" are designed to provide connectivity between the
proposed San Bernardino Entertainment Center and the Caltrans (Superblock Project) site. The
Caltrans parking structure is expected to support the parking demand of the planned 4,600 seat
Cinema during the late weekday afternoons, early evenings, and weekends.
, -
The suggested turnouts shown on "E" Street are recommended to provide a safe drop-off area for the
entertainment center patrons. It will also be used as a "loading/unloading zone" by service vehicles
(i.e. trash trucks and delivery trucks) for the restaurants. At this time, valet service is not proposed in
this area and is not proposed as an amenity of this project.
The suggested improvements will not change the existing roadway capacity of "E" Street and are
consistent with the current design of "E" Street in the downtown Central Business District area. Two
travel lanes will be maintained on "E" Street, as well as the angled on-street parking.
1 850TlA.DOC (Monday, March 03, 1997,6:02:01 PM)
r
r
L...
34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R 5
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
'I
I" ,JAN-21-'01 TUE F:24 [D: TEL I:Id:1909-3~1=~155_ .,
L INSCO TT . LAW&GREENSF Po.t.ltN brand fax transmittal memo 7671 '.'p'e".
T. ;2,"<. \..",.. F.am p, ",-wo.r ...,~
co, l-L&f;: 00. C...~ 0.( $. B
pt, Phon" "').38'1 S-..., '1
..., F... C""') :Jr<f f/rs-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
II' ,',( , III
f \" \
, \' \ ,
( ,1.'11 ',.',1 '\ '\!
INCIN!fRS
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January 21, 1997
Anwar Wagdy, P.E.
Richard E. Barretto
11484 P01
9:52 No.OOl P.Ol
VIA FAX: (909) 384-5155
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Please' provide us with the seasonal adjustment factors for the following Intersections.
Because of scheduling conflicts, we have completed the manual PM peak period turning
" movement counts for key locations on Wednesday, January 8, 1997 and Thursday,
/ I January 16, ]997.
,I ; Count Location Date of Count PM Peak Hour
//1'
it '1' : :~:=::=
,{." ,.' "E" ,,-..@4th.......
; , I '1. ''E'';;@2n4Su':
;f. "F" Street @ 4th Sttcct
-~
· "Ii" Street @ 6th Slm:t
. "H" Street @ SUI Street
. "H" SCreet @4th Stteet
. ''0'' Sl!cxt @ 2nd Street
Jan. 8, 1997
Jan. 8. 1997
Jan. 16, 1997
Jan. 8, 1997
Jan. 16, 1997
Jan. 16, 1997
Jan. 16, 1997
Jan. 8, 1997
JIIIl.8,1997
4:30-S:30 PM
4:00-5:00 l'M
4:15-5:15 PM
4:30-5:30 PM
4:15-5:15 PM
4:15-5:15 PM
4:15-5:15 PM
4:15-5:15 PM
4: I S.5:ISPM
Seasonal Adjustment Factor '
+/.3%
-tIJJY,
+-I J"/.
-I- \ ~ ".
+ \1-/.
.....1'3"
.H3 !Io
;- I,,..
tIft.
Please call me ifbave any questions or need additional information.
A
..
J..
,
FROM
PHONE NO.
.Jan. 19 1997 04:55PM P4
~ST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042 si te Code . ??oo00.
stort Date. 01/16197
File I.D. . ~
Page .1
RH- Street 6th Str.et -HlI Street 6th Street (SOuth)
$cuthbo<Jnd _tbo<Jnd Northbo<Jnd Eas tbol.rd
Start
Th~ Uft Thru Raht Tatl Left Thru RoM Totl Left Thru Raht ToU Left Thru Rcmt Iotl Tot.t
4.DOp" 5 50 D 55 0 0 0 0 0 56 4 60 36 40 34 110 225
4.15 9 66 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 54 5 59 43 45 41 129 263
4.30 lD 63 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 51 6 57 39 42 44 125 255.
4.45 5 67 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 57 9 66 35 41 36 112 250
Hour Total 29 246 0 275 0 0 0 0 0 218 24 242 153 168 155 476 993
5.00pm 7 65 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 65 4 69 34 39 32 105 246
5:15 4 63 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 76 8 84 36 35 16 87 238
5.30 5 58 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 67 5 n 28 29 22 79 214
5:45 3 50 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 42 6 46 26 34 22 82 183
Hour Toul 19 236 0 255 0 0 0 0 0 250 23 273 124 137 92 353 881
Grand 46 482 0 530 0 0 0 0 0 468 47 515 277 305 247 829 1874
X of Total 2.6X 25.7% O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX 25.OX 2.5X 14.8% 16.3% 13.2%
Appreh " 26.3% 27.5% 44.2%
% of Apprch 9.1X 90.9% O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX 90.9% 9.1% 33.4% 36.8X 29.8X
SOuthbound
\lestbound
Northbound
Eastbound
Peok Hour Analysi. By Entire lntereootion for the Period: 04:00pm to 05.00p0 on 01/16197
Start Peak. Hr ......... Vo\unes .........
Pe:lk Hour Factor left Thru Rght Tota l
04.15p" .973 31 261 0 292
.0 0 0 0 0
.909 0 227 24 251
.913 151 167 153 471
Street Nalle'
IIU" Street
6th Street
"H" Street
....... pereentages .......
Left Thru Rght
10.6 89.3 .0
0.0 0.0 0.0
.0 90.4 9.5
32.0 35.4 32.4
Direction
6th Street (South)
,-
L
i
A
<)
,.
I FROM
I
I
I
Movement 1
I
I
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 04:SSPM PS
WEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042
Sit. Code : 00000000
Start oat.: 01/16/91
File 1.0. : 6PHH
Page : 2
I
6th Str..t (SOUth)
o
o 0
o
I "N" Str..t I I I
I 01 2611 311 151 I
I I I I 221 I
I I I I 0 I
I I I I -- I
. I I I 318 .
I I I nbolrod 292 I
. I OUtbound 318 ..
Totel 6711 0
I
151
0
I nboun:l 0
outbound 222 0
Total 222
31
167 222
24
251 6th Street
414 .
665 I .
01 2211 24'
1 I .
I I I
I I .
I I I
I 1 I
I
Inbound 471
Outbound 0
161 Total 471
I
I
153
Inbound
. Outbound
. Total
I 0 I
I 261 I
I 153 I
I ----- I
. 414 I
I "HI' Street I
I
I
I
I
Peak: Hour Analysis By In:.fividual Approach for the Period: 04:00pn to 05:00pm on 01116/97
Start Peak Hr ......... Voh..nel$ ......... ....... Per,enteges .......
Direction Street Name reak Hour Factor Left Thru Rllht Total Left Thru R,ght
Southbound "fI" Street 04:15pll .913 31 261 0 292 10.6 89.3 .0
\leg,tbound 6th Street 04:00pm .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Northbound '-IR" Street 04:15pm .909 0 221 24 251 .0 90.4 9.5
E:lstbound 6th Street (South) 04:00pm .922 153 168 155 476 32.1 35.2 32.5
I
I
I
A
..,
d
I
FROM
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 04:54PM P2
WEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042 Site Code : OOOOQtYV
Stlre Oate: 01/16/97
File 1.0. : 6PHHH
Page : I
-R" Street 6th Street MN" Street 6th Street (North)
Southbou1d lIestbou1d Northbound Eutbou1d
Stare
TI... Left t otL L f Tru R ht Totl Lef hru ht t
4:00plll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IS 49
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 60
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 73
4.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
Hour Tot.a( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 243
5:00pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 20 62 62
5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 3 29 10 42 50
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 27 IS 48 48
5.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 28 II 40 40
Hour ToteL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 16 120 56 192 200
Crand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 31 273 131 435 443
X of Tota.l 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 7.0% 61.6% 29.6%
Appreh % 1.8% 98.2%
X of Apprch 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%100.0% 0.0% 7.1% 62.8% 30.1%
DIrection
Sou<hbouncl
\.Iestbound
Northbound
E4:otbound
Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period:
Start Peak Hr
Peak Hour Factor
04,15"", .0
.0
.0
.8n
Street Name
04:00pm to 05,OOF'" on 01116/97
......... Voll.lnes .... .....
Left lhru Roht lotal
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
18 158 80 256
Left
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
Percentages .......
Thru Rght
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
61.7 31.2
IIH" Street
6th Street
IlK" Street
6th Street (Horth)
I
I
L.
.
L
A
4
I
FROM
I
I
I
Movecnent 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 04:54PM P3
WEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042
Site Code: 00000000
Start Date: 01/16197
File I.D. : 6P_
Page : Z
I 11"- Street I 1 I
I 01 01 01 18 I
I 1 I I 0 I
I I I I 0 I
I I I I ==~= I
I I I 1 18 I
I I Inbound 0 I
. I OUtbound 18 .
Total 18 0
6th Street (North)
o
o 0
o
Peak Hour ~BLysi6 By Jndfvid~l Approach for the Period: 04:00pm to 05:00pm on 01/16/97
Start Pesk. Hr ......... VotUTiltS ......... ....... Percentages .......
otrection Street Name Peak Hour Factor L~ft Thru Rght Total left Thl'\l Rght
Southbound ,IUlI Straet 04:00pm .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Uettbound 6th Street 04:00pm .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Northbound ilK" Street 04 :oopm .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Eastbound 6th Street (North) 04:15pm .871 18 158 80 256 7.0 61.7 31.2
A
5
FROM
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 03:32PM P2
YEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042 Sit. Code : OooooC.J
Start Oat.. 01/16/97
FIl. 1.0.
Page : 1
UH" Street 5th Street .IHN Street 5th Street
Southbould llestbould NOrThbould Eastbol.n:l
Start
Tille Loft Th/'U Root Totl Ll!ft Thru Ront Tatl left Thru RAht Totl Left Th/'U Rohe Totl Total
4:00pm 11 41 24 76 43 103 9 155 18 35 4 57 9 97 33 139 427
4:15 13 45 21 79 45 99 11 155 20 37 3 60 11 95 21 127 421
4.30 17 46 26 89 63 123 9 195 12 41 5 58 4 105 54 163 505
4:45 12 46 40 98 54 124 3 181 14 40 6 60 8 85 38 131 470
Hour Total 53 178 111 342 205 449 32 686 64 153 18 235 32 382 146 560 1823
5:00pm 10 46 23 79 63 147 13 223 30 43 6 79 14 87 41 142 523
5:15 7 66 26 99 50 97 15 162 25 46 9 80 9 82 34 125 466
5.30 14 29 38 81 44 114 5 163 22 34 6 62 15 69 38 122 428
5.45 8 34 35 n 29 68 11 108 14 23 3 40 13 56 41 110 335
Hour Total 39 175 122 3~ 186 426 44 656 91 146 24 261 51 294 154 499 1752
Cr.net 92 353 233 678 391 875 76 1342 155 299 42 496 83 676 300 1059 3575
% of Tot.l 2.6% 9.9% 6.5% 10.9% 24.5X 2.1X 4.3X 8.4X 1.2X 2.3% 18.9% 8.4%
Apprch X 19.0% 37.5% 13.9% 29.6%
% of Apprch 13.6% 52.1% 34.4% 29.1% 65.2X 5.7X 31.2X 60.3% 8.5% 7.8% 63.8% 28.3%
Peak Hour AnalysIs By Entire Inters~tion for the Period:
Start Peak Hr
Peak Hour Factor
OirKtion
Southbound
~estbo<n:l
Northbound
Eastbound
Street Name
IfK11 Street
04.15pm
.880
.845
.813
.863
04:00pm to 05.oopm on 01/16/97
......... Volunes .........
Left Thru Rght Total
52 183 110 345
225 493 36 754
76 161 20 257
37 372 154 563
Left
15.0
29.8
29.5
6.5
Percentages .......
Th..... Rgh t
53.0 31.8
65.3 4.7
62.6 7.7
66.0 27.3
5th Street
"K" Street
5th Street
A
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM
Movement 1
. "H" Street 1 1
. 1101 1831 521 37
. I 1 1 161
. I I 1 36
. I I I ----
. I I I Z34
. I Inbound 345
. IOUtbound Z34
Total 579
5th Street
76
679 493
110
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 03:32PM P3
UESf COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042
Site Code: 00000000
Start Date: 01/16/97
File 1.0. .
Page : 2
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
36
Peak Hour Analysis By tndividual Approach for the Period: 04:00pm to 05:00pll on 01/16/97
StOlrt Peale Hr ....~.... Vo\unes ......._. ....... Percentages 0.".....
Direction Street Name Peak Hour factor Left Thru Rght Total L~ft Thru R,ght
southbound "H" Street 04:15pm .880 S2 183 110 345 15.0 53.0 31.8
uQStbound' 5th Street 04:15pm .845 225 493 36 754 29.8 65.3 4.7
Northbound "HII Street 04:15pll .813 76 161 20 257 29.5 62.6 7.7
Eastbound 5th Street 04:15pm .863 37 372 154 563 6.5 66.0 27.3
A
7
p
FROM :
PHONE NO.
Jan. 139 1997 la2:33PM P16
VSST COAST TRAFFIC COOITERS
818.303.60(2 SIte Code : 00000000
Start Olte: 01/08/91
File 1.0. : 8PIC
Page : 1
'B' Street m Street 'B' Street 4th Street
Southbound Westbound Xorthbouud Eastbound
Stut
file Left Thru hht Tot! Lelt Thru Roht Tot! Lelt Thru Roht Tot! Left Thru Roht Tot! Total
1:15 0 {2 115 157 2 105 10 111 27 68 0 95 0 0 0 0 369
4:30 0 53 118 171 2 215 9 m 16 52 0 68 0 0 0 0 (65
4:45 0 50 95 US 3 194 1 204 15 " 0 59 0 0 0 0 (08
Total 0 1(5 328 413 7 SH 26 511 58 I6( 0 222 0 0 0 0 1242
5:00p. 0 55 133 188 3 288 12 303 17 73 0 90 0 0 0 0 581
5:15 0 35 99 m 1 IS( 10 165 13 H 0 51 0 0 0 0 356
5:30 0 30 101 131 1 177 8 186 23 (S 0 68 0 0 0 0 388
5:(s 0 36 85 121 3 109 11 123 31 " 0 83 0 0 0 0 327
lour Total 0 156 m 577 8 728 U 771 90 208 0 298 0 0 0 0 1652
Graud 0 301 149 1050 15 1242 61 1324 148 372 0 520 0 0 0 0 2894
\ of Total 0.0\ 10.4\ 25.9\ .5\ (2.9\ 2.3\ s.n 12.9\ 0.0\ 0.0\ 0.0\ 0.0\
Apprch \ 36.3\ (S.7\ 18.0\
\ of Apprch 0.0\ 28.1\ 71.3\ 1.1\ 93.8\ 5.1% 28.5\ 71.5\ 0.0\ 0.0\ 0.0\ 0.0\
Peak Hour Aualysls 8y Entire Iutersection for the period: 01:15pu to 05:(5pu on 01/08/97
Start Peu Br '" Of 10 Of 'olales . I I..... 0 .. .. ... Perceutages .......
Direction Street lue Pell Hour hctor Left Thru ight Total Left Thru ight
Southbound 'B' Street 01:15pI .879 0 200 m 661 .0 30.2 69.7
Westbound 4th Street .701 10 802 38 850 1.1 94.3 (.(
lorthbouud 'a' Street .821 75 237 0 312 24.0 75.9 .0
Eastbouud 4th Street .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
r
I
..
L
A 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM :
Hmunt I
t Street
75
1338 802
m
PHONE NO.
WEST COAST TRAFFIC COUVT8RS
818.303.6042
'B' Street
461 200 0 0
237
38
o
Inbound
Outbonnd
o Total
o
==:=:;
275
Inbound 661
Mbound 275
Totl! 936
Inbound 312
Outbonnd 210
Total 522
10 75 237
200
o
802
Inbound 850
Ontbound 0
rotal 850
10
o
1338
1338
210
'B' Street
o
o 0
o
m Street
o
Direction
Soutbbound
Westbound
Iortbbonnd
Eastbound
Peak Boor Analysis 8y lodividaal Approacb for the period: 04:15po to 05:45po on 01/08/97
Start puk Br ......... VoluDes .........
Peak Bour Factor teft Thru Rght rotal
04:15po .819 0 200 461 661
04:30pl .741 9 851 38 898
04:15po .821 75 237 0 312
01:15po.0 0 0 0 0
Street Vale
'R' Street
4th Street
'B' Street
4th Street
A 9
Jan. 09 1997 02:34PM P17
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date: 01/08/97
File 1.0. : 8PRC
page : 2
....... Percentages .......
teft rbru Rght
.0 30.2 69.7
1.0 94.7 4.2
24.0 75.9 .0
0.0 0.0 0.0
FROM :
PHONE NO.
Jan..ag 1997 02:34PM Pie
L
A 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM :
Homent 1
PHONE NO. ..
VEST COAST TRAFFIC COOHTERS
818.303.6m
'G' Street
151 225 68 185
205
71
n Street
238
1593 1204
1S1
185
Inbound 756
Ontbonnd 1593
522 Total 2349
49
461
Inbonnd U(
Outbonnd m
Total 90S
1204
Inbound 1355
outbound 630 80
total 1985
68
522 630
40
2nd Street
Inbound m
Outbound 354
Total 837
80 238 205 40
225
49
154
'G' Street
Peat Hour Analysis Hy Individnal Approach for the Period: 04:00po to 05:45pn on 01/08/91
Etut Peak Hr ......... Voluees .........
Peak Hour Factor teft Thru R9ht Total
04:15pm .925 68 225 151 444
01:30pI .892 80 1302 78 WO
01:45p. .784 211 m 46 Sl1
04:00pl .882 176 561 43 780
Direction
Soothbonnd
Westbound
Vorthbound
Eastbound
Street Kame
'G' Street
2nd Street
'G' Street
2nd Street
A 11
. Jan. 09 1997 02:35PM P19
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date: 01/08/97
rile 1.0. : 9PH
Page : 2
....... Percentages.......
Left thro Rght
15.3 50.6 34.0
5.4 89.1 5.3
47.1 43.8 9.0
22.5 11.9 5.5
FROM
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 03:34PM P6
~ST ~ST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
8'8.303.6042 Site Cod. I' ??oo000
St.rt D.te. 01/16/97
.. File I.D. . 5PMH
,. Page : I
l'.
I'flt Street 4th Street ,-FII Street 4th Street
_thbou'ld \lestbound Northbound e.. tbou'ld
Start ~
Time laft Thro Roht ToU Left Thru Roht Totl t"left Thru ;> Raht ToU Left Thru Roht Totl Tot.l
4:00"" 9 15 3' 55 6 '02 5 113 ~ 12 IS 10 37 '0 24 3 37 242
4:15 11 19 36 66 5 111 6 lZZ 14 18 14 46 13 ?9 5 47 ZSI
4:30 '0 26 39 75 5 110 8 '23 H 83 13 107 16 33 4 53 358
4:45 7 12 43 6Z 'I '07 5 123 2' 13 10 44 13 34 9 56 285
Hour TotBl 37 n 149 ZS8 27 430 24 481 58 129 47 Z34 52 120 21 1?3 '166
5:0Opn 12 2\ 82 115 7 169 6 182 3:5 \7 13 63 13 . 30 4' 47 407
5,15 II 12 44 67 3 109 5 117 27 '0 14 51 10 30 9 49 284 :
5:30 7 10 38 55 9 1'2 12 13:5 35 13 11 59 16 24 6 46 293
5:45 10 19 33 62 7 74 8 89 19 10 " 40 '9 28 5 '" 52 243
Hour Total 40 6Z 197 299. 26 464 3' 521 "4 50 49 213 58 li2 .24 194 i lZZ7
-
Grflnd n 134 346 557 53 894 55 '002 '72 179 96 447 '\0 232 45 387 2393
% of totlt 3.21: 5.6% 14.51: 2.2% 37.4% 2.3% 7.21: 7.5% 4.OX 4.6% 9.7% 1.9%
Apprch % 23.3% 41.9% 18.7% 16.21:
% of Apprch 13.8% 24.1% 62.1% 5.3% 89.21: 5.5% 38.5% 4O.OX 21.5% 28.4% 59.9% 11.6%
Peak Hour Analy&fs By Entire Intersection for the Period:
Start Peale HI"
Pce.k Hour FactDr
04:15pn .691
.755
.607
.906
Direction
Southbou'ld
\I" tbourd
Northbound
Eastbound
NFII Street
04:00pm to 05:0Opn on 0'/16/97
......... Voll.lDes .........
Left Thru Rght Total
40 78 200 3'8
28 497 ZS 550
79 131 50 260
55 '26 22 203
Lef.
12.5
5.0
30.3
27.0
Percentages .......
Thru Rsh.
24.5 62.8
90.3 4.5
50.3 '9.2
62.0 '0.8
Street Nellie
MFII Street
4th Street
4th Strt'et
.
i
,
I
L
L
A 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM
PHONE NO.
YEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042
I Of" Street I 1
I 2001 781 401 55
I I I I 131
I I I I 25
I I I I -==;;
I I I I 211
I I I nbo\old 318
. I outbound 211
Total 5Z9
55
Inbound 203
OUtbound 776
126 Total 979
22
Inbouncl
OUtbolrod
Total
28
78
22
~
I
I
I
I
I =t!~~
I 128 I
. "FM Streett
497
I nbouncl 550
OUtbound 216 28
TotaL 766
40
126 216
50
260 4th Street
128 .
388 1 I
791 1311 501
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 04:00pm to 05:00pm on 01/16/97
start Peak Hr ......... Votunes .........
PC!'ak Rou... factor left Thru Rght Total
04: 15"" .691 40 78 200 318
04,15".. . 755 2ll 497 25 550
04,15".. .607 79 131 50 260
04,15"" .906 55 126 22 203
Direction
southbound
W..tbound
Northbound
Eastbound
StrlltiQt Name
Ilfll Street
4th Stref:t
"fll Street
4th Street
A
13
Jan. 19 1997 03:34PM P7
Sit. Cod. : 00000000
Start Oat.: 01/16/97
Fll. 1.0. , 5PHM
P.ge I 2
....... Percentages .......
left Thru Rght
12.5 24.5 62.8
5.0 90.3 4.5
30.3 50.3 19.2
27.0 62.0 10.8
FROM (..
PHONE NO. :
Jan. 09 1997 02:25PM P2
KaST COAST TRArtIc COONtERS
818.303.6042 Sitf Code : 00000000
start Date: 01/08/97
file LD. : !PM
Plge : 1
'g' Street m Street 'g' street 6th Street
Southbound Westbound lorthbound Eastbound
ltart
rlae Left Thra hht Totl Left Thra hht Totl Left !hra Roht !oU Left !bra Roht Totl Total
4:00pe 6 66 2 14 14 26 3 43 1 102 3 106 9 50 12 71 m
4:15 1 53 3 63 15 32 4 51 4 93 3 100 11 63 10 84 298
4:30 6 78 6 90 16 30 6 52 7 85 2 91 5 69 15 89 325
4:45 6 73 3 82 15 29 5 49 2 110 5 111 5 75 13 93 341
Iou Total 25 210 14 309 60 111 18 195 14 390 13 417 30 251 50 337 1258
5:00pe 4 68 9 31 20 41 4 65 2 147 3 152 10 53 8 71 369
5:15 7 66 7 80 10 29 13 52 0 113 3 116 10 32 19 61 309
5:30 2 54 10 66 8 30 4 (2 4 130 5 139 1 33 5 45 292
5:45 2 40 5 47 1 14 3 24 1 83 5 89 6 32 1 45 205
Rour Total 15 228 31 m 45 114 24 183 7 473 16 496 33 150 39 222 1115
Grand 40 m 45 583 105 231 H 378 21 863 29 913 63 407 89 559 2433
\ of Total 1.6% 20. 5\ 1.8\ l.lt 9.5\ 1.7\ .9% 35.5% 1.2% 2.6% 16.n 3.lt
Apprch \ 24.0\ 15.5\ 37.5\ 23. 0%
% of Apprch 6.9% 81.4\ 7.1\ 27.8\ 61.1\ 11.1\ 2.3\ 94.5\ 3.2\ 11.3\ 12.8\ 15.9\
Peak Hour Analysis By antire Interse~tion for the Period: 04:00pn to 05:45pl on 01/08/97
Start Peak Nr .. .. .. ... Voluaes ......... . .. .... Percentages .......
Direction Street Hue Peak 8m fl~tor Left Thra Rght Total Left !hra Rght
Sou thbound 'g' Street 04:30ps .925 23 285 25 331 6.9 85.5 1.5
Westbound 6tb Street .818 61 129 28 218 27.9 59.1 12.8
Rorthbound 'E' Strut .188 11 455 13 m 2.2 94.9 2.1
iastbound 6th Street .844 30 229 55 314 9.5 72.9 11.5
f
L_
L
A
~ .
J..o:i:
~...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM
Hovmnt I
street
II
165 129
25
PHONE NO.
VEST COASt TRAFFIC COOlfEES
818.303.6012
'E' Street
25 285 23 30
m
28
30
Inbound 314
Outbound 165
229 fotal 419
55
S1l
Inbooud 33
Outbonnd 513
Tohl 146
129
Inbound 218
Outbound 265 61
Total m
23
229 26\
13
6th street
Inbound m
Outbouud 401
Total 880
61 II '55 13
285
55
m
'E' Street
Peal Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: O':OOPI to 0\:45pl on 01/08/91
Start Peak Hr ......... Volnm .........
Peak Hour Factor Left Tbru Rght rotal
01:30pn .92\ 23 285 25 333
04:30po .B38 61 129 28 m
OI:45pl .862 8 \00 16 m
04:00po .906 30 2\1 SO 331
Direction
Southbound
Westbound
XorthboDnd
Eastbound
Street Xame
'E' Street
6th Street
'E' Street
6tb Street
A 15
Jan. 09 1997 02:26PM P3
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date: 01/08/97
File J.D. : !PH
hge : 2
. .. .... Percentages .......
Left Tbru Rght
6.9 85.\ 7.5
21.9 59.1 12.8
1.\ 95.' 3.0
8.9 16.2 14.8
UE~T COASt tRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.30l.6042 Site Code: 00000000
Start Date: 01/08197
file t .0. : 2Pt1H
Page : 1
ue" Street 5th Street "eM Street Sth Street
Southbo<rd \/ee tbound Northbo<rd eestboU1d
St.rt
Time l It h h l It Thru . h ht tl Total
4:00p0 10 101 3 114 17 9 186 16 102 18 136 113 7 141 577
4:15 14 103 4 121 7 14 142 7 88 18 113 81 10 109 485
4.30 18 104 4 126 24 9 130 8 94 18 120 120 10 153 529
4.45 7 107 6 120 20 16 182 12 99 27 138 104 7 127 567
Hour Total 49 415 17 481 68 48 640 43 383 81 507 418 34 530 2158
5.00pm 11 109 11 131 12 13D 10 152 14 100 25 139 18 84 11 113 535
5.15 15 117 12 144 12 88 4 104 6 76 16 98 18 100 12 130 476
5:30 12 135 II 158 10 83 11 104 7 69 20 96 17 9Z 8 117 475
5:45 17 121 17 155 5 79 7 91 2 57 18 77 15 90 5 110 433
H<XJI" Total 55 482 51 588 39 380 32 451 29 302 79 4\0 68 366 36 470 1919
Grand 104 897 68 1069- 107 904 80 1091 n 685 160 917 146 784 70 1000 4077
:; at Total 2.6X 2Z.OX 1.7X 2.6X ZZ.2X 2.0X 1.8X 16.8X 3.91: 3.6X 19.2X 1.7X
Appreh X 26.21. 26.8X 22.5X 24.5X
X of Appreh 9.7X 83.91: 6.41- 9.8X 82.91: 7.3X 7.91: 74.7X 17.4X 14.6X 78.4X 7.ar.
Southbo\l'ld
\lestbound
Northbound
Eastbou"d
Street N..ne
ue" Street
5th Street
04 :00pa
.954
.860
.918
.866
04.00pm to 05.00pm on 01/08/97
........~. volumes ...........
left Thru Riht Total
49 415 17 481
68 524 48 640
43 383 81 507
78 418 34 530
left
10.1
10.6
8.4
14.7
Percentagec ........
Thru R9ht
86.2 3.5
81.8 7.5
75.5 15.9
78.8 6.4
Peak Hour A~lysis By EntIre Intersection far the Period:
Start Pe~k Hr
Peak Hour factor
Direction
liEU Street
5th Street
r
I
L_
f
!
A
00( r~
..Lv
I FROM
I
I
I
Hov-,>t 1
I
I
I 5th Street
43
5114 524
17
PHONE NO.
Jan. 22 1997 08:55AM P3
WEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTER5
818.303.6042
Site Code : 00000000
Start Dote: 01/08/97
File I.D. ; 2PHK
Page : Z
I "e" Street\
. 171 4151
. I I
. I I
. I I
I I I
I I Inbound
. I OUtbound
Total
I
491 78
I 383
I 48
I &==::
I 509
481
509
990
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
~
48
I -
524
78
Inbound 530 Inbound 640
Outbound 584 Outbound 548 68
418 Total 1114 Total 1188
49
34 418 548
81
J nbound 507 5th Street
II ()Jtbound 517 I .
I Total 1024 I .
. 68 431 383\ 81'
. 415 I I I
I 34 I I I
I ===~ I I I
I 517 I I I I
I "E" str.etl I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Peak Hour Analysis 8y Individual Appro~ch for the Perfod: 04:00pm to 05:00pm on 01/08/97
Stort Peak Hr ......... VollJnes ......... ....... Percentag~s .......
DirQCtion Street Name Peak Hour Factor left Tnru Rght Total Left Thru Rght
Southbound tlE" Street 04015pm .950 5D 423 25 498 10.0 84.9 5.0
Westbovnd 5th Street 04,00pm .860 68 524 4a 640 10.6 81.a 7.5
NorthPound IIE" Street 04,15pm .917 41 381 as 510 8.0 74.7 17.2
EastbOund 5th Street 04:00pm .866 78 418 34 530 14.7 18.8 6.4
I
I I
I
I
A
-S "~I
..L f
I
FROM
PHONE NO.
Jan. 19 1997 03:33PM P4
UEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042 slt. code . 0000000
stort Dot.; 01/17/97
Fil. 1.0. ; 3PMM
Page ; 1
-e- Street 4th street ue. Str~t 4th street
Southbound Ile.tbound Northbound E..t_
Start
TI... Left Thru Roht ToU left Thru Roht Totl loft Thru Roht Totl Left Thru Roht Totl Total
4.00p0 6 86 5 97 5 69 4 78 18 65 3 86 5 25 18 48 309
4.15 4 98 2 104 2 71 3 76 26 70 4 100 3 30 15 48 328
4.30 5 107 3 115 3 74 3 SO 30 57 2 89 5 26 19 50 334
4.45 6 78 0 84 3 SO 2 85 23 94 1 118 6 37 14 57 344
Koyr Total 21 J69 10 400 13 294 12 319 97 286 10 393 19 118 66 20J 1315
5.00pn 6 82 8 96 6 117 4 127 39 8J 3 125 4 35 17 56 404
5;15 4 67 9 SO 3 68 5 76 27 99 3 129 5 25 15 45 330
5;30 1 71 6 78 2 70 0 72 48 98 4 150 5 16 12 33 3JJ
5:45 4 63 12 79 0 52 2 54 28 6J 0 91 6 20 15 41 265
Your Total 15 283 35 333' 11 307 11 329 142 343 10 495 20 96 59 175 1332
Orond :l6 652 45 733 24 601 23 648 239 629 20 888 39 214 125 378 2647
,. of Total 1.4% 24.6% 1.7% .9% 22.7% .9% 9.0% 23.8% .8% 1.5% 8.1% 4.n
Apprch % 27.n 24.5% 33.5% 14.3%
% of Apprch 4.9% 88.9% 6.1); 3.n 92.7% 3.5% 26.9% 70.8% 2.3% 10.3); 56.6% 33.1%
Peak Hour Analysis By entire lnt*rscct;on for the Period; O4;OOpn to 05.00p0 on 01/17/97
Start Peak Hr ......... Vol\JJleS .........
Direction Street Name Peak Hour Factor left Thru Rght ToteL
Southbound "Ell Street 0':15pn .867 21 365 13 399
\lestbovnd 4th Street .124 14 342 12 368
Morthbound ue- Stree-t .864 118 304 10 432
Eltstbound 4th Streot .925 18 128 65 211
Percentages .......
l.ft Thru Rght
5.2 91.4 3.2
3.8 92.9 3.2
27.3 70.3 2.3
8.5 60.6 30.8
r
i
L
,
~
r
A
10
..l.U
I FROM
I
I
I
_.1
I
I
I
4th Street
118
473 :542
13
I
PHONE NO.
WEST COAST TRAFFIC COUNTERS
818.303.6042
. "E" S......., I 1
I 131 3651 211 18
I I I 1 304
I I I I 12
I I I I ;:===
I I I 1 334
I I Inbound 399
. IOU'bound 334
Tote\ m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
12
342
18
I
I
Inbound 211
Outbound 473
128 To.al 684
Inbound 368
OUtbound 159 14
To'al 527
65
21
128 159
10
4th S. ree.
I
Inbound 432
. OUtbound 444 .
1 Totol 876 I 1
I 14 118\ 304\ 101
I 365 I I I
1 65 I I I
1--- I II
I 4441 I I I
I "EM Stree'l I I I
I
I
I
Pet.lk Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for tho Period: 04:00pn to 05:00pm on 01/17/97
Start P~alc Hr .... ..... VotUTIQA .........
Peak Hour factor Left Thru Rght Total
O4,OOpm .870 21 369 10 400
04,'5pm .n4 14 342 12 368
04,15pm .864 118 304 10 432
04,15pm .925 18 128 65 211
I
Direction
Southbound
\I~stbound
Hor.hbound
Eastbound
I
I
I
I
Street Name
"Ell Street
4th Street
"EII St....eet
4th Street
A
10
.Lv
Jan. 19 1997 03:33PM P5
Site Code : 000??oo0
Star. Oa'e: 01/17/97
File 1.0. : 3PMH
P.~ .2
....... Percentages .......
Left Thru Rght
5_2 92.2 2.5
3.8 92.9 3_2
27.3 70.3 2.3
8.5 60.6 30.8
Pi
FROM :
PHONE NO. :
Jan. 139 1997 02:29PM P8
VEST COAST TRAFFIC COOITelS
818.303.6042 Site Code : 00000000
start Date: 01/09/91
File LB. : (pH
Page : 1
'E' Street 2nd Street 'c' Street 2nd Street
Soutbbound Westbound lorthbonnd hstbound
itart
riu Left Thrn loht foU Left !bro loht ToU Left Thru loht 'oU Left Thrn loht Toll Total
(:OOpa 5 69 23 91 16 141 8 111 39 56 12 101 22 93 8 123 m
(:15 13 80 26 119 11 167 1 185 33 86 13 132 31 125 12 168 60(
(:30 7 H 35 116 19 223 11 2S3 (0 92 U 1(6 32 85 5 m 631
(:15 10 18 (8 136 23 265 9 m 41 12 Il 130 29 11 16 122 m
lonr Total 35 301 132 (68 69 802 35 906 153 306 56 515 114 380 (! S3S 242(
5:00pa 1 66 38 111 21 210 5 236 (6 119 23 188 26 12 9 101 m
5:15 12 59 35 106 18 m 11 263 51 139 2( 2Il 23 12 10 105 688
5:30 5 60 36 101 16 161 5 188 29 104 16 149 30 50 IS 95 533 L_
5:15 3 11 21 11 10 m 3 138 31 120 18 115 17 63 6 86 m
luur Total 21 232 136 395 6S 136 24 825 163 m 81 726 96 m (0 393 2339
lrand 62 533 268 86l IH 1538 59 1111 316 188 131 !HI 210 631 81 928 4163
t of total 1.3\ 11.2\ 5.n 2.8\ 32.3t 1.2% 6.6t 16.S\ 2.9t 4.4t 13.4t 1.7t
lpprch t 18.n 36.3\ 26.1\ 19.5\
I of Apprch 1.2\ 61.8t 31.lt 7.11 88.9\ 3.n 2S.S\ 63.5\ 11.0\ 22.n 68.n 8.11
Peak Honr Analrsls By Entire Intersection for the Period: 04:00pa to OS:(5pa on 01/09/91
Start Peak Hr ......... Volnes ......... . .. .. .. Percentlges .......
Direction Street lIRe Peak Hour Factor Left Thru 19ht total Left fhru Ight
southbound 'E' Street 04:30pR .862 36 211 156 (69 U 59.0 33.2
Westhound 2nd Street .883 81 932 36 1049 1.1 88.8 U
Xorthbound 'g' Street .192 178 422 78 678 26.2 62.2 11.5
Eastbound 2nd street .934 110 306 40 m 21.1 61.1 8.1
r
,
L
L
A 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM
lovmnt 1
PHONE NO.
VEST COAST TRAFfIC COUITERS
818.303.&0(2
568
's' Street
156 277 36 110
m
36
n Slmt
178
1266 932
156
110
Inbound m
Outbonnd 1266
306 Total 1122
(0
Inbound 69
Ontbound 568
Total 1031
398
'S' Street
932
Inbouud 1049
Outbound (20 81
Tolal 1469
Inbound m
Outbound 398
Total 1.76
al 178 (22 78
277
10
36
306 m
78
2ud Street
Direction
Southbound
Westbound
lortbbound
Eastbound
Peak Hour Anaiysis 8y Individual Approacb for the Period; 04:00pm to 05:(Spn on 01/09/91
Start Peak Br . . . . . .... Volunes .........
Peak Hour Factor Left Tbru Bgbt Total
0(; !Spe .886 31 298 !(7 (82
0(;30pe .883 81 932 36 1049
05:00pm .818 163 482 81 726
O(:OOPI .796 11( 380 (l 535
Street laee
'E' Street
2nd Stmt
's' Street
2nd Street
A
I)"
"".&..
Jan. 09 1997 02:29PM P9
Site Code ; 00000000
Start Date: 01/09/91
File !.D. : (pM
Page : 2
"."..~,...,
--....":",..-
... .... Percentages .......
teft Thru Rght
1.6 61.8 30.(
7.7 88.8 3.4
22.( 66.3 11.1
21.3 71.0 7.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
APPENDIX B
HCM METHODOLOGY AND LOS CONCEPT
PLUS CALCULATION SHEETS
LINSCOTT
Lt\W &
GREE~SPf\N
ENGINEERS
In the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of
delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically,
Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a IS-minute analysis
period. The criterias are given in the table below.
Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the
cycle length, the green ratio, and the vlc ratio for the lane group or approach in question.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE
STOPPED DELAY
PER VEHICLE
(SEC)
A
B
C
D
E
F
S. 5.0
5.1 TO 15.0
15.1 TO 25.0
25.1 TO 40.0
40.1 TO 60.0
S. 60.0
Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs
when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally
occurs with good progression andlor short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels
of average delay.
Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher
delays may result from fair progression andlor longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear
in the level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
Lever of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D,
the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high vlc ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles
not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
l
Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is
considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high vlc ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed
the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high vlc ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board
Special Report 209, 1985. Edited for clarity
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
"H" STREET @ 6TH STREET/I-215 OFF-RAMPS
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
8
'"
.....
H Str..t . 6th St/I-215
Move.ent
Phaae 1
Phaae 2
20 eeca
20 aeCD
Phase 3 - 20 aeca
Phaae 4
Pha.. 5
Phaee 6
o .ec.
o aeca
o ..c.
critical KYat... ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Loat time -.ec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-aec
Move Ti.. -aec
Min/Ped Time-see
Prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -..c
Level of Service
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping "
Do Veh Clear ?
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION ...
METROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR. SAN B
1"7 BXISTING TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
BBT
X
1"
3600
2.00
0.49
18
20
20
1.00
13
a-
3
.2
YES
BBL
X
BBR
X
171
Shrd
173
shrd
Whole Intereection
Critical Movements
saT
saL
P.N Peak Hour
saR
IIBT
IIBL
IIBR NBT
01.22-97
PLK:A:\1I50"
Scenario 1
X
2'7
3600
2.00
0.26
18
20
20
1.00
12
a-
2
7'
ns
Weighted Av Oelay (see) _ 13 Level of Service _ B-
Weighted Av Delay (..e) . 13 Level of service _ D-
Inter.ection Capacity Utilization (100) . 0.44
X
X
X
X
X
Required cycle Length is 60 seconds (All Hinimu. time. are satiSfied)
......
20.
1100
2.00
0.55
18
20
20
1.00
14
a-
3
..
YBS
3.
1100
0.00
0.10
20
20
.
1.00
10
B-
o
..
YBS
..........
,"
3600
2.00
0.27
18
20
20
1.00
12
B-
2
7.
YES
20
Shrd
'0
Shrd
... CAPSBI (Release 11) - Baaed on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
B
')
...,
NBL
NBR
X
,
~
27
Shrd
L
r
j
,-
I
,
L
',,-
I
I
I
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB AHALYS:rS PROGRAM
FOR A StOOLS SIGNALIZRD INTBRBBCTION '*
01-22-"
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
un BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
H Street . 6th St/I-215
P." Peak Hour
PLH:A: \1850-
Scenario 2
I
I
Movement IlllT IlllL BBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR
Phase 1 2. seC8 X X X
Phase 2 2. secs X X X
Phase 3 2. Becs X X X X
Phase . - . sees
phase S . llIecs
Phase . . .ecs
Critical Mvmt-** **** **** ****
Peak 15 Vol -vph 19. 177 18. 31. 3. ,.. 21 .. 270 2.
Saturation -vph 3600 Shrd Shrd 1800 1000 3600 Shrd Shrd 3600 Shrd
Lost time -Bee 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.51 0.57 0.11. 0.28 0.28
8ffective Gr-sec ,. ,. 2. ,. 18
Move Time -see 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
Kin/Pod Time-see 2. 2. S 2. 2.
Prog Factor PAP 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVDelay/veh -see 14 1S 11 12 12
Level of service B- B- B- B- B-
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh 3 . . 2 2
Veh Stopping . .3 .S .. 7' 77
Do Veh Clear ? YB' YBS YBS YB' Y'S
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . 13 Level of Service . B-
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (sec) . 14 Level of Service . B-
Intersection C.paci~y U~iliza~ion (ICU) . 0.46
Required cycle Leng~h i. 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w CAPSSI (Release 11) ~ Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
B
<)
.)
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIOHALIZBD INTBRSBCTION ..
01-27-97
MBTROl'OLITAN BNTBR.TAINMBNT CBNTBR
19" PUTURB TRAFFIC IIITH NBC PROJBCT
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBO cYCLB TINS
H Street _ 6th St/I-21S
P. M Peak HO\lr
PLN:A: 1850.1.
Scenario 3
Movement &BT &BL &B. BBT BBL BB. WT WL W. NBT NBL NB.
phaae 1 - 20 ..ea X X X
Pha.e 2 - 20 secs X X X
phase 3 - 20 secs X X X X
Pha.e . - 0 ..cs
Ph.ae 5 0 aecs
phaae . 0 ..ca
Critical MvIlI.t-.... ....... .....
Peak 15 Vol -vph 252 117 180 310 36 212 21 .. 279 20
Saturation -vph 3600 Bhrd Bhrd 1800 1000 3600 Bhrd Bhrd 3600 Bhrd
Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.56 0.57 0.11 0.30 0.28
Effective Gr.sec 18 18 20 ,. 18
Move Time .sec 20 20 20 20 20
Min/Ped Time-sec 20 20 5 20 20
Pros Factor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVDelay/veh .sec 14 15 11 12 12
Level of Service B- B- B- B- B-
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh . . 0 2 2
Veh Stopping . .. 85 .. 17 17
00 Veh Clear , YBB YBB YBB YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (sec) . 13 Level of Service . s-
Critical Movem.ents Weighted Av Delay (see) . 14 Level of Service . s-
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.48 r
L
Required cycle Length i8 60 seconds (All Minimum times are .atisfied)
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on De lay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual L
~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAPSSI
OOMPRBHBNSXVS ~YSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION
01-22-97
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 BA.a<GR.OUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
H Street . 6th St/I-215
P.M Peak Hour
FLN:A:1850-1
Scenario 4
Movement BBT BBL ... SBT SBL SB. "'T "'L .... "'T "'L "".
Phase 1 20 Becs X X X
phase 2 20 secs X X X
Phase 3 20 seel! X X X X
Phase . 0 Becs
Phase S 0 Becs
Phase . 0 sees
critical Mvmt-** **.... **** .....-
Peak 15 Vol -vph 213 18. 190 32. 3. 19' 22 .. 30. 30
Saturation -vph 3600 shrd Shrd 1800 1000 3600 Shrd Shrd 3600 shrd
[,ost time -see 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.55 0.61 0.12 0.29 0.31
Bffective Gr-sec ,. 18 20 ,. ,.
Move Time -see 20 20 20 20 20
Nin/Ped Time-see 20 20 S 20 20
Prog pactor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVOelayjveh -see 14 lS 11 12 12
Level of Service B- e+ B- B- B-
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 3 . 0 2 2
Veh Stopping . .. .. .. 77 77
Do Veh Clear , YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . 13 Level of Service _ B-
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay {see} . 14 Level of service . B-
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.48
Required cycle Length i. 60 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
* CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1~85 Highway Capacity Manual
B
5
H Screec . 6ch Sc/l.215
Movement
Phase 1
Phaae 2
Phase 3
Phase "
phase 5
Pha.. 6
20 ..e.
20 sees
20 sees
o 8ees
o s.c.
o s.es
Critical M~t-** ****
Peak 15 Vol .vph
Saturation .vph
Lost time -.ec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffeetive Gr-aec
Move Time .sec
Min/Ped Time-sec
prog Pactor PAP
AVOelay/veh -.ec
Level of Service
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
266
3600
2.00
0.60
18
2.
2.
1.00
,.
B-
.
.,
YES
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVll ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION *
01.27-91
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 PUTURB WI'nI PROJBCT TRAPPIC
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
BBT
X
EBL
X
BBR
X
,..
Shrd
19.
Shrd
Whole Intersection
P.M P.ak Hour
FLN:A:1850-1
scenario 5
SBT
SBL
SBR
NBT
NBL
WBR NBT
X
X
X
X
X
X
*...
....
329
1800
2.00
0.61
1.
2.
2.
1.00
"
39
1000
0.00
0.12
20
20
,
1.00
11
B-
.
..
YES
222
3600
2.00
0.32
18
2.
2.
1.00
12
B-
2
77
YES
22
Shrd
..
Bhrd
30.
3600
2.00
0.31
18
20
2.
1.00
12
B-
2
77
YES
c+
.
.,
YES
critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) . 14 Level of Service. B-
Weighted Av Delay (see). 14 Level of Service. B-
Intersection capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.51
Required cycle Length is 60 second. (All Minimum times are satisfied)
* CAPSSI (Release 11) - Baaed on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual
t? b
NBL
NBR
X
30
Shrd
r
L
,
L
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPt\N
E N GIN E E R 5
"H" STREET @ 5H STREET (SR-66)
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
B
'<1
j
CAPSSI 01-22-"
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PeR A SINaLB SIOKALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
1"7 BXISTING TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING PRBDBTBRMINBD CYCLB TIMBS
PLN:A: 1150.2
H Street . 5th (SR.") Street P.M Peak. Hour Scenario 1
Novelllent BBT "L ... SBT SBL SB' "'T "'L .... "'T "'L ....
Pha.e 1 - 22 sees X X X X X X
Phase 2 2. .ees X X X X X X
Phase 2 0 sec.
Phase 4 0 .eee
phase 5 0 sees
Phase . 0 .ee.
Critical Mv1IIt-.. .... ....
Peak: 15 Vol -vph 420 42 174 207 5. 124 557 254 41 182 .. 22
Saturation -vph 3600 700 1800 3600 1100 1800 3600 700 1100 3600 1000 Shrd
Loet tillle -see 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.23 0.11 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.31 0.68 0.05 0.13 0.11
Bffeetive Or-see 20 22 20 2. 2. 2. 20 22 20 26 2.
Movo Tillie -see 22 22 22 2. 2. 2. 22 22 22 2. 2.
Nin/Ped Timo.sec 21 5 21 18 5 18 21 5 21 18 5
Pros 'actor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvOe1ay/veh -see . 5 . . 7 . 7 11 . . 7
Level ot Service B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B- B. B. B.
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1
Veh Stopping . 57 50 55 '0 56 61 50 7J 51 '0 5.
00 Veh Clear ? YES YES YBS YBS YBS YBS YES YES YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) - 7 Level of Service . B.
Criticd Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) - 10 Level of Service . B- i
Intersection Capacity Uti li zation (ICO) - 0.45 L_
Predetermined Cycle Length i. 50 .eeonde (Min. times ....y not be .ati.tied)
L
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Por 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
(
i
8
8
I
I
I
I
CAPOSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION '*
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
U" BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING PRBOBTBRMINBD CYCLB TIMBS
H Street . 5th (SR-66) Street
I
P.M Peak Hour
01-22-97
PLN:A:1850-2
scenario 2
NBT NBL NBR
I
Movem.ent
Phaso 1 32 sees
phase 2 - 28 sees
Phase 3 0 eecs
I
Phase "
Phase 5 -
Phase 6
o sees
o secs
o secs
I
Critical Mvmt-..
I
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost tim.e -see
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-S8C
Move Time -sse
Nin/ped Time-see
Prog Factor PAP
AvDelay/veh -see
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
veh Stopping '"
Do Veh Clear ?
I
I
I
I
BBT
X
...
3600
2.00
0.28
30
32
21
1.00
7
B+
2
5.
YBS
BBL
X
.3
500
0.00
0.16
32
32
5
1.00
5
B+
o
51
YBS
BBR
X
BBT
X
BBL
X
SBR
x
,.,
1800
2.00
0.20
30
32
21
1.00
,
B+
2
56
YBS
215
3600
2.00
0.14
2'
2.
1.
1.00
.
B+
1
'0
YBS
..
1100
0,00
0.12
2.
2.
5
1.00
7
B+
1
57
YBS
WBT
X
WBL
X
****
12.
1800
2.00
0.17
2.
2.
1.
1.00
.
B+
1
61
YBS
763
3600
2.00
0.42
30
32
21
1.00
7
B+
3
63
YBS
2"
700
0.00
0.71
32
32
5
1.00
12
B-
2
75
YBS
WBR
X
5.
180D
2.00
0.06
30
32
21
1.00
.
B+
o
52
YBS
X X X
..w..
,..
3600
2.00
0.14
2'
2.
18
1.00
.
B+
1
'0
YBS
..
1000
0.00
D.U
2.
2.
5
1.00
7
B+
1
..
YBS
2.
shrd
Whole In~ersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see). 8 Level of Service., B+
WeightedAv Delay (see) ., 11 Level of Service., B-
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) _ 0.47
I
Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied)
I
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
8
9
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBHSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SIOOLS 8IGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION "
MBTROPOLITAN BNTSRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
un PUl'URB TRAPPIC MInt: MBC PROJaCT
SOLUl'ION USING PRBDBTBRMINBD CYCLB TIMBS
H Street . 5th (SR.") Street
P.M Peak Hour
01~27-'7
PLN:A:1850.2
Scenario 3
Move1llent
Phaae 1
Phaile 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 -
Phaae 5
Phase 6
32 secs
2a secs
o secs
o aecs
o secs
o sece
RaT
X
BBL
X
...
X
*"**
Critical Mvat...
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -eec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-eec
Move Time -sec
Min/Ped Time-aec
prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -see
Level of Service
Av.'Q'j lane veh
Veh Stopping "
Do Veh clear ?
52.
3600
2.00
0.2'
3.
32
21
1.00
7
B+
2
..
YBS
.3
...
0.00
0.16
32
32
.
1.00
5
B+
.
51
YSS
181
1800
2.00
0.20
3.
32
21
1.00
6
B+
2
56
YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
SBT
X
215
3600
2.00
0.14
26
28
lB
1.00
8
B+
1
6.
YBS
BBL
X
6.
1100
0.00
0.12
28
28
5
1.00
7
B+
1
'7
YBS
BBR
X
12.
1800
2.00
0.17
26
28
18
1.00
8
B+
1
61
YBS
NBT
X
78.
3600
2.00
0.43
3.
32
21
1.00
7
B+
3
6.
YBS
NBL
X
26.
6..
0.00
0.82
32
32
5
1.00
2.
c+
2
83
YBS
NBR
X
5.
1800
2.00
0.06
3.
32
21
1.00
6
B+
.
52
YBS
NBT NBL
NaR
X
X
X
....
lB.
UDO
2.00
0.14
26
28
18
1.00
8
B+
1
6.
YBS
..
1000
0.00
0.19
28
28
5
1.00
7
B+
1
5.
YBS
2.
Shrd
Weighted Av Delay (see). 8 Level of service. B+
weighted Av Delay (eec). 17 Level of Service. C+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.53
"-
Predetermined Cycle Length i. 60 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied)
L
" CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1'85 Highway Capacity Manual
l? 10
I
I
I
I
CAPas I
OOMPRBHBNBIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZED INTBRSBCTION ..
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION OSING PRBDBTBRMINBD CYCLB TIMBS
H Street. 5th (SR-G6) Street
I
P.M Peak Hour
01-22-97
PLN:A: 1850-2
Scenario 4
Movement
NBR
I
phase 1
Phase 2
Phase J
Phase 4
Phase 5
phase 6
o Becs
**....
32 Boce
28 secs
o sees
o 88C8
I
o secs
I
critical Mvmt-....
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -see:
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-eec:
Move Time -pee
Min/Ped Time-see:
Prog Pactor PAP
AvOelay/veh -see:
Level of Service
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh clear ?
I
I
I
I
BBT
X
588
3600
2.00
0.33
30
32
21
1.00
7
B+
2
50
yaS
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) Ie 9 Level of Service _ B+
Weighted Av Delay (s8e) _ 21 Level of Service. c-
Intersection Capacity Utilization (leu) _ 0.56
I
BBL
X
.5
'00
0.00
0.22
32
32
5
1.00
5
a+
o
53
YBS
BaR
X
191
1BOO
2.00
0.21
30
32
21
1.00
5
B+
2
55
yaS
saT
X
227
3600
2.00
0.15
25
2.
18
1.00
.
B+
1
50
yaS
S8L
X
70
1100
0.00
0.14
2.
2.
,
1.00
7
B+
1
57
YaS
saR
X
137
1800
2.00
0.18
25
2.
18
1.00
8
B+
1
61
yaS
"'T
X
"8
3600
2.00
0.53
30
32
21
1.00
8
B+
.
5.
yaS
"'L
X
....
2.0
600
0.00
0.88
32
32
5
1.00
2'
D+
2
87
yaS
"'R
X
57
1800
2.00
0.07
30
32
21
1.00
5
B+
1
52
yaS
NBT
X
200
3600
2.00
0.14
25
2.
18
1.00
8
B+
1
50
yaS
NBL
X
X
Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied)
,.
1000
0.00
0.20
28
28
5
1.00
7
B+
1
5.
yaS
25
Shrd
I
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Baaed on Delay Methodology Per 19B5 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
B
1"
....
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD tNTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNl'BRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 PUTURB WInI PROJBcr TRAFFIC
SOLtrt'ION USING PRBDBTBRMINBD CYCLB TIMBS
H Street . 5th (SR-66) Stree~
P.M Peak Hour
01-27-"
FLN:A:1850-2
Scenario 5
Movem.en~
Phase 1 32 secs
Phase 2 28 secs
Phase 3 0 sees
Phase 4 0 secs
Ph.se 5 - 0 .ecs
Phase 6 0 ..cs
IlST
X
IlSL
X
IlSR
X
Critical Mvmt-..
....
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Los~ time -sec
Relative Sat 'X'
Effective Gr-sec
Move Time -see
Nin/Ped Tim.e-sec
Pros Fac~or PAP
AvOelay!veh -see
Level of Service
Av.'Q'! lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh cleilr ?
.14
3600
2.00
0.34
30
32
21
1.00
7
a+
3
'0
YBS
..
.00
0.00
0.22
32
J2
5
1.00
.
a+
o
53
YBS
191
1800
2.00
0.21
30
32
21
1.00
.
a+
2
56
YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
saT
X
227
3600
2.00
0.15
26
2.
18
1.00
.
a+
1
60
YBS
saL
X
70
1100
0.00
0.14
2.
2.
5
1.00
7
a+
1
57
YBS
saR
x
137
1800
2.00
0.18
2.
2.
18
1.00
.
a+
1
Sl
YBS
NBT
X
..5
3600
2.00
0.54
30
32
21
1.00
.
a+
.
..
YBS
NBL
X
2.0
500
0.00
1.05
32
32
5
1.00
70
.
3
100
NO
NBR
X
NBT
NBL
NBR
X
x
x
67
1800
2.00
0.07
30
32
21
1.00
6
a+
1
52
YBS
....
200
3600
2.00
0.14
26
28
18
1.00
.
a+
..
1000
0.00
0.20
2.
2.
5
1.00
7
a+
25
shrd
1
'0
YBS
1
5.
YBS
Weighted Av Delay (see) . 13 Level of Service. B-
Weighted Av Delay (see) S4 Level of Service. E
In~ersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.65
~ (1.-
Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied)
~
. CAPSSI (Rel..se 11) . Baaed on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual
I
I
I ENGINEERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
"H" STREET @ 4TH STREETII-215 ON-RAMPS
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
8 13
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINaLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLn'AH BHT'BRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
1997 BXISTING TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
H Street. 4th Street/I.215
P.M Peak Hour
NBR
Movem.ent
Phaee 1 21 .ece
IBT
BBL
IBR
BBT
BBL
BBR
N8T
X
WBL WBR NBT
X X
Phaee 2
Phaee J
Phaee 4
Phaee 5
Phaee 6 -
20 .ece
X
X
o .ec.
o eec.
o .ac.
o .ace
Critical ~t-..
Peak. 15 Vol .vph
Saturation .vph
Lost time -sec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-eec
Move Time -sec
Min/Ped Time-sec
Prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -aec
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
....
....
22.
3600
2.00
0.47
10
20
20
1.00
.
'21
Bhrd
00'
7200
2.00
0.29
19
21
21
1.00
.
11 U 26&
Shrd Shrd. 3600
2.00
0.17
10
20
20
1.00
.
B.
B.
2
71
YB'
1
'2
YB'
Whole Intereection
Critical Movemente
01-22-97
PLH:A: 1850.3
Scenario 1
NBL
X
X
l_
8.
.00
2.00
0.32
10
20
.
1.00
.
B.
B.
1
61
YB'
1
..
YB'
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 6 Level of Service. B+
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 6 Level of Service. B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (leu) . 0.38
r
L
Required cycle Length is 41 seconds (All Minimum timee are satiefied)
i
L
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Baaed on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
B
14
r
,
I
I
CAPaSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRBBCTION *
01-22-97
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBN'l'BR
1'" 8ACK.GROUND TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
I
H Street . 4th Street/I-21S
P.M Peak Hour
PLN:A:1850-J
Scenario 2
I
Movem.ent
BBT
BBL
BBR
BBT
BBL
aBR
WHT
X
WHL
X
WHR
X
NBT
NBL
NBR
I
phase 1
Phase 2
phaoe 3
Phase "
Phase 5 -
phase 6
21 secs
I
20 secs
o sees
o sees
o secs
o sees
X
X
X
X
I
Critical Mvmt-..
....
...*
I
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -see
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-sec
Move Time -see
Min/Ped Time-see
Prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -Bee
Level of service
Av.'Q" lane veh
Veh Stopping '"
Do Veh Clear ?
235
36"00
2.00
0.49
18
20
20
1.00
6
542
ahrd
.67
7200
2.00
0.31
10
21
21
1.00
5
20 20
20 5
1.00 1.00
5 5
11
ahrd
..
ahrd
270
3600
2.00
0.18
18
88
600
0.00
0.30
20
I
I
B+
B+
B+ A
I
2
72
YRa
2
63
YB'
1 1
61
YR'
60
YB'
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) a
Weighted Av Delay (see) _
G Level of Service _ B+
6 Level of service _ B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) _ 0.40
I
Required cycle Length is 41 seconds (~l Minimum times are satisfied)
I
* CAPaSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
B
15
H Street. 4th Street/I-215
Movel&ent
Phase 1
Phase 2
Ph~se 3
Ph~se 4
ph.se 5
Phaee 6
21 aecs
20 aecs
o secs
o eecs
o aecs
Q aec.
critic.l Mvat...
Peak. 15 Vol .vph
Saturat.ion -vph
Lost. t.ime -sec
Relat.ive S~t. 'X'
gffect.ive Gr-sec
Move Time .sec
Min/Ped Time-eec
prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -see
Level of service
AV.'Q'/ lane veh
Veh St.opping ,
Do Veh clear ?
Whole Intersect.ion
Crit.ical Movement.e
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BN'l'BRTAINMBNT C8NTBR.
19" PUTURB TRAPPIC WITH MBC PROJBCT
SOLtn'ION USING RBQUIRBO CYCLB TIMB
P. M Peak Hour
BBT
BBL
BBR
saT
aaL
saR
WIlT
X
WIlL
X
WBR NBT
X
01-27-97
PLN:A:1850-3
Scenario 3
NBL
NBR
x
x
x
x
....
."..
..
600
0.00
0.30
20
20
5
1.00
5
A
1
60
YB'
,-
I
f
'-
Required Cycle Lengt.h ie 41 seconds (All MinimUfll. t.illles are .at.i.fied)
235
3600
2.00
0.49
18
20
20
1.00
6
542
Shrd
1025
7200
2.00
0.32
"
21
21
1.00
5
11
Shrd
45 2"
shrd 3600
2.00
0.18
18
20
20
1.00
5
B+
1
61
YB.
L
. CAPSSI (Relea.e 11) - aased on Delay Methodology Per 1965 Highway Capacity Manual
B+
B+
2
72
YBS
2
63
YB'
Weighted Av Delay (see) = 6 Level of Service. S+
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 6 Level of Service _ s+
Int.ersection capacity Ut.ilizat.ion (ICU) _ 0.41
f.> {b
I
I
CAPaS!
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A 8INGLB BIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION ..
01-22-97
I
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
H S~reet C 4th Street/I-215
P." Peak Hour
PLN:A: 1850-3
Scenario 4
I
MovelDent BBT BBL BBR BBT BBL SBR WBT WBL WBR WBT NBL NBR
I Poase 1 21 secs X X X
Phase 2 20 secs X X X X
Phase 3 0 secs
Phase . 0 secs
I Pha.e 5 0 Becs
Phase . 0 .ecs
I
I
Critical MV1l1t-.. *... ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph 2.. 573 1040 12 .7 2.5 '3
Saturation -vph 3600 Shrd 7200 Shrd shrd 3600 500
Lost tilDe -see 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.52 0.33 0.19 0.38
Bffective Gr-sec 1. 19 1. 20
Move Time -see 20 21 20 20
Kin/Ped Time-see 20 21 20 5
Pros Pactor PAl' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -see 7 5 5 .
Level of service B+ B+ B+ B+
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 3 2 1 1
Veh Stopping . 73 .3 ., 63
Do Veh Clear ? YB' YB' YB' YB'
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . . Level of Service . B+
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) . . Level of Service .. B+
Intersection capacity Utilization (leu) . 0.42
Required Cycle Length is 41 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
I
I
I
I
I
I
. CAPSSI (Release II) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
B
17
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PaR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBO INTBRSBCTION *
01.27-'7
MB'l'ROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 PlTl'URB WITH PROJBCT TRAFPIC
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD cYCLB TIMB
H Street . 4th Street/I.21S
P.M Peak Hour
PLN:A:1BSO-3
Scenario 5
Move.ent BBT BBL BBR
Phase 1 21 secs
Phase 2 - 2. seca
Phase 3 . secs
Phase . . sec.
Phase 5 - . .ecs
Phase . . ..ca
SBT
SBL
SBR
NOT
X
NOL
X
NOR
X
NBT NBL
NBR
X
X
X
X
Critical MvIll.t.** **** ****
Peak 15 Vol -vph 2" 573 1098 12 .7 295 93
Saturation -vph 3600 Shrd 7200 Shrd Shrd 3600 5..
Lost time -see 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Bat 'X' 0.52 0.35 0.19 0.38
Bffective Gr- sec 18 19 18 2.
Move Time -see 2. 21 2. 2.
Min/ped Time-sec 2. 21 2. 5
prog Pactor PAl' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDolay/veh -aec 7 5 5 .
Level of Service B> B> B> B>
Av. 'Q'/ lano voh 3 2 1 1
Veh stopping . 73 6. 61 .,
Do Veh Clear ? YES YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (sec) - . Level of Service . B>
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) - . Level of Service . B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) - 0.43
Required cycle Length is 41 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfi.d)
L
* CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
l__
t? (~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
"G" STREET @ 2ND STREET
CAPSSI CALCULA nON SHEETS
8 19
CAPSSI 01-27-97
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
lOR A SINGLR SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBR'TAINMRNT CSNTRR
1"7 BXISTING TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING R8QUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
PLN:A:18S0-4
G S~ree~ . 2nd S~ree~ P." Peak Hour Scenario 1
Move..n~ BBT DL DR SBT SBL SBR lIBT lIBL lIBR WBT lIBL NBR
Phaae 1 10 .ece X X
Phalle 2 22 aecs X X X X
Phaae 3 . ..cs X X
Phase 4 12 .ece X X X X X X
Pha.a . 0 .ecs
Phase . 0 ..ce
Cri~ic:al Mv1ll~-.. ...... ........ .....
Peak 15 Vol -vph ..0 20. '5 2'4 77 171 1361 '0 .0 232 2" 4'
Sa~ura~ion -vph 5400 1700 shrd 3600 1100 Shrd 5400 1700 Shrd 3600 .00 Shrd
[,oee time -aec 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Rela~ive Sat 'X' 0.29 0.75 0.58 0.20 0.65 0.32 0.38 0.86
Bffective Gr-sec 20 . 10 17 20 . 10 17
Hove Time -see 22 ,. 12 17 22 10 12 17
Min/Ped Time-see 22 5 21 . 22 . 21 5
Frog Pactor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVDelay/veh -see 7 22 14 . . 14 13 2.
Level of Service B+ c- B- B+ B+ B- B- 0+
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 2 2 2 1 4 1 2 3
Veh S~opping . .7 " ,. 7. 81 .. .. 93
Do Veh Clear ? YBS YES YBS YES YES YES YES YRS
Whole Intersection weighted Av Delay (see) . 12 Level of Service . B-
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) . 13 Level of Service . B- I
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.75 ..
L.
Required cycle Length ie 49 eeconds (All Minimum times are aatisfied)
. CAPas I (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual L
t?U7
I
I
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINCLB BIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION '*
01-27-97
I
MBTROPOLITAN BN'I'BRTAINMBN'I' CBNTRR
19" BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
I
G Street. . 2nd Street
P.M Peak Hour
PLN:A:1850-4
Scenario 2
I Movement. BBT BBL BBR BBT BBL BBR waT waL waR NBT NBL NBR
Phase 1 10 S8CS X X
I Phase 2 22 secs X X X X
Phase 3 5 secs X X
Phase . 13 secs X X X X X X
I Phase 5 0 secs
phase 6 0 S8es
I Critical Mvmt-** -... ***- _...
Peak 15 Vol -vph 656 217 58 26. 80 177 1469 .. n 241 280 .7
Saturation -vph 5400 1700 Bhrd ]600 1000 Bhrd 5400 1700 Bhrd 3600 '00 Shrd
I Lost time -see 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.33 0.80 0.56 0.22 0.72 0.35 0.36 0.B6
Bffective Gr- see 20 . 11 18 20 8 11 18
I Move TilDe -see 22 10 13 18 22 10 13 18
Kin/Ped Time-see 22 5 21 5 22 5 21 5
Prog Pactor PAl' 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -see 8 26 14 . 10 15 13 26
I Level of service B+ 0+ B- 8+ 8- B- B- 0+
Av. 'Q' I lane veh 2 3 2 1 . 1 2 3
Veh Stopping . 6. .. .. 70 8' .. 85 OJ
I Do Veh Clear ? YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YES YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) - 13 Level of Service _ B-
I Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) . ,. Level of Service _ B-
" Intersection capacity Utilization (reo) - 0.79
I Required Cycle Length i. 50 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
* CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
I ~ 'Pi
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLR SIGNALIZBD INTBRSRcrION
01-27.97
MB'1'R.oroLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTRR
1'" PUTURB TRAPPIC WITH MBC PROJBCT
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
G Street . 2nd Stroet
P.M Peak Hour
PLN:A: 185044
Scenario 3
Movement BBT BBL BB. SBT SBL SBR NBT NBL NBR NBT NBL NBR
Phase 1 - 10 sees X X
Phase 2 22 sees X X X X
Phase 3 S sees X X
Phase . 13 Bees X X X X X X
Phase S - 0 sees
Phase . 0 sees
Critical Mvmt... .... .... ....
'e-.lt 15 Vol -vph 682 217 SB ... BO 177 1486 .. n 241 2BO .,
Saturation -vph 5400 1700 Shrd 3600 1000 Shrd 5400 1700 Shrd 3600 '00 Shrd
Lost time -see 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.34 0.80 0.56 0.22 0.73 0.35 0.36 0.8ft
Bffeeti ve Gr-see 20 B 11 18 20 B 11 lB
Move Tillle -see 22 10 13 lB 22 10 13 lB
Min/ped Time-.ec 22 S 21 S 22 S 21 S
prog Pactor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -see B 2. 14 . 11 lS 13 ..
Level of Service B+ D+ B- B+ B- B- B- D+
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 2 3 2 1 . 1 2 3
Veh Stopping , 70 .. B' 70 BS B' BS "
Do Veh Clear ? YRS YBS YBS YRS YBS YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (liIec) . 13 Level of Service _ B-
Critical Move1D.ents Weighted Av Delay (see) - 14 LeVel of Service _ B- f
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.7' L
Required cycle Length ie 50 seconds (All Mini1:ll.ulll times are satisfied)
.. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual L
r
I
r
1/V
I
I
CAPas I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A StOOLS SIGNALIZBO INrBRSBC'1'ION ...
01-27-91
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING R8QUIRBO CYCLB TINS
I
C Street _ 2nd Street
P.M Peak Hour
PLN:A: 1850-4
Scenario ..
I
I
Movement BBT BBL BBR SBT BBL SBR t1BT t1BL t1BR t1BT t1BL NBR
Phase 1 11 sees X X
Phase 2 22 sees X X X X
Phaee 3 5 secs X X
Phase 4 - 14 sees X X X X X X
Phase 5 0 sees
Phase . 0 8.e8
Critical Mvm.t-** **** **** ****
Peak 15 Vol -vph 737 230 61 280 85 188 1594 .. 10 255 2.. 50
Saturation -vph 5400 1700 Shrd 3600 1000 Shrd 5400 1700 Shrd 3600 '00 shrd
Lost time ~sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.38 0.78 0.56 0.23 0.77 0.34 0.37 0.90
Bffective Gr-sec 20 . 12 " 20 . 12 "
Move Time -see 22 11 14 " 22 11 14 "
Min/ped Time-see 22 5 21 5 22 5 21 5
prog Factor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -see . 24 14 . 12 15 13 30
Level of Service B+ c- B- B+ B- B- B- D
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 2 3 3 1 5 1 2 3
Veh Stopping . 72 .. 88 .. 88 B8 84 .5
Do Veh Clear ? YB. YB. YB. YB. YB. YB. YB. YB.
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (sec) - 14 Level of Service _ B-
Crit.ical Movement.s Weight.ed Av Delay (sec) - ,. Level of Service _ c+
Intersection capacity Utilizat.ion (leu) - 0.82
Required cycle Lengt.h i. 52 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* CAPSS! (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
~
't'f,
I
G Street . 2nd Stnet
Move_nt
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase , -
10 .ecs
22 secs
5 .ece
13 secs
o secs
o sece
Critical KYat...
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation .vph
Lost time -sec
Relative Sat 'X'
sffective Gr-S8C
Move Time -sec
Kin/Pod Tim..sec
Pros Pactor PAP
AvOelay/veh -sec
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNT8RTAINtlBN'l' CSNTBR
2002 FUTURB WITH PROJECT TRAFPIC
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
BaT
BBL
X
BBR
x
x
....
763
SolDO
2.00
23.
1700
2.00
61
Shrd
0.38 0.85
2. ,
22 10
22 ,
1.00 1.00
, 3.
B+ 0+
2 3
71 "
YBS YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
saT
saL
saR
x
P.M Peak Hour
tiBT
tiBL
X
01-27-97
PLN:A:18S0-4
Scenario 5
tiBR
X
,.
Shrd
tiBT
X
255
J600
2.00
0.39
11
13
21
1.00
13
a-
2
OS
YSS
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 14 Level of Service _ B-
Weighted Av Delay (..c) _ 16 Level of Service _ C+
Intersection capacity Utilization (ICU) _ 0.83
X
X
X
X
'*.'*.
1611
5400
2.00
0.75
2.
22
22
1.00
11
a-
s
,.
YSS
..
1700
2.00
0.36
,
1.
,
1.00
"
a-
1
,.
ns
Required cycle Length is so aeconds (All Minimum times are eatiefied)
2'.
3600
2.00
0.59
11
13
21
1.00
14
a-
3
..
YBS
IS
1000
0.00
0.24
11
18
,
1.00
.
1..
Shrd
'* CARSal (Rel.ase 11) . Baaed on Delay Methodology Per 1'85 Highway capaeity Manual
a+
1
7.
YBS
~ '.7.~
NBL NBR
X
X
X
..--
...
...
0.00
0.91
18
18
5
1.00
32
D
3
..
YBS
S.
Shrd
,
,
L
L
r
,
I
I
I ENGINEERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
"F" STREET @ 4TH STREET
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
B 25
CAPSSI
COMPR8HBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A 8INGLB SIGNALIZ8D INTBRS8CTION .
01-22-97
MBTROPOLITAN IINTBRTAINMBNr C8NT8R, SAN B
1'" BXISTINQ TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQtTIRBO CYCLS TINS
P Street . 4th Street
PLN;A: 1850-5
P." Peak Hour
Scenario 1
Movelllent B8T 88L 88R S8T S8L SSR weT weL weR NeT NeL NeR
Phase 1 0 seclI X X
phase 2 23 lIecs X X X X X X
PhaBe 3 22 secs X X X X X X
Phase 4 0 s.cs
Phase . - 0 ..ce
Phae. 6 0 secs
Critical Mv1D.t-.. .... ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph 142 62 2. .. 42 226 562 29 2. 148 .. ..
Saturation -vph 3600 700 1800 3600 1200 Shrd 3600 1200 1800 1800 1000 Shrd
Lost time -see 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.08 0.17 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.05 0.03 0.21 0.18
Bffective Gr.eec 21 2J 21 20 22 21 23 21 20 22
Move Tillle -see 23 23 23 22 22 23 23 23 22 22
Min/Ped Time-see 18 . 18 22 . 1. . 18 22 .
Pro; Pactor PAP 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVDehy/veh -aec . . . 6 . 6 4 . 6 .
Level of Service 8+ A A 8+ A 8+ A A 8+ A
Av. 'Q' / lane voh 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1
Veh Stopping . .6 '4 '4 n 53 .3 SO 54 " 56
Do Veh Clear ? YBS YBS ns ns YBS YBS YBS YBS ns YBS
Whole Intereection Weighted Av Delay (see) - 6 Level of Service _ 8+
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (secl . . LeVel of Service _ 8+
Intersection capacity Utilization (Ictn ,
- 0.30 L.
Required cycle Length h 45 seconds (All Minilllum times are satiefiedl
L
.. CAPSSI (Release 11) - aased on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
8
n. r.
~O
I
I
I
I
CAP S B I
COMPRBHBNSrvB ANALysts PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNI'BRTAINMBNT CBNTBR. SAN B
1999 BACKGROUND TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
P Street. . 4th Street P. M Peak. Hour
I
Movem.ent
I
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phaee J
Phase "
Phase 5
Phase 6
o ascs
o aecs
o lIecs
24 Becs
22 aecs
o sees
I
BBT
x
BBL
X
X
critical Mvmt-**
I
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -aee
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-sec
I
I
Move Tim.. -see
Kin/Ped Time-see
Prog Pactor PAP
AVDelayjveh -E1e1C
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping "
Do Veh Clear ?
I
I
I
172
3600
2.00
0.10
22
2.
1B
1.00
5
A
1
55
YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see).. 6 Level of Service.. B+
Weighted Av Delay (see).. 6 Level of service.. B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (IOU) .. 0.32
I
'5
700
0.00
O.lB
2.
2.
5
1.00
.
A
o
53
YBS
01-22-97
PLN:A:1850-S
Scenario 2
BBR
NBR
X
2.
IBOO
2.00
0.03
22
2.
18
1.00
5
A
o
53
YBS
SBT
BBL
BBR
MBT
X
....
.08
3600
2.00
0.35
22
2.
18
1.00
.
B+
2
G3
YBS
MBL
X
X
31
1200
0.00
0.05
2'
2.
5
1..00
.
A
o
..
YBS
MBR
X
NBT
NBL
X
X
X
2'
1800
2.00
0.03
22
2.
18
1.00
5
A
o
53
YBS
X
X
X
.,
3600
2.00
0.21
20
22
22
1.00
.
B+
'7
1200
0.00
O.OB
22
22
5
1.00
5
A
....
15.
1800
2.00
0.28
20
22
22
1.00
.
OJ
1000
0.00
0.19
22
22
5
1.00
5
..
Bhrd
235
Shrd
B+
B+
1
.2
YBS
o
5.
YBS
2
..
YB'
1
58
YBS
Required Cycle Length is 46 seconds (All Minimu~ times are satisfied)
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
I
8
') ''I
"" ,
CAPSSI 01.27.97
CONPRBKBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBN'l' CBNTBR. SAN B
19" P"UTURB TRAPPIC W1:TK MBC PROJBcr
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD <::YCLI TINB
PLN:A:1850.5
P Street . 4th Street P.N Peak Hour Scenario 3
Movement BBT BBL BBR SBT SBL SBR NBT NBL NBR NBT NBL NBR
phase 1 0 lIeCII X X
phase 2 2. seca X X X X X X
Phase 3 22 secs X X X X X X
Phase . - 0 aecs
Phase . - 0 s.ca
Phaa. . 0 aeca
critical MVlDt... .... ....
P.ak 15 Vol -vph 172 7. 2. 02 .. 243 ... n .. i.. 93 58
Saturation -vph 3600 .00 1800 3600 1200 Shrd 3600 1200 1800 1800 1000 Shrd
Lost tima -aee 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.10 0.24 O.OJ 0.22 0.12 0.37 0.05 0.06 0.30 0.20
Bffeeti ve Gr-aec 2. 2. 2' 20 22 2. 2. 2. 20 22
Move Time -aec 2. 2. 2. 22 22 26 2. 2. 22 22
Min/pad Time-aee ,. 5 18 22 . 18 . 18 22 5
Preg Paetor OAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvOehy/veh .sec . . . 7 . . . . 7 .
Level of Serviee A A A B+ B+ B+ A A B+ B+
Av. 'Q' I lane veh 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1
Veh Stopping . 53 5> " 64 57 51 .7 52 .7 .0
Do Veh Clear ? YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) - . Level of Serviee . B+
Critical Movementa Weighted Av Delay (see) . . Level of Service . B+ r
" Intersection Capacity Utiliziltion (ICU) - 0.34 I
>-
Required cycle Length is 48 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
L
. CAPSSI (Rolease 11) - Baaed on Dolay Mothodology Per 1'85 Highway Capacity Manual
~ 'Z-6
I
I
I
I
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLS SIGNALtZBD INTBRSBCTION *
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR. SAN B
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
I
P Street. 4th Street P. M Peak Hour
Movement
I
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase "
Phaae 5 -
phase 6
o secs
25 sees
22 seC8
o secs
o Bees
o sees
I
RRT
x
BBL
X
X
BBR
X
I
Critical Mvmt-**
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -see
Relative Sat 'X'
Rffective Gr-sec
Move Time -see
Nin/Ped Time-see
Pros Pactor PAP
AVDelay/veh -see
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh St-opping \:
00 Veh clear ?
I
I
I
I
20.
3600
2.00
0.12
23
25
18
1.00
5
A
1
5.
YRS
..
'00
0.00
0.21
25
25
5
1.00
.
A
o
53
YRS
27
1800
2.00
0.03
23
25
18
1.00
5
A
o
52
YRS
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 6 Level of Service. B+
Weighted Av Delay (see). 6 Level of Service ~ B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.34
I
SBT
SBL
BBR
01-22-97
PLN:A:1850-5
Scenario 4
NBT
NBR
X
*..,**
'"
3600
2.00
0.38
23
25
1.
1.00
.
B+
2
.3
YES
NBL
X
X
32
1100
0.00
0.05
25
25
5
1.00
.
A
o
..
YES
NBR
X
31
1800
2.00
0.04
23
25
10
1.00
5
A
o
52
YBS
NOT
NOL
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
3600
2.00
0.23
20
22
22
1.00
7
B+
1
..
YBS
50
1100
0.00
0.10
22
22
5
1.00
5
B+
o
5.
YES
2..
shrd
*..,..,*
163
1800
2.00
0.31
20
22
22
1.00
7
B+
2
..
YBS
'B
1000
0.00
0.21
22
22
5
1.00
.
B+
1
5.
YES
72
Shrd
Required cycle Length is 47 seconds (A11 Minimum times are satisfied)
I
.., CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
B
29
P Street . 4th Street
Movelllent
Phase 1
Phaee 2
Phase 3
Phaee 4
Phase 5
Pha.. ,
o sees
27 sece
22 sece
o sees
o s.c.
o .ecs
critical Mvmt-.-
P.ak 15 Vol
Saturation
Lost. ti.e
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-.ec
Move Time -see
Min/Ped Time-see
Preg Pactor PAP
AvOelay/veh -see
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping "
Do Veh clear ?
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PeR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MSTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINJIIIBNT CBNTBR, SAN B
2002 PUTURB HITH PROJBcr TRAPPIC
SOLUTION USING R8QUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
-vph
-vph
-see
IBT
x
2..
3600
2.00
0.11
25
27
18
1.00
5
A
1
52
YES
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
BBt
X
X
11
...
0.00
0.25
27
27
5
1.00
.
A
.
52
YES
IBR
X
27
1800
2.00
0.03
25
27
1.
1.00
5
A
.
5.
YES
saT
SBt
saR
P.M Peak Hour
NBT
X
-_.*
710
3600
2.00
O.H
25
27
1.
1.00
.
a>
2
61
YES
NBt
X
X
32
1100
0.00
0.05
27
27
5
1.00
.
A
.
..
YES
01-27-97
PLN:A:1850~5
Scenario 5
NBR
X
57
1800
2.00
0.010
25
27
18
1.00
5
A
.
51
YES
NBT NBL
X X
-..-
163
1800
2.00
0.32
2.
22
22
1.00
.
a>
2
..
YES
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 6 Level of Service _ B+
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 6 Level of Service _ 8+
Int.ersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) _ 0.36
X
X
X
Required cycle Length i. 49 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
"
3600
2.00
0.24
2.
22
22
1.00
7
a>
1
..
YBS
67
1100
0.00
0.14
22
22
5
1.00
.
a>
1
5.
YBS
257
Shrd
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Met.hodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
~ 70
NOR
X
lu
..
1000
0.00
0.22
22
22
5
1.00
.
S>
1
61
YES
72
shrd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R 5
"E" STREET @ 6TH STREET
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
8
r) ~
v....
B Street . 6th Street
CAPSSI
CONPR.BHBNStVS ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A StNGLB SIGNALtzBD INTBRSBCTION
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAIHM8NT CBNTBR
1"7 BXISTING TRAPPIC CONDIT70NS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINB
P.N Peak Hour
01-22-97
PLN:A:1850~6
scenario 1
Move_nt
NBR
Phaae 1
Ph"'lIe 2
Phase 3
Ph....e "
Ph... 5
Pba.. 6
21 .ec.
5"" liIecs
o eece
o eece
o .ece
o .ece
Critical Mvat-.. ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
LoBt time -..c
Relativ. Sat 'X'
affective Gr-..c
Mov. Time -sec
Min/Ped Time-sec
Prog Factor PAP
AvDelay/veh -sec
Level of Service
AV.'Q'f lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
BBT
X
BBL
X
BBR
X
25.
3600
2.00
0.35
U
21
21
1.00
18
c+
2
.2
YRS
3.
1200
0.00
0.10
21
21
5
1.00
15
C+
1
74
YRS
62
Shrd
Whole Intersection
Critical Movementa
SBT
X
322
1800
2.00
0.26
52
5.
U
1.00
3
A
2
37
YRS
SOL
X
..
800
0.00
0.05
54
54
5
1.00
2
A
o
..
YBS
SBR
X
28
1800
2.00
0.02
52
54
U
1.00
3
A
o
31
YBS
NBT
X
146
3600
2.00
0.16
U
21
21
1.00
17
C+
1
7.
YBS
NBL
X
..
1000
0.00
0.25
21
21
5
1.00
1.
c+
1
77
YBS
NBR
X
NBT
X
NBL
X
X
....
514
1000
2.00
0.78
52
54
U
1.00
10
B+
3
.7
YOS
Weighted Av Del...y (see) _ 11 Level of Service. B-
Weighted Av Delay (.ec) . 13 Level of Service. D-
Inter.ection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 0.67
32
1800
2.00
0.07
U
21
21
1.00
15
C+
o
7.
YBS
12
shrd
15
Shrd
Raquired cycle Length is 75 seconds (All Minimum time. are .at!_fied)
... CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1'85 Highway Capacity Manual
8
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAP S S I
COMI?RBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLE 8IGNALIZIID INTBRSBCTION .,
01~22-'7
MBTROPOLITAN BN'l'BRTAINMBN'l' CBNTBR
19" BACKGROUND TRAFPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIM8
B Stre.t . 6th Btreet
PLH:A: 1850-6
Scenario 2
P.M Peak Hour
Move.ent BBT BBL BBR SBT SBL SBR weT weL weR NBT NBL NBR
phase 1 21 lIee8 X X X X X X
Phase 2 .. sees X X X X X X
Phase 3 0 sees
phase . 0 uecs
phase 5 - 0 sees
phase . 0 secs
Critical MV1a.t-** .... ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph 2.. 35 .8 335 27 .. 152 72 33 58' 13 15
Saturation -vph 3600 1200 shrd 1800 '00 1800 3600 1000 1800 1000 Bhrd Shrd
Lost time -see 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.44 0.13 0.25 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.31 0.09 0.83
Bffecti ve Gr- see 1> 21 .7 .. ., 1> 21 " .,
Move Time -Bee 21 21 .. .. .. 21 21 21 ..
Kin/Ped Time-see 21 5 1> 5 1> 21 5 21 "
Prog Pactor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVDelay/veh -see 2. 21 3 2 2 22 22 22 11
Level of Service c- c- A A A c- C- C- B-
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh 3 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 .
Veh Stopping . 8' " 31 2. 2. 82 83 80 .,
Do Veh Clear ? YBS YBS YES YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 14 Level of Service _ B-
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 16 Level of Service. c+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (leu) _ 0.74
Required cycle Length is 90 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
* CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual
B
33
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
01-27-97
MB'l'ROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
19" PUTURB TRAFFIC WITH MBC: PROJECT
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
B Street . 6th Street
P.M Peak Hour
PLH:A:1850-6
Scenario J
Movement BBT BBL BBR BBT SBL SBR N8T N8L N8R IIBT IIBL IIBR
phase 1 21 sees X X X X X X
Phaue 2 67 secs X X X X X X
Phase 3 0 eecs
Phase . - 0 sees
phase . 0 sees
Phase 6 0 secs
Critical Mvmt-.. .... ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph 26' 35 1<7 36l 27 20 152 72 33 606 13 ,.
Sat.urat.ion -vph 3600 1200 Shrd 1800 700 1800 3600 '00 laOO 1000 shrd shrd
Lost time -see: 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Silt 'X' 0.54 0.12 0.27 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.34 0.08 0.86
sffective Gr- see U 21 6. 67 6. U 21 U 65
Move Time -sec 21 21 .7 67 .7 21 21 21 67
Kin/Ped Time-see 21 5 U 5 U 21 5 21 U
prog Pactor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVDelay/veh -see 24 20 3 2 2 21 21 21 13
Level of Service c- C+ A A A C- C- C- B-
Av. 'Q'/ lone veh . 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 .
Veh Stopping . 8' 78 33 25 27 82 8J 80 71
Do Veh Clear ? YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . " Level of service _ B-
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) . 17 Level of Service _ C+ [
,
Intersection Capacity Utilization (leu) . 0.79 i_-
Required cyc:h Length i. 88 seconds (All Minimum time. are satisfied)
(Rolease 11) Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual L
. CAPSSI -
f? '?<f
I
I
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PaR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSSCI'ION '*
01-22-97
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTRR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
I
PLN:A: 1850-6
Scenario 4
B Street ~ 6th Street
P.M Peak Hour
I
Movement
BBT
X
BBL
X
BBR
X
SBT
SBL
SBR
NBT
X
NBL
NBR
X
NBT
NBL
NBR
Phaee 1
Phase 2
Phaae 3
Phase <(
phaso 5
Phase 6
21 sees
87 sees
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
o sees
o secs
I
o secs
o secs
I
Critical Mvmt-** ****
.***
Peak 15 Vol -vph 285 37
Saturation .vph 3600 1200
Lost time -see 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.57 0.16
73 354
Shrd 1800
2.00
0.25
8S
87
19
20
700
0.00
O.OS
B7
87
S
31
1800
2.00
0.02
BS
87
19
160
3600
2.00
0.25
19
21
21
7<
1000
0.00
0.3'
21
21
S
35 663 14 16
1800 1000 Shrd Shrd
2.00 2.00
0.11 0.88
I
8ffective Gr-sec
Move Time -see
,.
21
21
21
21
S
,.
21
21
BS
B7
19
I
Min/Ped Time-see
Prog Pactor PAP 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -Bee
Level of Service
Av. 'Q'f lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
32
D
28
I
2
A
2
A
2
A
2'
D+
2
B6
YBS
30
28
14
B-
S
6'
YBS
D+
D+
D+
.
.2
YBS
1
B3
ns
2
27
YBS
o
20
YBS
o
22
YBS
2
B7
YBS
1
B'
YBS
I
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 18 Level of service _ c+
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 20 Level of Service _ c.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) _ 0.82
I
Required Cycle Length is 108 seconds (All Minim.um times are satisfied)
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1'85 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
B
f'\ ~.
V~
I
CAPSSI 01-27-97
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
lOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBO INTBRSBCTION .
MSTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNl' CBNTBR
2002 PU'l'UIlB WITH PROJICT TRAPPIC
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
PLN:A: 1850.6
B Stre.t . 6th Street P.M Peak Hour Scenario 5
Movement BBT BBL BBR SBT SBL SBR waT waL waR NBT NBL NOR
phase 1 21 secs X X X X X X
Phase 2 .. aecs X X X X X X
Phase 3 0 seCD
Phase . 0 aeea
Phaae 5 - 0 aees
Phase . 0 a.ea
cd tical Mvlat-.. .... ....
Peak 15 Vol -vph 2.5 37 152 3BO " 31 "0 7. 35 '.0 14 16
Saturation -vph 3600 1200 Shrd 1800 '00 1800 3600 .00 1800 1000 shrd Shrd
Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.67 0.15 0.27 0.06 0.02 0.25 0.42 0.11 0.91
Effective Gr-sec 19 21 82 .. B2 19 21 19 82
Move Tillle -see 21 21 .. .. .. 21 21 21 ..
Min/Pod Ti.e-sec 21 5 19 5 19 21 5 21 19
prag Pilctor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/voh .aec 31 2. 2 2 2 2. " 27 17
Level of Service D D. A A A 1>+ D. D. C.
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 5 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 5
Veh Stopping . .3 83 2. 21 22 .. .7 B' 7.
Do Veh Clear ? YBS YBS YBS YES YBS YES YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . 19 Level of Service _ c.
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (sec) . 23 Level of Service . c-
Intersection capacity Utilization (ICU) 0.86 ,-
Required cycle Length is 105 seconds (All MinilllU1ll times are satisfied)
(Release - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual L
.. CAPSSI 11)
i
I
t> '7(0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
"E" STREET @ 5TH STREET
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
8
'1 i"1
vI
B Street . 5th Street
Movement
Phase 1 20 secs
Phaee 2 - 56 sees
Phaee 3 - 0 secs
Phase 4 0 s.cs
Phaee 5
Phase 6
o sec.
o .ecs
Critical Mv.t-..
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -eec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-sec
Move Time -lIec
Min/Ped Time-eec
Pros Pactor PAP
AvOelay/veh -sec
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping "
Do Veh Clear ?
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PeR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION ..
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAXNMBNT CBNTBR
1997 BXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMa
BBT
X
BBL
X
BBR
X
SBT
SBL
X
X
.....
.12
3600
2.00
0.60
18
20
20
1.00
20
C-
.
B'
ns
..
700
0.00
0.48
20
20
5
1.00
19
C+
1
..
YSS
J8
Shrd
...
BOO
2.00
0.93
5'
5.
20
1.00
23
C-
.
as
ns
5.
Shrd
Whole Intersection
Critical Movemente
SBR
X
19
1800
2.00
0.01
5'
5.
20
1.00
2
A
o
2.
YBS
P." Peak Hour
WBT
X
*.**
592
3600
2.00
0.76
18
20
20
1.00
23
C-
5
93
ns
WBL
X
WBR
X
01-22-97
PLN:A:1850-'
Scenario 1
NBT
X
...
.00
2.00
0.77
5.
5.
20
1.00
.
B+
3
..
ns
Weighted Av Delay (.ec) _ 18 Level of Service _ C+
weighted Av Delay (see) _ 23 Level of Service _ C-
Intersection Capacity Utilization (rcu) _ 0.88
77
aoo
0.00
0.37
20
20
5
1.00
18
C+
1
82
YBS
5.
Shrd
Required cycle Length i. 76 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
... CAPSSI (Release 11) - B..ed on Celay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
B
38
NBL NBR
X X
..
shrd
.2
1800
2.00
0.07
5.
5.
20
1.00
3
A
1
31
YSS
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB BIGNALIZBD INTBRBBCTION '*
01-22-97
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTRR
1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
B Street. C 5th Street
PLN:A: 1850.7
Scenario 2
P.M Peak. Hour
Movement BBT BBL BBR BBT BBL BBR NBT NBL NBR NBT NBL NBR
Phase 1 26 sees X X X X X X
Phase 2 57 sees X X X X X X
Phase 3 0 sees
Phase . 0 sees
Phase 5 0 sees
Phase 6 0 sees
Crit.ical Mvmt-** **** ....-
Peak 15 Vol -vph 563 92 .0 '" 51 20 830 80 110 .62 51 95
Saturation -vph 3600 '00 Bhrd 800 Bhrd 1800 3600 700 Bhrd 800 Bhrd 1800
Lost time -see 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.58 0.73 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.36 0.97 0.08
Bffective Gr-sec 2. 26 55 55 2. 26 55 55
Move Time -see 26 26 57 57 26 2' 57 57
Kin/Ped Time-see 20 5 20 20 20 5 20 20
Prog Factor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -Bee 20 32 53 . 2. 17 33 .
Level of Service c+ D B A D+ C+ D A
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 5 1 6 0 . 1 5 1
Veh Stopping , .5 .. 100 3. .. 7. .. 36
Do Veh Clear ? YRB YBS NO YBS YBS YBS NO YBS
>>>> Intersection Unstable <<<<
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . 31 Level of service . D
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) . 3. Level of Service . D-
Intersection Capacity Utilization (leu) 1.00
Required cycle Length is .3 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
. CAPSS! (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
8
39
B Street . 5th Street
CAPSSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION '*
MBTROPOLITAN BN'rBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
1'" PUTURB TRAPPle WITH HBe PROJBCT
SOLUTION USING RBQUlRBD CYCLB TIMB
P.M Peu Hour
01-27-"
PLH:A: 1850-7
Scenario 3
1'> 10
1---
I
I
I
CAP S S I
COMI?RBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PeR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION *
01-22-97
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
B Street . 5th Street
P. M Peak. Hour
PLN:A:1850-7
Scenario 4
I
I
MovelDent BBT BBL BBR SBT SBL SBR NBT NBL NBR NBT NBL NBR
phase 1 22 secs X X X X X X
phase 2 3B secs X X X X X X
Phase 3 0 secs
Phase . 0 secs
Phase 5 - 0 secs
Phase . 0 secs
Critical Mvm.t-** **** ****
Peak 15 Vol -vph "B " .2 521 .. 21 1041 B5 157 'BB 53 101
Saturation -vph 3600 300 Shrd BOO Shrd 1800 3600 .00 shrd BOO shrd 1800
Lost time -see 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.59 0.88 1.22 0.02 1.00 0.39 1.13 0.09
Bffective Gr-sec 20 22 36 36 20 22 3. 3.
Move Time -sec 22 22 3B 3B 22 22 3B 3B
Min/ped Time-sec 20 5 20 20 20 5 20 20
Prog Factor PAF 1.00 LOO 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AvDelay/veh -sec 13 .B U. . 35 11 .0 .
Level of service B- B P A D B- P A
Av. 'Q'/ lane veh . 1 . 0 7 1 7 1
Veh Stopping . B3 .4 100 40 100 7. 100 42
Do Veh Clear ? YES YES NO YES NO YES NO YES
>>>> Intersection OVersaturated - Delay Values Not Meaningful! <<<<
Whole Intersection weighted Av Delay (sec) - 57 Level of Service .. E-
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (sec) . 71 Level of Service - P
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 1.14
Required Cycle Length i. '0 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
B
,1 ~
I
CAPSSI
OOMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
PaR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION
01.27-'7
NBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 PUTURB WITH PROJBCT TRAPPIC
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBO CYCLB TINB
PLN:A: 18S0.7
Scenario 5
B Street . Sth Street
P.M Peak Hour
Movement
BBT
X
BBL
X
BBR
X
SBT
SBL
SBR
NBT
X
NBL
X
NBR
X
NBT
NBL
NBR
Phaae 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Ph..e 5
Pha.. 6 -
20 secs
61 .ecs
X
X
X
X
X
X
o .ecs
o secs
o .ecs
o .ec.
,
'..
critical Nvmt-**
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -.ec
Relative Sat 'X'
sffective Gr-sec
Move Time -sec
Min/Ped Time~sec
Prog Factor PAP
AVDelay/veh -sec
Level of Service
Av.'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
****
****
...
3600
2.00
0.92
18
20
20
1.00
35
D
105
300
0.00
1.42
20
20
5
1.00
413
F
5
100
NO
.2
Shrd
521
.00
2.00
1.16
SO
<1
20
1.00
10.
F
.
100
NO
15S
Shrd
34
1800
2.00
0.03
5.
<1
20
1.00
2
A
1058
3600
2.00
1.53
"
20
20
1.00
467
F
2.
100
NO
.5
SOO
0.00
0.57
20
20
5
1.00
2'
C-
1
..
YBS
165
Shrd
...
'00
2.00
0.'3
SO
<1
20
1.00
22
C-
.
..
ns
53
Shrd
101
1800
2.00
0.08
5.
<1
20
1.00
2
A
1
2.
YBS
,
;
,
;
7
..
ns
o
2.
YSS
L
>>>> Intersection Oversaturated - Oelay Values Not Meaningful! <<<<
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (sec) . 208 Level of Service _ P
Weighted Av Delay (aec) . 150 Level of Service _ P
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 1.23
[
Required Cycle Length is 81 seconds (All Minimum. times are satisfied)
L.
* CAPSSI (Release 11) ~ Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
l
f$1z.
L_
r
II
I
I
CAP S S :r
OOMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION *
01-21-97
I
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CaNTER
1'" FUTURB WITH IMPROVBMBNTS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINB
B Street . 5th Street
P. M Peak Hour
FLN:A: 1850-7
Scenario 6
I
Movement BBT BBL BBR BBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR
I Ph.Be 1 20 secs X X X X X X
Phase 2 20 seCB X X X X X X
Phase 3 0 sees
phase 4 0 sees
I phase 5 0 secs
phase 6 - 0 secs
I
I
critical Mvmt-** **** .***
Peak 1S Vol -vph 58. 100 40 491 153 33 847 80 118 462 51 .5
Saturation -vph 3600 400 Shrd 1800 800 Shrd 3600 700 shrd 1800 800 shrd
Lost time -see 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.39 0.50 0.65 0.38 0.60 0.23 0.69 0.13
Bffective Gr-sec 18 20 18 20 18 20 18 20
Hove Time -see 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Hin/Ped Time-sse 20 S 20 5 20 5 20 5
Preg Pactor PAP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVOelay/veh -see 6 7 8 5 7 4 8 4
Level of Service B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ A B+ A
Av. 'Q' I lane veh 2 1 3 1 3 0 3 0
Veh Stopping . 67 67 78 62 75 56 80 53
Do Veh Clear 7 YBS YBS YRS YBS YBS YBS YBS YBS
Whole Intersection Weighted Av Delay (see) . 7 Level of Service '" B+
Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (see) . 7 Level of Service . B+
Intersection capacity Uti li zation (ICU) . 0.64
Required cycle Length is 40 peconde (All Minim.um. ti1l1es are satisfied)
I
I
I
I
I
+ CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1~85 Highway capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
I
f 4"7
B Street . 5th Street
Mevetll.ent
Phaae 1
Phaae 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Ph..e 5
Phase 6
20 8ecs
23 secs
o aecs
o seC8
o aecII
o s.cs
critical ~t-..
Peak 15 Vol .vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -sec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-aec
Move Time -see
Nin/Ped Time-see
Prog Factor PAP
AVOelay/veh -soc
Level of Service
AV.'Q'/ lane voh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVS ANALYSIS PROGRAM
lOR A stNGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 Ptrl'URB WITH IMPROVBMBNTS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
BBT
X
BBL
X
BBR
X
....
...
3600
2.00
0.49
1.
20
20
1.00
7
B.
105
300
0.00
0.75
20
20
5
1.00
21
c-
1
'2
YBS
.2
Shrd
3
73
YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
SBT
X
521
1800
2.00
0.63
21
23
20
1.00
7
15<
BOO
0.00
0.36
23
23
5
1.00
5
A
SBL
SBR
1058
3600
2.00
0.81
18
20
20
1.00
11
B-
.
..
YBS
P.N Peak Hour
WBT
X
WBL
X
.5
.00
0.00
0.30
20
20
5
1.00
.
B.
1
'2
YBS
01.27-97
PLN:A:1850-7
Scenario 7
WBR
X
"5
Shrd
NBT
X
....
...
1800
2.00
0.67
21
2J
20
1.00
.
B.
.
7.
YBS
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 9 Level of Service _ B+
Weighted Av Oelay (see) _ 10 Level of Service _ B+
Intersection capacity Utilization (leu) . 0.71
B.
3
7'
YBS
X
X
Required cycle Length is 43 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
3.
shrd
1
58
YES
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
r 1~
NBL
NBR
X
x
L_
53
.00
0.00
0.12
2J
23
5
1.00
.
A
o
So
YBS
101
Shrd
L
r
c.
r
L
t
L
r
1
t
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
"E" STREET @ 4TH STREET
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
B t15
B Street. 4th Street
Move.ent
Phase 1
Ph.s. 2
o aeca
20 s.c.
Ph..e 3 2 .ecs
Phase 4 - 20 eec.
pha.e 5
Pha.. 6
o seca
o ..cs
Critical MvIII.t-..
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost ti.e -.ec
Relative Sat 'X'
affective Gr-.ec
Move Ti.e -.ee
Min/ped Time-aee
prog 'actor PAP
AvDelay/veh -see
I,e,vel of Service
Av.'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping "
Dc'J Veh clear ?
CAPaSI
COMPUHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINaLB 8IGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
1"7 BXISTING TRAPPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RSQUIRBD CYCLS TIMB
P.M 'eak Hour
01-22-97
PLN:A:18S0-8
Scenario 1
BBT
BBR
BBL
X
X
X
X
U5
3600
2.00
0.14
18
2.
2.
1.00
5
B+
2.
...
0.00
0.05
2.
2.
.
1.00
.
A
.
5.
YBS
73
Bhrd
1
51
YRS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
SBT
SBL
SBR
1IBT
X
....
3.5
3600
2.00
0.25
18
2.
2.
1.00
5
B+
1
5'
YRS
MSL
X
X
15
1100
0.00
0.03
2.
2.
.
1.00
.
A
.
53
YRS
MSR
X
L.-
>lBT
X
X
....
344
1800
2.00
0.40
2.
22
22
1.00
5
B+
2
55
YBS
Weighted Av Delay (see). 6 Level of Service. B+
weighted Av Delay (.ec). 'Level of Service. B+
Inter.ection capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.33
X
X
X
U
1800
2.00
0.02
18
2.
2.
1.00
5
B+
.
5.
YOS
Required cycle Length is 42 second. (All Minimum time. are sati.tied)
412
3600
2.00
0.28
18
2.
22
1.00
5
B+
2.
1000
0.00
O.OS
2.
2.
.
1.00
.
A
. CAPaSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
15
Shrd
1
55
YBS
.
54
YBS
8
46
>lBL
>lBR
X
X
X
X
133
...
0.00
0.28
22
22
3
1.00
.
A
1
55
YRS
11
1800
2.00
0.01
2.
22
22
1.00
.
A
c
.
53
YBS
[
>
L
r
.
I
I
I
I
B Street . 4th Street
I
Movement
I
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase J
Phase ..
Phase 5
phase 6
o secs
o aecs
20 Decs
2 sees
20 sec:s
o sees
I
I
Critical Mvmt...
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -see
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-sec
Move Time -see:
Kin/Ped Time-see
Prog Factor PAP
AvDelayjveh -see:
Level of Service
Av.'Q'1 lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
I
I
I
I
CAPaSI
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION *
MBTROPOLITAN BNrBRTAINMBN'T CBNTBR
19" BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINB
BaT
BaL
x
x
BaR
x
x
17.
3600
2.00
0.16
18
20
20
1.00
6
a+
1
61
YBS
"
'00
0.00
0.05
'0
20
.
1.00
.
A
76
shrd
o
54
YBS
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
weighted Av Delay (see) ~ 6 Level of Service ~ B+
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 6 Level of Service _ B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICV) _ 0.35
I
P.M Peak Hour
01-22-97
PLN:A:1850-8
Scenario 2
saT
saR
NBR
saL
x
x
x
NBT
x
****
..6
3600
2.00
0.28
18
.0
20
1.00
6
a+
1
65
YES
NBL
X
X
NBR
x
NBT
x
x
NBL
x
x
x
x
****
357
1800
2.00
0.42
20
22
22
1.00
6
a+
2
65
YBS
Required cycle Length is 42 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
42'
3600
2.00
0.29
18
20
'2
1.00
6
a+
1
65
YES
28
'00
0.00
0.07
'0
20
.
1.00
5
A
o
54
YBS
15
Shrd
70
1100
0.00
0.13
20
20
.
1.00
5
A
o
56
YBS
14
1800
2.00
0.02
18
20
20
1.00
5
a+
o
58
YBS
* CAPSSI (Rolease 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
I
B
tl'l
13'
...
0.00
0.29
22
2.
3
1..00
4
A
1
56
YBS
8.
1800
2.00
0.10
20
22
'2
1.00
5
A
1
55
YBS
B Street. 4th Street
Move.ene
phaee 1
Phase 2
Phaee 3
Phase "
Phase 5
Ph..e 6
o lIIee8
20 seclII
2 ..c.
20 .eclI
Osee.
o .ec.
Critical Mvat...
Peak 15 Vol -vph
-vph
Saturation
Lose time
Relative Sae 'X'
Bffeetive Gr-lIIee
Move TilDe -.ee
Nin/Ped Time-.ec
prog Pactor PAP
AvOelay/veh -.ee
Level of Service
Av.'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
-sec
CAPSSI
COMPRBRBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD IHTBRSBCTION
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
1'" PUTURB TRAFFIC WITH MBC PROJBCT
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINB
BBT
BBL
X
X
BBR
X
X
17.
3600
2.00
0.17
18
20
20
1.00
.
B+
21
800
0.00
0.06
20
20
.
1.00
.
A
93
Shrd
1
62
YES
o
5.
YSS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
SST
SSL
SBR
P. M Peak Hour
WBT WBL
X
X X
....
...
3600
2.00
0.31
18
20
20
1.00
.
B+
2
..
YR.
103
1100
0.00
0.20
20
20
.
1.00
5
A
1
..
YS'
01-27-'7
FLN:A:18S0-8
Scenario 3
weR
X
14
1800
2.00
0.02
18
20
20
1.00
5
B+
o
..
YR'
weT
X
X
....
357
1800
2.00
0.42
20
22
22
1.00
.
B+
2
..
YS.
Weigheed Av Delay (eec). 6 Level of Service _ B+
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 6 Level of Service _ B+
Inter.ection capacity Utilizaeion (IOU). 0.37
X
X
X
Required cycle Lengeh is 42 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
42.
3600
2.00
0.29
18
20
22
1.00
.
B+
28
'00
0.00
0.07
20
20
.
1.00
5
A
. CAPSSI (Rel.ase 11) - Based on Delay Meehodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
15
Shrd
1
.5
YS'
o
5.
YES
~1g
NBL
NBR
X
X
X
X
155
'00
0.00
0.35
22
22
3
1.00
5
A
1
..
YS'
150
1800
2.00
0.18
20
22
22
1.00
5
A
1
57
YE'
r
,-
i
L
,
!
-
I
I
I
I
B Street . 4th Street
I
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION *
HBTROPOLITAN 8NTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TINS
P." Peak Hour
01-22-91
FLN:A: 1850-8
Scenario 4
Movement.
NBR
I
Phase 1
phase 2
Phase J
Phase 4
Phase 5 -
Phase 6
o sees
20 sees
2 secs
20 seeB
o sees
o sees
I
BBT
BBL
X
X
BBR
X
X
I
Critical Mvmt-**
Peak. 15 Vol -vph 208
Saturation -vph 3600
Lost time -see 2.00
Relative Sat 'X' 0.19
8ffective Gr-sec 18
I
I
Move Time -see
Hin/Ped Time-see
prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -see
Level of service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
I
I
I
20
20
1.00
.
B+
22
.00
0.00
0.06
20
20
4
1.00
5
A
o
54
YBS
'1
Bhrd
1
.2
YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) ~ 6 Level of Service B+
Weighted Av Delay (see) = 6 Level of Service ~ B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . 0.38
I
SBT
SBL
SBR
NBT
X
.......
...
3600
2.00
0.30
1.
20
20
1.00
.
B+
2
..
YB.
WBL
X
X
114
1000
0.00
0.24
20
20
4
J..OO
5
A
1
59
YBS
WBR
X
NBT NBL
X
X
....
22
22
1.00
.
B+
2
..
YBS
Required Cycle Length is 42 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
X
X
X
15 376
1600 1600
2.00 2.00
0.02 0.44
16 20
20
20
1.00
5
B+
o
5.
YBS
I
"., CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
.54
3600
2.00
0.30
l'
20
22
1.00
.
B+
2
..
YBS
31
'00
0.00
0.06
20
20
4
1.00
5
A
o
54
YBS
l'
Bhrd
8
(19
X
X
X
X
147
'00
0.00
0.31
22
22
3
1.00
4
A
1.0
1600
2.00
0.19
20
22
22
1.00
5
A
1
57
YBS
1
57
YBS
B Street . 4th Street
Movement
Phase 1.
Phase 2
Phase J
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
4 secs
16 sees
2 sees
20 sees
o s.es
o sec.
critical Mv1llt-..
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost time -sec
Relative Sat 'X'
affective Gr-s.e
Move Time -see
Min/Ped Time-sec
Pros Factor PAP
AVDelay/veh -sec
Level of Service
Av.'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh Clear ?
CAPSSI
COMPRRHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN 8NTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 PtJTURB WITH PROJBCT TRAFPIC
SOLUTION USING PRBDSTBRMINBD CYCLB TIMBS
BBT
BBL
X
X
BBR
X
X
20B
3600
2.00
0.25
14
16
20
1.00
B
B+
22
BOO
0.00
0.06
20
20
.
1.00
.
A
o
..
YOS
'B
Shrd
1
73
YOS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
SBT
SBL
SB.
P." Peak. Hour
WBT
X
526
3600
2.00
0.44
14
16
20
1.00
B
B+
2
7B
YOS
WBL
X
X
....
147
1000
0.00
0.31
20
20
.
1.00
.
B+
1
61
YSS
01-27-97
PLN:A:1850-8
Scenario 5
WB.
X
,.
1800
2.00
0.03
14
16
20
1.00
7
B+
.
67
YBS
NBT
X
X
....
"B
1800
2.00
0.4.
2.
"
"
1.00
6
B+
2
66
YBS
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 7 Level of Service. B+
Weighted Av Delay (sec) _ 6 Level of Service _ B+
Intersection Capacity Utilization (IOU) . 0.37
X
X
X
Predetermined Cycle Length is 42 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied)
...
3600
2.00
0.30
18
2.
"
1.00
6
B+
31
700
0.00
0.09
2.
2.
.
1.00
.
A
.
SS
YBS
. CAPSSI (Rel.as. 11) - B.sed on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
16
Shrd
2
66
YBS
P 70
NBL
NB.
X
X
X
X
173
.00
0.00
0.37
"
"
3
1.00
.
A
1
"
YBS
"6
1800
2.00
0.26
2.
22
22
1.00
5
B+
1
6.
YSS
L
,
,
L
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R 5
"E" STREET @ 2ND STREET
CAPSSI CALCULATION SHEETS
B ~4
U;.
~ 7~
I
I
I
I
B Street . 2nd Street
I
Movem.ent
I
phase 1
rhase 2
phase J
phase 4
Phase 5
phase 6
o oees
, sees
21 Bees
2 secs
20 oees
o seeB
I
I
Critical Mvmt--.
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
Lost tim.e -see
Relative Sat 'X'
Effective Gr-sec
I
I
Move Time
I
Hin/Ped Tim.e-see
Prog Factor PAP
AVDelayjveh -see
Level of Service
Av.'Q'1 lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do veh clear ?
I
-see
CAPSSI
COMPREHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION .
METROPOLITAN BNTBRTAXNMBtn' CBNTBR
1999 BACKGROUND TRAFPIC CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
BBT
BBL
X
BBR
X
X
360
3600
2.00
0.31
"
21
21
1.00
.
B+
2
72
YBS
172
1700
2.00
0.75
7
.
3
1.00
25
0+
2
96
YBS
47
Shrd
SBT
X
356
3600
2.00
0.29
18
20
22
1,00
.
B+
2
73
YBS
SBL
X
42
700
0.00
D.H
20
20
5
1.00
8
B+
o
65
YBS
SBR
X
207
1800
2.00
0.33
18
20
22
1.00
10
B+
2
74
YBS
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) ~ 12 Level of Service = B-
Weighted Av Delay (see) m 13 Level of Service. B-
Intersection capacity Utilization (leu) ~ 0.69
f7?
P." Peak Hour
waT
waL
X
I
X
........
1125
5400
2.00
0.59
"
21
21
1.00
11
B-
.
B1
YBS
.5
1700
2.00
0.42
7
.
3
1.00
16
C+
1
.2
YBS
01-27-91
FLN:A:1850-9
Scenario 2
waR
X
45
Shrd
waT
X
X
....
523
1800
2.00
0.76
20
22
22
1.00
14
S-
5
87
YBS
Required Cycle Length is 52 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
I
waL
NBR
X
X
X
X
20'
800
0.00
0.62
22
22
5
1.00
11
B-
2
78
YBS
02
1800
2.00
0.13
20
22
22
1.00
8
B+
1
OS
YBS
B S~ree~ . 2nd S~ree~
Mov..en~
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phaae 5
Pha.e 6
10 .ecs
21 sec.
2 alllCS
21 .ecs
o ..C.
o ..c.
Cri~ical Mvm~...
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Sa~ura~ion .vph
Los~ ~i.e -see
Rela~ive Sa~ 'X'
Bffec~ive Gr-eec
Move Time -eec
MintPed Time-eec
Prog Pac~or PAF 1.00
AvOelay/veh -eec 10
Level of Service B.
Av. 'Q' / lane veh 2
Veh Stopping' 73
Do Veh Clear ?
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBO INTBRSBctION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
1"9 FUTURB TRAFPIC WITH MBC PROJBCT
SOLUTION OSING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
BBT
BBL
X
BBR
X
X
360
3600
2.00
0.32
19
21
21
198
1700
2.00
0.79
8
10
3
1.00
27
D+
.,
Bhrd
YBS
3
.6
YBS
Whole Intersec~ion
SBT
X
389
36'00
2.00
0.31
19
21
22
1.00
10
B+
2
73
YBS
BBL
X
42
700
0.00
0.15
21
21
5
1.00
8
B+
o
65
YBS
BBR
X
224
1100
2.00
0.35
19
21
22
1.00
10
B+
2
74
YBS
P.M Peak Hour
WBT
WBL
X
01-27-97
PLN:A:1I50-9
Scenario 3
WBR
X
45
Bhrd
NBT
X
X
....
58.
1800
2.00
0.84
21
23
22
1.00
18
c+
5
"
YBS
Critical Movemen~s
Weighted Av Delay (sec) . 13 Level of Service. B-
Weigh~ed Av Delay (sec). 15 Level of Service. B-
Intersec~ion Capacity Utilization (leu) c 0.74
X
....
1125
5400
2.00
0.62
19
21
21
1.00
11
B-
4
83
YBS
95
1700
2.00
0.38
8
10
3
1.00
16
c+
1
.0
YBS
Required Cycle Length is 54 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
.. CAPSSI (Release 11) . Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
f~
NBL
NaR
X
X
X
X
l
20.
700
92
1800
2.00
0.13
21
23
22
1.00
8
0.00
0.70
23
23
5
1.00
15
B-
2
82
YBS
B+
1
64
YBS
f
l_
L
r
I
I
I
I
I
B Street . 2nd Street
I
CAP S S I
OOMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FOR A SINGLB SIGNALIZBD INTBRSBCTION ...
METROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNl' CBN'l'BR
2002 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMS
P.M Peak Hour
01.27-97
FLN:A:1850~9
Scenario 4
MovolD.ont
NBR
I
phaee 1
Phaso 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phaso 5
Phase 6
11 Beell
21 BOCS
2 seeB
21 soes
o seeo
o socs
I
BBT
BBL
X
BBR
X
X
Critical Mvmt-**
....
I
Peak 15 Vol
Saturation
Lost time
I
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-sBC
Move Time -see
Kin/Pod Time-see
Prog Factor PAP
AVDelay/veh -see
Level of Service
Av.'Q'/ lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh clear ?
I
I
I
-vph
-vph
-see
3.0
3600
2.00
0.35
19
21
21
1.00
10
B-
2
74
YBS
225
1700
2.00
0.81
.
11
3
1.00
2.
D+
3
..
YBS
SO
Shrd
SBT
X
,..
3600
2.00
0.32
19
21
22
1.00
10
B-
2
74
YBS
SBL
X
45
700
0.00
0.17
21
21
5
1.00
.
B+
o
56
YBS
SBR
X
237
1800
2.00
0.36
19
21
22
1.00
11
B-
2
7S
YBS
I
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
Weighted Av Delay (see) _ 14 Level of Service _ B-
Weighted Av Delay (see) ~ 16 Level of Service ~ c+
Intersection Cap.city Utilization (leu) _ 0.77
13%
NBT
WBL
X
I
X
*.*.
1212
5400
2.00
0.68
1>
21
21
1.00
12
B-
4
BS
YBS
101
1700
2.00
0.36
.
11
3
1.00
"
c+
1
B'
YBS
NBR
X
NBT
X
X
NBL
X
X
X
X
....
5.0
1800
2.00
0.84
21
23
22
1.00
18
C+
6
>1
YBS
Required Cycle Length is 55 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied)
SO
Shrd
221
700
0.00
0.75
23
23
5
1.00
18
C+
2
BS
YBS
.,
1800
2.00
0.14
21
23
22
1.00
.
B+
1
55
YBS
.. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway capacity Manual
I
I
I
I
I
B Street . 2nd Street
CAP S S I
COMPRBHBNSIVB ANALYSIS PROGRAM
POR A SINOLB SIGNALtZBD INTBRSBCTION .
MBTROPOLITAN BNTBRTAINMBNT CBNTBR
2002 Ptm1RB WITH PROJECT TRAFPIC
SOLUTION USING RBQUIRBD CYCLB TIMB
01-27-t7
P.M Peak Hour
PLN:A: 1850-'
Scenario 5
Movement
Phaae 1 12 aeca
Phase 2 21 secs
Phase 3 5 secs
Phaso 4 17 aeca
Phase 5
Phaae ,
o aecs
o .ecs
Critical Mvmt-..
Peak 15 Vol -vph
Saturation -vph
LoBt time -sec
Relative Sat 'X'
Bffective Gr-aec
Move Time -.ec
Min/Ped Time-see
Prog Pactor PAP
AvDelay/veh -see
Level of Service
Av. 'Q' / lane veh
Veh Stopping ,
Do Veh clear ?
BBT
BBL
X
BBR
X
X
....
380
3600
2.00
0.35
19
21
21
1.00
10
B-
2
74
YBS
251
1700
2.00
0.81
10
12
3
1.00
27
0+
so
Shrd
3
..
YBS
Whole Intersection
Critical Movements
SBT
X
431
3600
2.00
0.44
15
17
22
1.00
13
B-
2
83
YBS
SBL
X
.5
'00
0.00
0.24
17
17
.
1.00
11
B-
o
7S
YBS
SBR
X
254
1800
2.00
0.S2
15
17
22
1.00
14
B-
3
8.
ns
WBT
NBL WBR
X
WBT
X
X
...
1800
2.00
a."
20
22
22
1.00
37
0-
7
..
NO
Weighted Av Delay (see) . 19 Level of Service. c.
Weighted Av Delay (see) . 18 Level of Service. c.
Intersection capacity Utiiization (leu) . 0.81
X
x
Required cycle Length ia 5S seconds (All Minimum times are satiefied)
....
1212
5400
2.00
0.68
19
21
21
1.00
12
B-
101
1700
2.00
0.33
10
12
3
1.00
15
SO
Shrd
. CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
r 7b
c+
.
8'
ns
1
87
YBS
WBL
NBR
X
X
X
X
....
221
.00
0.00
0.92
22
22
5
1.00
38
0-
2
.5
NO
97
1800
2.00
0.15
20
22
22
1.00
.
B+
1
'7
YBS
L
r
,
l.
b
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
APPENDIX C
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP)
TIA GUIDELINES, 1995 UPDATE
1
I
I)
1
1
I
I
I'
I
I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)
I
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
APPENDIX C
GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORTS
IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
These guidelines describe the key elements
required for preparing Traffic Impact Analysis
Reports (rIA Reports) for the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) in San Bernardino
County. The purpose of these guidelines is to
achieve a comnion approach to preparation of
TIA Reports by all jurisdictions, thereby
reducing inconsistencies and disagreements on
how such studies should be performed.
TIA Reports shall be prepared by local
jurisdictions when local. criteria and thresholds
indicate they are necessary. However, TIA
Reports IIllill be prepared to satisfy CMP
requirements when a proposed change in land
use, development project, or at local discretion,
a group of projects are forecast to equal or
exceed the CMP threshold of 250 two-way peak
hour trips (1,000 for retail uses or projects)
generated, based on trip generation rates
published for the applicable use or uses in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' IIil2
Generation or other CMA-approved data source.
Projects shall not be split to avoid the CMP
requirements. If an additional phase of a project,.
when added to the preceding phases, causes the
sum of the phases to exceed the threshold, the
entire project must be analyzed as' a unit. The
analysis must be conducted when the phases are
anticipated and should not wait for later phases,
even if earlier phases alone would not exceed the
threshold.
Locally determined criteria may be developed
which are more stringent than those identified
above. Individual development projects, parcels,
or proposals in the same geographic vicinity that
can reasonably be combined into a single project
for analysis purposes which meets the threshold
requirements for a TIA Report shall be analyzed
as a single project.
TIA REVIRW
All TIA Reports shall be copied to the CMA. If
a TIA Report is prepared by the local jurisdiction
as stated above, and if the TIA Report determines
that the project would add 80 or more 2-way
peak-hour trips to a CMP arterial within another
jurisdiction or 100 2-way peak-hour trips to a
freeway, that jurisdiction (and Caltrans, if a state
highway) shall be provided a copy of the TIA
Report by the permitting jurisdiction. However,
these criteria are not intended to determine when
a local jurisdiction prepares a TIA Report.
It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to
provide review copies of the TlA Report to the
CMA and to potentially impacted jurisdictions so
that review 'will occur in concert with the
permitting jurisdiction's project review schedule,
and prior to any approval or permitting activity.
The period allotted for review shall be stipulated
by the permitting jurisdiction but shall not be less
than three weeks from the date of mailing of the
report. Should serious technical flaws be
identified in the TIA Report such that the
permitting jurisdiction chooses to recirculate the
C-l
Appendix C
.~.).
.
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 UpdtzJe
TIA Report, the recircl!lated document shall be
reviewed within two weeks of receipt.
)
The reports focus on the potential impacts of land
use decisions on the CMP system. These reports
are used in conjunction with annual modeling for
the CMP system to forecast transportation
deficiencies in San Bernardino County. While
there are unique aspects to many projects, the
approach outlined here can be applied to the vast
majority of projects. The preparer of the report
is responsible for presenting all the relevant
information that would be helpful in making
transportation-related decisions. The guidelines
presented here should be regarded as typical
minimum requirements. They are not a
substitute for exercising good planning and
engineering judgment. LocaI agencies may wish
to include additional requirements for traffic
analysis beyond those for the CMP. Only the
CMP requirements are addressed here; any
requirements added by a jurisdiction apply only
in that jurisdiction, unless otherwise agreed.
Other information relating to the preparation of
a TIA Report may be found in Chapter 4 of the
Congestion Management Program for San
Bernardino County. Preparers of TIA Reports
should consult the CMP for additional detail.
ImolicationS of eMF Review
The authority to make land use decisions rests
with local jurisdictions. A Land
Userrransportation Analysis Program consistent
with the CMP guidelines has. the potential to
influence local land use decisions by requiring
full evaluation and disclosure of impacts to the
regional transportation system, regardless of
jurisdictional boundaries. LocaI jurisdictions are
required to maintain the adopted standards on
the CMP system., so it is essential that local
jurisdictions consider the necessary actions and
>f)'
-<."..
::~:;:.,
'~t;
costs required to mitigate impacts that result from
local land use decisions.
The success of the program relies on consistency
with applicable regional plans, and the
. 'cooperative efforts of local jurisdictions,
CaItrans, and the CMA. If an integration of lllI!d
use decisions and the provision of transportation
facilities is not accomplished as required by the
program, a jurisdiction which fails to mitigate
deficiencies on the CMP system caused by its
land use decisions will face withholding of its
Proposition III gas tax increment funds.
Content of the Traffic ImOOel Analvsi~ Report
mAl
The TIA Report may be contained within other
similar documents (e.g. an EIR prepared under
CEQA), or it may be an independent document.
The intent is to address all CMP concerns
without duplication of other work. In some
jurisdictions, the TIA Report may be prepared by
the developer or developer's consultant. In other
jurisdictions, the TIA Report may be prepared by
the jurisdiction or jurisdiction's consultant. In
either case, it is in the interest of all parties that
the participants fully understand and come to
agreement on the assumptions and methodology
prior to conducting the actual analysis.. This is
particularly important when considering using
assumptions that vary from the norm. The local
jurisdiction may request a meeting with the
developer andlor preparer of the TIA Report to
discuss the methodology prior to the initiation of
.work on ihe analysis. .
(-
,
,
L
i
'-
The following outline and commentary represents
the recommended structure for the TIA Report.
I. Introduction.
C-2
Appendix C
I
I
I)
1
I
I
I
I
I
I)
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)
I.
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
Should set the stage for the analysis, providing
background information necessary for the
unfamiliar reader to understand the magnitude of
the prQject, location of the project, and special
characteristics.
A. . Project, general plan or specific plan
description.
If this is already included in another part of a
more comprehensive document, that is
acceptable. The description must include project
size by land use type, location of project,
approximate location of proposed access points to
the local and regional roadway system, and
movements from adjacent streets allowed into
and out of the project. This should be shown in
a site diagram. Special characteristicS of the site,
such. as unusual daily or seasonal peaking
characteristics or heavy involvement of truck
traffic, should be mentioned.
B. Analysis methodology.
Provide a general description (overview) of the
process used to analyze the project. Analysis
years should be specified and the approach to the
modeling/traffic forecasting process should be
explained. The sources of information should be
identified. The study area and method for level
of service analysis for the various roadway types
should be identified. At a minimum, the study
area must include all freeway links with 100 or
more peak-hour project trips (two-way) and other
CM? roadways with 80 or more peak-hour
project trips (two-way). The study area does not
end with a city boundary. The study area is
defmed by the magnitude of project trips alone.
However, the analysis need not extend more than
five miles beyond the project site, even if there
are more than 80 project trips on an arterial and
100 project trips on a freeway. Within the
defmed study area, all "key intersections," as
listed in the most current CM?, must be
analyzed. Key intersections represent
intersections of CMP roadways plus those
additional intersections recognized by local
jurisdictions to be important to mobility on CM?
roadways may be considered key intersections.
At a minimum, key intersections will . include
signalized intersections operating at LOS' D or
below. The distribution of traffic must be shown
for all roadways on which project trips occur
(except those for internal circulation), whether or
not they are on the CMP network.
The analysis of traffic operations and level of
service is to be provided for the following
conditions and is to include an assessment of
traffic mitigation requirements for project
opening day and future conditions..
1. Existing conditions - conditions, at the
time of TIA preparation, without the
inclusion of the project generated trips.
Existing deficiencies should be
identified, but mitigation analysis is not
required. The existing conditions
analysis must include the full project
impact area as defmecI above.
. 2. Project opening day - the conditions on
the opening day. of the project, first
excluding the project traffic, and then
including the project traffic assuming the
full 'trip generation impact of the site.
The focus of the opening day analysis is
on the access .requirements for the site
and may be limited to the immediate area
surrounding the project.
.3.' Future conditions - the conditions for
two 2010 scenarios: I) excluding the
. project traffic, and 2) including the
project traffic. Full mitigation analysis is
to be performed for future conditions. In
C-3
Appendix C
--I
""J
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
addition, a staging analysis of mitigations
may be required for large projects
constructed over a long. time period.
. The need for a staging analysis will be
determined by the local jurisdiction. .
future network as contained in the
general plan within the study area.
B.
Existing volumes.
)
The' analysis of the project opening day and
future condition shall be based on, at a minimum,
the PM peak-hour of the adjacent street traffic.
An analysis of the AM ~-hour of the adjacent
street traffic is also required for developments
containing residential land uses, and may be
required for other types of development at local
discretion. Analysis may be required for peak-
hours other than the AM and PM peak for some
land uses. This determination will be made by
.the local jurisdiction. The peak traffic generation
hour of the development must also be identified,
and the total vehicle trips during the peak-hour of
the. generator must be estimated. This will
facilitate a decision regarding the need to
evaluate time periods other than the peak-hours
of the adjacent streets.
Existing average weekday daily traffic
(A wnn should be identified for the
CMP links in the study area. Historic
volume growth trends in the study area
should be shown. Consult the local
jurisdiction, Caltrans, and San
Bernardino County for additional
information.
I
C.
Existing levels of service.
Provide a map and brief written
description of the roadway network. The'
number of lanes on free.ways, principal
anerials, and other impacted roadways
should be identified. Signalized
intersections and plans for signalization
should be identified. The existing
number of lanes at key CMP
intersections should be clearly identified
on a graphic or in conjunction with the
level of service analysis output~ Maps of
. the CMP network are available in the
Congestion Management Program
documentation, available from the CMA.
Also describe the relevant ponions of the .
A level of service analysis must be
conducted on all existing segments and
intersections on the CMP network
potentially impacted by the project or
plan (as defmed by the thresholds in
Section IB). Urban segments (Le.,
segments on roadways that are generally
signalized) do not require segment
analysis. Segment requirements can
normally be determined by the analysis
of lane requiremenis at intersections.
Freeway mainline must be analyzed, and'
ramp/weaving ana1ysis may be required
at local discretion, if a ramp or weaving
. problem is anticipated. Chapter 2 of.the
CMl' presents the acceptable LOS
methodologies, based on the 1994
Highway Capacity Manual. Several
. software packages are available for
conducting LOS analysis for signalized
intersections, freeways, and other types
of roadways. The software package and
version used must be identified.
Normally, the existing LOS analysis for
intersections will be run using optimized
signal timing, since the future analysis
will normally need to be run using
r
i
.....
II. Existing conditions.
A. Existing roadway system.
L
.r""
~
C-4
Appendix C
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I)
I
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
optimized timing. Signal timing
optimization should consider pedestrian
safety and signal' coordination
requirements. Minimum times should be
no less than 10 seconds.
Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour
of green (vphg) for each. through lane, 1,800
vphg for each exclusive right turn lane, 1,700
vphg for one exclusive left turn lane, and 3,200
vphg for two exclusive left tum lanes should be
assumed for capacity analysis. The above
saturation flow rates are considered as the
adjusted saturation flow rates, and in no case
shall the adjusted saturation flow rates of the
1994 Highway Capacity Software be allowed to
go lower than the specified saturation flow rates
when field data are not available. However,
there shall be no restriction on minimum
saturation flow rates .if actual saturation flow
rates are available.
Default lost time is two seconds per phase.
Without local data to show otherwise, a peak-
hour factor of between 0.85 and 0.95 may be
assumed. Variations from these values must be
documented and justified. LOS analyses should
be field-verified so that the results are reasonably
consistent with observation and ~rrors in the.
analysis are. more likely tl! be caught. A brief
commentary on existing problem areas must be
included . in this section, bringing existing
problems to the attention of the readers.
The CMP requires that traffic operational
. problems be mitigated to provide LOS E or better
operation. If the local jurisdiction requires
mitigation to a higher LOS, this takes precedence
over the CMP requirements.
D. Related general plan issues.
The relationship to the general plan
should l;>e identified. This section should
provide general background information
from the Traffic Circulation Element of
the General Plan, including plans for the
u1tiinate number of lanes, new roadways
planned for the future, and other
information that provides a context for
how the proposed project interrelates
with the future planned transportation
system.
m.
Future conditions.
A.
Traffic forecasts.
One of the primary products of the TIA
is the comparison of future traffic
conditions with aild without the project.
The primary forecasts will be for the
CMP forecast year (consult the CMA for
the most currently applicable forecast
years - current forecast year is 2010). If
a project is phased over a development
period past the CMP forecast year, a
buildout forecast with year 2010
background traffic' must also be.
provided. There are two components of
the forecast that need to be considered:
background traffic and project traffic.
Acceptable methodologies for these
forecasts are described below:
Project Traffic Forecasts.
Two basic alternatives are available for
forecasting project traffic:
I. Manual method - Generate project
trips using rates from the ITE Trip
Generation report. Distribute and assign
the trips based on the location of the
. 'project relative to the remainder of ~e
C-5
Appendix C
)
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 UpdllJe
urban area and on the type of land use.
Rather than relying on pure judgment to
develop the distribution of project traffic,.
the future year CMF model trip table
should be obtained from SCAG to assist
in making the distribution. The
percentage distribution should be
reasonably related to the location of and
the number of trips generated by zones
surrounding the project. Computer-
assisted trip distribution and assignment
methods may be used as long as they
reasonably represent the travel
characteristics of the area in which the
project is located.
)
2. Use of local model - Create a zone
or zones that represent the project (if not
already contained in the local model).
The CMP model may be used if new
zones are created to represent the project
(it is unlikely that the CMP model will
already have zones small enough to
represent the project). The zone or
zones should include the exact
representation of driveway locations. with
centroid connectors. A forecast of
project traffic may be generated by
conducting a horizon year assignment
without the project and subtracting it.
from a horizon year assignment with the
project. The difference between the two
assignments represents the project traffic.
it.. is important that the driveway.
representations be exact to produce
acceptable turning movement volumes.
Some adjustments to the turning
movement volumes may be needed,
depending on the adequacy of this
representation.
I t should be noted that the above
methodologies may produce different
)
C-6
results, both in the generation of trips
and the distnbution of trips. However,
both methods will have application,
depending on the jurisdiction and on the
type and size of project.
Background Traffic ForeCasts.
Background traffic refers to all traffic
other than the traffic associated with the
project itself. Several alternatives for
forecasting background traffic are:
,
L
1. For opening day analysis - Use
accepted growth rates provided by the
jurisdictions in which the analysis is to
take place. Each jurisdiction's growth
rates should be used for intersections and
segments within that jurisdiction. A
table of growth rates may be obtained
from the jurisdictions and may also be
documented in the annual CMF report.
2. For horizon year - Cities and/or
County should provide background
forecasts or growth factors. Local
models may be used to generate
intersection and segment forecasts
directly.. if a traffic refinement process is
properly applied to maximize the quality
and reasonableness of the forecasts.
Alternatively, the CMP model may be
used to generate growth factors by
subarea, which may be applied to
existing intersection and segment
volumes. Ideally, cities and/or the
County should establish the background
forecasts annually for use by. project
applicants. Project applicants may obtain
the background forecasts from the
city/county without having to produce
new forecasts. This approach is intended
to. minimize conflict and debate over the
r
L
L
r
I
Appendix C
I
I
I)
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I)
- ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)
I
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
forecasts provided, as would occur if
each applicant'developed a completely
new set of background forecasts. Until
the city/county is in a position to produce
these forecasts on a routine basis, they
may wish to use the results of the
background forecasts from prior
acceptable TIA Reports as the basis for
background forecasts for other TIA
Reports. The separate forecasting of
background traffic by each TIA Report
preparer is redundant, will only create
conflict among reports, and should be
avoided by the city/county providing an
acceptable background forecast for use
by all TIA Report preparers. The
availability of such forecaSts should be B.
established before initiating the
preparation of a TIA Report. If the
CMP model is being used as the basis for
the forecast, _ assume that the project is
not included in the CMP model forecast
(unless it can be definitively proven
otherwise). If a local model is being
used, the background traffic will be
derived by subtracting the project traffic
from the forecast where the project is
already represented in the model. Where
the project is not represented in the
model, the background traffic can be
directly derived .from the model (with
appropriate refinement to maintain
quality and reasonableness of the
forecasts).
A Note on Methodology - for General
Plans and Specific Plans:
In the case of analysis of general plan
revisions/updates or specific plans, the
same approach is applied as above.
However;the "project" to be analyzed
consists of the difference in land use
between the previously approved general
plan and the proposed revision to the
general plan. Unless otherwise agreed
by the local jurisdiction, the analysis
must assunie the maximum intensity of
land uses allowed (Le., worst case)- on
the p:i!"cels to which the revision applies.
All new spedfic planS must be analyzed
as a project in total, based on worst case
assumptions. Although general plans
may not identify specific access
locations, the analysis must assume
access locations that are reasonable,
based on the location and size of the
plan.
Traffic added by project, general plan
revision/update, or specific plan.
The methods for generating and
distributing project trips must be
consistent with the appropriate
methodology listed above. The total
number oftrips generated by the project
must be specified by land use. The
source of the trip generation rates must
be _ documented.' Any assumed
reductions in trip generation rates, such
as internal trips, and transit/TDM
reductions must be documented. Pass-by
trips may be allowed only for retail uses
and fast-food restaurants. The pass-by
percentage and methodology of applying
pass-by trips must be consistent with the
estimates and methodology contained in
the ITE Trip Generation report. The
maximum percentage of internal.trips is
10 percent, which must be justified by
having a mixed-use development of
sufficient size. In special cases, larger
reductions may be allowed; but these
must be documented and justified.
Reductions for transit or TDM must be
C-7
Appendix C
)
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
C.
)
D.
)
accompanied by. an explanation of how
the strategies will acroally be
implemented and may require a
monitoring program. Project trips
(inbound and outbound) must be
identified ,on a graphic map for both the
peak hour or hours being srodied.
Industrial uses must also show the
estimated number and distribution of
truck trips for the same hours. The basis
for the generation and distribution of
trips must. be identified.
Transit and TDM considerations.
Transit and travel demand management
strategies are a consideration in many
development projects. Requirements
within each jurisdiction are contained in
the local TDM ordinance, to be adopted
by each local jurisdiction as part of the
CMP requirements. Examples of items
to include are location of transit stops in
relationship to the proposed project,
designation of ridesharing coordinator,
posting of information on transit routes
and ridesharing information, provision of
transit passes, etc..
Traffic forecasts with and without the
project.
Provide a comparison of traffic volumes
with and without the project for the
appropriate peak-hour or hpurs. The
comparison must be provided on a map
showing link volumes by direction. All
eMP anerial links with 80 or more
peak-hour project trips (rwo-way) and
freeway links with 100 or more peak~
hour project trips (two-way) must be
shown. 'The factor to derive a peak-
hour from the three-hour AM peak
C-8
period is 38. The factot to derive a
peak-hour from the four-hour PM peak is
28.
E.
Furore levels of service with and without
project.
Compute levels of service for CMP
segments and intersections based on the
procedures in the 1994 Highway
Capacity Manual and subsequent
modifications, where applicable. Refer
to the procedures adopted in Chapter 2
of the CMP and the assumptions
specified in section II.C of this appendix.
Copies of the volumes, intersection
geometry, capacity analysis worksheets,
and all relevant assumptions must be
included as appendices" to the TIA
Repon. It should be noted that the vlc
ratio and implied level of service that can
be output by travel demand models are
different fi:om the level of service
analysis prescribed in this section. The
capacities used in the model are not
typically the same capacities as used in
the capacity analysis:
L_
F.
Description of projected level of service
problems.
r
I
L
Identify resulting levels of service for
intersections and segments, as
appropriate, on a map for applicable
peak-hours. Describe in the text the
nature of expected level of service
problems. Describe any other impacts
that the project may also have on the
CMP roadway nerwork, panicularly
access requirements.
,
L
f
Appendix C
1
1
I)
1
1
1
1
1
1
I)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 )
I
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 UpdaJe
G. Project contribution to total new volumes
(forecast' minus existing) on analyzed
links.
Compute the ratio of traffic generated by
the proposed. development to the total
new traffic generated between the
existing condition and forecast year for
each analyzed link. The purpose of this
calculation is to identify the proportion
of volume increase that can be attributed
to the proposed project. This will be a
necessary component of any deficiency
plans prepared under the CMP at a later
date. The calculation is to be conducted
on a link basis for all CMP links
analyzed for all applicable peak-hours.
The results may be shown on a map or in
a table.
IV. Project mitigation.
The mitigation of project wpacts is
designed to identify potential level of
service problems and to address them
before they actually occur. This will
also provide a framework for
negotiations between the local
jurisdiction and the project developer.
The CMA will not be involved in these
negotiations U1iIess requested by a local
jurisdiction. Impacts beyond the
boundaries of the jurisdiction must be
identified in the same fashion as impacts
within the jurisdictional boundary.
Impacted local agencies outside the
boundary will be provided an
opportunity for review of the TIA
Report. Negotiations with these outside
jurisdictions and with Caltrans is a
possible outcome, depending on the
magnitude and nature of the impacts.
For the CMP, the mitigations must bring
the roadway into conformance with the
LOS standards established for the CMP.
However, local agencies may require
conformance to higher standards, and
these must be considered in consultation
with the local jurisdiction. Measures to
address local needs that are independent
from the CMP network may be inCluded
in the TIA Report, or may be provided
separately. Consult the local jurisdiction
to determine requirements which may be
beyond the requirements of the CMP.
The information required in this part of
the TIA Report is described below.
A.
Other transportation improvements
already programmed (should be assumed
in forecast).
B.
Roadway improvements needed to
maintain CMP level of service standard.
These should include an evaluation of
intersection turn lanes, signalization,
signal coordination, and' link lane
additions, at a minimum. If a freeway is
involved, lane requirements and ramp
treatments to solve level of service
deficiencies must be examined. Prior
studies on the same sections may be
furnished to the pieparer of the TIA, and
such studies may be referenced if they
do, in fact, provide the necessary
miiigation for the proposed project.
However, the calculation of percentage
of contribution of the project to the
growth in traffic must still be provided
for the appropriate peak-hours, as
described earlier. If the physical or
environmental constraints make
mitigation unlikely in order that the
. contribution may be used to improve
level of service elsewhere on the system.
The point of referencing a previously
C-9
AppeniIix C
- -',
)
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 UpdDJe
conducted study is to avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort on the same sections
of roadway. Copies .of previously
. conducted relevant studies in the area
may be obtained from the local
jurisdictions or the CMA, including any
plans resulting from the annual modeling
runs for the CMF.
C.
Other improvements needed to maintain
the LOS standard.
approximation of project contribution to
the needed improvements. This estimate
is prepared for discussion purposes with
the local jurisdiction and with
neighboring jurisdictions and Caltrans.
It does not imply any legal responsibility
or formula for contributions to
mitigations. If a mitigation is identifiea
as necessary to bring a deficiency into
conformance with the level of service
standard, but physical or environmental
constraints make the improvement
impractical, an equivalent contribution
should be considered to improve the LOS
elsewhere on the system.
L
In some cases, additional transit and
TDM strategies beyond what was in the
original assumptions may be necessary to
provide an adequate mitigation. These
must be described and the method for
implementation must be discussed.
F.
Relationship to other elements.
D.-
Level of service with improvements.
While the measures required to address
air quality problems are not required for
the TIA Report, they may be required as
part of a' CEQA review. The TIA
Report may be integrated with
environmental documents prepared for
CEQA requirements. This is at the
discretion of the loc.al jurisdiction.
)
The level of service with improvements
must be computed and shown- on a map
or table along with the traffic level of
service without improvements. Delay
values, freeway volume/capacity ratios,
or other measures of level of service
must be included in the results (could be
in an appendix) along with the letter
designa.tion.
v.
Conclusions and recommendations.
A.
Summary of proposed mitigations and
costs.
r
L
E. Cost estimates.
The costs of mitigating deficiencies must
be estimated for deficiencies that occur
either within or outside the boundaries of
the jurisdiction. The costs must be
identified separately for each jurisdiction
and for Caltrans roadways. Prior studies
and cost estimates by Caltrans and other
jurisdictions may be referenced. Used
together with the analysis conducted in
Section lIIG, this will provide an.
Provide a summary of the impacts,
proposed mitigations, and the costs of the
- mitigations. A cost estimate for the
proposed mitigations must be included.
Generalized unit costs will be available
from either Caltrans, the local
jurisdiction, or the CMA. The source of
_ the unit cost estimates used must be
specified in the TIA Report.
L
f
B.
Other recommendations.
)
C-IO
Appendix C
1
1
1'-)
1
1
I
1
1
1
I)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 )
1
San Bernardino County- CMP, 1995 Update
List any other recommendations that
should be brought to the attention of the
local jurisdiction, the CMA, or Caltrans.
This may include anticipated problems
beyond the forecast year or on portions
of the network not analyzed.
Summary List of Typical Figures and Tables to
Be Included in a TIA Report:
· Project location and study area (map)
· Project size by land use (table)
· Trips generated by land use for AM and
PM weekday peak-hours of adjacent
street traffic and for daily traffic inbound
and outbound (table) and other applicable
peak-hours
· List of other planned transportation
improvements affecting the project
· Existing intersection and link volumes
and levels of service (map)
· Distribution and assignment of project
trips (map)
· Forecast traffic ~ith.out project and with
project for applicable peak-hours (map
or'table)
· Levels of service without project and
with project (map or table)
· Improvements required to mttlgate
project impacts (map and/or table)
· Ratio of project traffic to new traffic
(new traffic means the difference
between existing and forecast) on
analyzed links (map or table)
· Improvement costs by jurisdiction and
for Callf<tns roadways
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
FOR THE CMP TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Level of Service Analvsis Procedures and
As.omlJ'mtions
Intersections
Methodology- 1994 HCM operational analysis.
Assumptions- Optimized signal timing/phasing
for future signal analysis, unless
assumed to be in a coordinated
system, in which case estimated
actual cycle length is used. The
maximum cycle length for a
single signalized intersection or -
system should normally be 130
seconds.
10 second minimum phase time, _
including change interval.
Average arrivals, unless a
coordinated signal system
dictates otherwise.
Ideal lane width (12 feet).
2 second lost time/phase.
"Required" solution if analysis
by CAPSSI.
Exclusive right turn lane is
assumed to exist if pavement is
wide enough to permit a separate
C-II
Appendix C
.,,)
San Bernardino County .CMP, 1995 Update
right turn, even if it is not
striped.
~:
If Highway Capacity Software is
used, all the factors in the
saturation flow adjusanent
worksheet should be corrected to
1.00.
A full saturation flow rate can be
assumed for an extra lane
provided on the upstream of the
intersection only if this lane also
extends at least 600 ft
downstream of the intersection
(or to the next downstream
intersection) .
Case (ii)
. .
Field saturation flow
rates should be used if
they are available and
any special traffic or
geometric characteristics
should also be taken into
account if known to
affect traffic flow.
,
l
PHF = 0.95 for 2010 analysis.
The lane utilization factor may
also be set at 1.00 when the vlc
ratio for the . lane group
approaches 1. 0, as lanes tend to
be more equally utilized in such
situations.
Freeways
Capacity of 2,200 vehicleslhournane
)
SaruTation Flows
5 % trucks (includes trucks, buses and
RV's)
Case (i)
When field saturation flow rates
and any special intersection
characteristics are not available,
the following adjusted saturation
flow rates are recommended for
analysis.
Peak-hour factor of .98 for congested
areas and .90 - .92 for less congested
areas
Exclusive lhru: 1800 vphgpl
Directional distribution of 55 % and
45 %, if using non-<lirectional volumes
from Caltrans volume book
f
I
l_
Exclusive left: 1700 vphgpl
Design speed of 70 mph
Exclusive-right: 1800 vphgpl
Volumes used from CaltranS' annual
volume book are assumed to be PM
peak-hour. AM peak mainline volumes
assumed as 90% of PM peak, if using
Caltrans volume book
L
Exclusive double left: 1600
vphgpl
I
I
Exclusive triple left: 1500
vphgpl or less
,
,
I
StOD Controlled Intersections
1994 HCM for 2-way stop
)
C-12
Appendix C
I
I
I)
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I)
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)
I
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 UpdaJe
1990 Michael Kyte Method for 4-way
stop (available through Mc Trans,
University of Florida
Two I,ane Hil"hwavs: Chllpter 8 HCM
Terrain -
Mountainous:
Rolling:
grade> 6%
3 - 6% up and
down grades
o - 3% up and
down grades
Flat:
Area Type - Rural
Suburban
% of no passing zone: 60% for mountainous
40 % for rolling
20 % for flat
Volume considered as two way volume
Peak-hour factor depends on two way volume
(Table 8-3 HCM)
% ofRV's ranges from 1 - 5%
Lane widths 10 - 12 ft.
Design speed of 50 - 65 mph, depends upon
specific locations
Multilane' Hil"hwavs: New Chanter 7 HCM
Capacity - 2,200 vph
85th percentile speed
Peak-hour factor
.85 - rural
.87 - .92 suburban
Peak-hour directional volume =.60% of
bidirectional volume
Proiect-Related Assl1lI\ptions
1) Maximum internal' trip percentage is
10% unless higher can be justified
2) Pass by trips - Retail uses and fast
food restaurants only
Use ITE procedures to estimate
percentage
For analysis at entry points into
site, driveway volume is not
reduced (i.e., trip generation
rate is still the same). Rather,
trips are redistributed based on
the assumed prevalent directions
of pass-by trips (see
recommended ITE procedure).
3) ReductionS for transit or TOM are a
maximum of 10% unless higher can be
justified.
Q.futt
1) If a new traffic generating development
project (other than a single family
residential unit) within a federally
designated urbanized area abuts a state
highway or abuts a highway that
intersects a State highway within 500 feet
of that intersection, the local jurisdiction
in which the development occurs must
notify Caltrans and the CMA..
2) . The TIA procedures will be reviewed at
least every six months. Forward
comments to the CMA.
C-13
Appendix C
)
J
.~
San Bernardino County CMP, 1995 Update
3) Industrial uses, must show estimated
number and distribution of truck trips for
peak-hours.
4) Intersections will be considered deficient
if the criti!:lll vlc ratio equals or exceeds
1. O. even if the level of service defined
by the delay value' is below the defined
LOS standard.
5)
All the computer-generated traffic
forecasts. should be refined for use in
TIA Reports to provide the best estimate
of future volumes possible.
L
f
L.-
,
L
r-
I
C-14
Appendix C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
ENGINEERS & PLANNERS . TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 . Costa Mesa. California 92626
Phone: 714 641.1587 . Fax: 714 641-0139
January 9, 1997
Mr. Robert R. Wilts
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
Traffic and Transportation
472 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 9240 I
RE: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT.
METROPOLITAN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
Downtown San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Wms:
Enclosed, you will find the proposed Scope of Work that Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
(LLG) will use in the prepared of a Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Metropolitan Entertainment
Center. The project site is located on the northeast corner of "E" Street and 4th Street in downtown
San Bernardino.
The proposed Scope of Work for this traffic study has formally been approved by Mr. Anwar Wagdy,
City Traffic Engineer, San Bernardino. The scope of work was developed based on discussions at our
meeting of October 31,1996 and subsequent kick-off meeting on January 6,1997, as well as our
review of the current Guidelines for Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) Reports in San Bernardino County.
The proposed Metropolitan Entertainment Center consists of an 80,000:1: square-foot (SF), 4,600 seat,
20 screen theatre, 10,000 SF of specialty retail uses, and 10,000 SF of restaurant space (quality and/or
in-line food court restaurants).
Since the project's trip generation potential is well below the CMP threshold of 1,000 two-way peak
hour trips for retail projects, only a "focused" TIA study will be prepared (not a "CMP TIA"). Table
A summarizes the trip generation potential of the project, assuming in-line/food court restaurants are
developed instead of quality restaurants. Although we do not expect to prepare a "CMP TIN', we
have used the CMP guidelines to define the scope and study area for this project.
Philip M. linseen. P.E. (ReU
Jack M. Greenspan. P.E.
William ^. Law, P.E. {Rel.l
Polul W. Wilkinson. P.E.
lohn P. Kealing, r.E.
David S. Shender, P.E.
c
11:""
tJ
Pasadena - 816 796-2322 . San Diego - 619 299.3090 . Las Vegas - 702 451- t 920 . An lG2WB Company
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Mr. Robert T. Wirts
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTs
January 9, 1997
Page 2
ENGINEERS
Considering the above, the following Scope of Work is proposed:
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Proiect Mobilization
1 ) Work closely with City staff to fonna1ize the work program for the traffic study and confirm in
writing, our approach, methodology, discuss project, identify pertinent traffic issues and concerns.
Resolve the issues ofTIA vs. Focused study with SANBAG.
2)
Meet with Metropolitan Development and members of the project team to discuss project, overall
schedule, and confirm the project development totals and description. Obtain information on
project and discuss assumptions to be used in the traffic study. Obtain the current development site
plan.
· 80,00O:f: square-foot (SF), 4,600 seat, 20 screen theatre;
· 10,000 SF of specialty retail uses; and
· 10,000 SF of restaurant space.
Data Collection and Research
3) Compile and review prior area traffic data and forecasts to include previous staff correspondence,
traffic studies and other relevant area transportation planning documents. Compile information
concerning planned street improvements in the project study area.
4)
Research data at the City Planning Department regarding the status of other projects in the area
which may contribute to the cumulative impacts on the street system in the vicinity of the project
site. We understand that Phase I of the "SuperBlock Project" or the Caltrans Buildings is now
under construction and will be completed by the end of 1997, early 1998. The trips generated by
this project will be included in the traffic analysis. The list of related projects will be approved by
the Public Works Departmentffraffic Engineering.
. Superblock project will be developed in two-three phases:
Phase I - 1998 & 2002
IA) Caltrans District 8 Headquarters: 331,660 SF, 14 levels, wI 3,120 SF garage
storage/auto shop facility.
2A) State Agencies: 201,780 SF, 6-level office tower, 7,820 SF auditorium, and 56,400
SF GLA ofretai! (60,350 SF GSF).
Phase 2 - Year 2010
two commercial office buildings with up to 595,000 SF of office space.
5) Visit the project study area to determine existing conditions with respect to existing development,
street geometries, lane configurations, traffic controls, parking restrictions, etc... on key area
C lfi
I
,-
r
L
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Mr. Robert T. Wirts
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
January 9, 1997
Page 3
ENGINEERS
roadways in the downtown area to verifY our overall understanding of traffic conditions in the area
which might be affected by this project.
City of San Bernardino to provide LLG with existing (street) signal plans, phasing
sequencing/patterns, and timing charts.
6) In conjunction with Task 5, inventory the lane configuration, geometry and intersection control at
the key study intersections that will be evaluated as part of the traffic study.
Traffic Count Pro2ram (OPTIONAL)
7) Obtain existing 1995/1996 traffic count data from the City of San Bernardino. If none is available,
conduct AM and PM peak period manual traffic counts at the following nine (9) key area
intersections between the hours of 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM in support of detailed intersection capacity
analyses. Given the project's trip generation potential during the AM peak hour is minim~I. the
project's potential traffic impacts on the adjacent streets will be evaluated during the PM peak hour
only.
. "E" Street @ 6th Street
· "E" Street @5th Street (CMP Intersection)
· "E" Street @ 4th Street
· "E" Street @2nd Street (CMP Intersection)
. "F' Street @ 4th Street
· "If' Street @6thStreet (CMP Intersection)
· "If' Street @ 5th Street (CMP Intersection)
. "If' Street @4th Street (CMP Intersection)
. "G" Street @ 2nd Street
Based on CMP criteria and discussions with City staff, we expect that the nine (9) intersections
above will require evaluation.
Adjust existing traffic counts conducted on January 7 and 8 to reflect seasonal variations. City of
San Bernardino to provide adjustment factors.
Proiect Evaluation and Miti2ation Analvsis
8) Work closely with the City Staff to prepare a traffic generation forecast for the proposed San
Bernardino Entertainment Center project. The forecast will be prepared for the AM peak hour, PM
peak hour and daily time frames and will be based on trip generation rates/equations using the 5th
Edition, Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or other
published trip generation documents.
. Table A summarizes the trip generation rates, multi-use adjustment factors and forecast
approved for use by the City of San Bernardino.
c
1 ,.,
..I. ,
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Mr. Robert T. Wins
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
January 9, 1997
Page 4
ENGINEERS
Develop estimated trip generation projections for each of the cumulative projects within the project
study area.
· Table B summarizes the trip generation rates, adjustment factors and forecast for the
"Superblock" project, as evaluated in the project's EIR traffic study.
9 ) Work closely with City staff to develop a trip distribution and assignment pattern for the project.
Distribute and assign anticipated project traffic to the adjacent street system based on existing and
anticipated traffic patterns to and from the site, and input from City staff. Distribute and assign
cumulative project traffic.
10) Prepare PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) calculations at the nine (9) key intersections listed in
Task 7 for the following scenarios:
A) 1997: Existing Conditions
B) Existing plus ambient growth (calculated at 2% per year to year 1998 or 1999).
C) Scenario (B) plus related cumulative projects - SuperBlock Phase IA only
D) Scenario (C) plus San Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffic
E) Scenario (D) with mitigation, ifnecessary.
Year 2002
F) Year 2002 ambient traffic (calculated at 2% per year to year 2002).
G) Scenario (F) plus related cumulative projects - SuperBlock Phase I A & 2A
H) Scenario (G) plus San Bernardino Entertainment Center project traffi€
I) Scenario (H) with mitigation, if necessary.
The LOS calculations will be based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HeM) operations/delay [
method using the Comprehensive Analysis Program for Single Signalized Intersections (CAPSSI) ..
software program.
II) Evaluate PM peak hour project-specific impacts of the proposed entertainment center relative to
the background traffic conditions.
i
L
12) Assess the impact of the project based on the peak hour intersection analysis, the City of San
Bernardino requirements andlor San Bernardino County CMP criteria. Based on this assessment,
determine which intersections of the nine (9) study intersections, if any, will require improvements
to mitigate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. These measures may
include intersections andlor signalization improvements, striping modifications or the addition of
auxiliary turning lanes.
Discuss preliminary findings and mitigation measures with City Staff for constructability and
feasibility.
C 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Mr. Robert T. Wirts
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
January 9, 1997
Page 5
ENGINEERS
Traffic Impact Studv Report
13) Prepare a Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report for Metropolitan Development which details all of
the above mentioned items, our analysis, findings and conclusions. The draft report will be suitably
documented with tabular, graphic and appendix materials. Submit copies to the project team for
review.
14) Ifnecessary, update draft report based on project team comments and submit copies to the City of
San Bernardino for review. If necessary, make minor revisions to draft report and submit final
copies to the City of San Bernardino for approval.
Meetin!!: Support
15) In support of project processing, LLG will prepare for and attend a total of two (2) project
coordination meetings with the Client.and/or City of San Bernardino. This proposal allocates nine
(9) hours of participation by a Principal and/or Project Engineer for these meetings.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
If you have any questions regarding this Scope of Work, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
~~.{5~
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer ill
cc: Anwar Wagdy, City of San Bernardino
Dave Gaulton, Pacific Development Services
\'1 \,,~1
~~~. \
O~ ~1jjY
Attachments
JUf~ ~'t1o(l.JV ~ f..iP3r:~ti' ~
~t~\?~~ ~\? r ~~~\I'l\~KV
ftil1- lW ~ f
Approved:
Roberts T. Wuts
San Bernardino Associated Gove=ents
Date:
1850SBAG.DOC
C 19
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE A
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Metropolitan Entertainment Center, Downtown San Bernardino
;il~~~'~i'lIJllit~~:;:j ,;~~lwr~~i;~; "~!fmr~i'~aOlm.'~ "'..-- n____ . \pM!{PEnaOtJ:R!:ll!l!:)j!Jj
;:::;!IN.;Li: :LOUT,:;, t'r.OTAL- :,,"IN,.fjiU "OnT" ~TOl'm
.oIDAILY,,, '~;::.1. ...' :..;
Generation Factors:
. Movie Theatre wlMatinee 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06
(TElSeat)'
. High-Turnover Restaurant 177.87 7.55 7.26 14.81 7.24 5.68 12.92
(TEl 1000 SF)'
. Specialty Retail 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60
cfElLOOO SF)'
Generation Forecast:
-
. 20-Screen Multiplex Theatre 3,450 0 0 0 184 92 276
(4,600 Seats)
. In-Line Restaurant/Food Court 1,780 75 73 148 72 57 129
( 10,000 SF)
. Specialty Retail 400 7 5 12 18 18 36
(10,000 SF)
Total Proiect Trios 5,630 82 78 160 274 167 441
Net Trips After Adjustment for -1.125 - - - ~ -=ll -88
Multi-Use Trios: 20% Reduction' 4,505 82 78 160 219 134 353
January 9. /997
,
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D. C., 1991. Daily trip
generation rate estimated based on PM peak hour trip rate, which assumes PM peak hour traffic is 8% of total daily
traffic [Trip Generation - San Diego Association ofGevernments (SANDAG), May 1995J,
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), February 1995 Update to the 5th
Edition, Washington, D. C., 1995.
Source: Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation - Rates for the San Diego Region - Sam Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) - May, 1995.
Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE), WashingtOn, D.C., 1991, "Multi-
use Developments/Quantifying Capute Rates, page 1-41. To account for multi-use trips or "captured" trips internal to
the site (downtown San Bernardino area), a 20% multi-use reduction was incorporated in the daily and PM peak hour
forecast. Please note that data available in Trip Generation, 5th Edition, specifically in the case for "captured trips"
at multi-use developments allow up to a 24% reduction and are applicable to sites outside of downtown. Because of
Ole very diverse mixture of uses in the Central Business District (CBD) or downtown area, multi-use trips or
"captured trips" Can be expected to be higher. Hence, the use of a 20% reduction in this traffic analysis is considered
conservative and appropriate.
4
C 20
'-
r
I
L
l...
r
r I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N GIN E E R 5
TABLE B
"SUPERBLOCK" PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST'
Metropolitan Entertainment Center, Downtown San Bernardino
"; . !.. . . _ _ , , --:;i~.mJli1J.r1~:-::::j:r:;::~!~il~~~::_":'.:'--::-:-~.~;"::: ";:-i'i'i:;l:r.:.'-'
lPROJECT,DESCRlPTION .,
Generation Factors:
" AMlPEA1010UR ' '.
.' ,IN ...OUT ..TOTAL
. Govemment Office
(TEll 000 SF)
. Retai1ICommerical Uses
(TElIOOO SF)
. Commercial Office
lO00S
25.0
2.00
0.25
2.25
0.89
1.97
2.86
43.8
0.66
0.37
1.03
2.02
2.02
4.04
9.1
1.14
0.14
1.24
0.20
0.96
1.16
Generation Forecast:
Phase I
. IA - Caltrans District 8 HQ 8,370 670 83 753 297 661 958
Offices (334,786 SF)
. I B - State Agencies Offices 5,242 420 52 472 186 414 600
(209,691 SF)
. I B - Specialty Retail 2.470 ---B. -1! ---21!. ---ill ----ill -.ill
(56,400 GLA)
Subtotal Phase 1 Trips 16,082 1,127 156 1,283 597 1,189 1,786
Phase 2
. Two Office Towers 5,403 680 84 764 118 574 692
595,000 SF
Total "Su erblock" Tri s 21,485 1,807 240 2,047 715 1,763 2,478
Existing Uses - Trio Credits
. Police Station (416 Employees)
. Retail Shops (14,300 GLA)
Subtotal - "Tri Credits"
Net "Su erblock" Tri Generation
. With TDM Reduction
January 9,1997
Source: San Bernardino SuperBlock Project EIR Traffic Impact Analysis Report, prepared by Crain & Associated,
dated October 1994,
C 21
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 3
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, California
Prepared For:
MDA-SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATES, LLC
c/o METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
300 Continental Boulevard, Suite 360
E1Segundo,~onlla90245
Prepared By:
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 641-1587
FAX: (714) 641-0139
2-961850-2
February 24, 1997
Prepared By:
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
ENGINEERS & PlANNERS . TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 . Costa Mesa, California 92626
Pllone: 714 &41-1S87 . FaK: 714 &41-0139
February 24, 1997
Mr. Jason Karnrn
MDA-SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATES, LLC
c/o Metropolitan Development
300 Continental Boulevard, Suite 360
El Segundo, California 90245
Subject:
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
Downtown San Bernardino, CA
Dear Mr. Kamm:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Shared Parking Analysis
Report for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center, a planned retail/commercial center, located in
downtown San Bernardino, California. The proposed project consists of an 80,000 SF, 20-screen
multiplex theatre with 4,600 seats, and 20,000 SF of retail/commercial floor area. The parking
evaluation is based on the criteria and guidelines outlined in the City of San Bernardino Department of
Public Works Shared Parking Policy.
Our study investigates the potential parking impacts and requirements associated with the development
of the proposed entertainment center. Parking for the entertainment center will be provided at the
proposed Caltrans Parking Structure, as well as the City District Parking Lots and Parking Structure.
Executive Summary
Briefly, based on the results of our shared parking analysis, a sufficient amount of public parking is
provided in the Central Business District to support the combined parking demand of the proposed San
Bernardino Entertainment Center, and the existing/proposed office uses and retail/commercial
developments included in our study. The proposed project is expected to rely heavily on the use of the
Caltrans parking structure and the Civic Center Parking structure to support its projected weekday
evening and weekend parking needs.
In all, approximately 3,108 off-street parking spaces, within a 1,600 foot mdius of the project site, have
been included in our analysis. To remain conservative, and to present a "worst case" scenario, all on-
street public parking spaces, which total approximately 300 spaces, have been excluded from our
analysis.
Philip M.linSCOll, r.E. IRel.l
lack M. Greenspan, r.E.
WiIliJm A. law, P.E. (RcU
Polul W. Wilkinson. P.E.
lohn P. Kealing. r.E.
David S. Shcndcr, P.[.
Pasadena - 81 8 796-2322 . San Diego. 619 299-3090 . Las Vegas. 702 451.1920 . An lG2WB Company
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
~. JasonlCan1D1
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
February 24, 1997
Page 2
ENGINEERS
The combined weekday peak parking demand for the CBD study area uses, including the project, is
expected to occur during the day and totals 3,022 spaces. Given the majority of the uses included in the
shared parking study area are officelcon1D1ercial businesses, this peak demand can be expected. The
combined weekend peak parking demand, which is forecast to occur during the evening, totals 2,325
spaces.
With a shared parking supply of 3, I 08 spaces, a surplus of 86 spaces and 783 spaces will exist during the
weekday and weekei1d Peak parking demand periods, respectively. . .
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this investigation. Should you have any questions regarding this
analysis, please call us at (714) 641-1587.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOTI, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
~~~
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer ill
cc: David 1. Gaulton, Pacific Development Services
1850SCOV.DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NUMBER
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... I
PROJECf DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ....~..........................:::............~..............:.........:.......... I
. SHARED PARKING STUDY AREA.......................................:......................................................... 3
Central Business District (CBD) Land Uses ............................................................................, 3
Shared Parking Supply............................................................................................................... 6
PARKING ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................:... 10
Code Parking Analysis ..................... ....................................................................................... 10
Shared Parking Analysis (City Policy/Criteria)......................................................................... 12
Shared Parking (ULI Methodology)........................................................................................20
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 23
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NUMBER
A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS ............................................................. A-I
B CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS SHARED PARKING POLICY.................................................... B-1
C ULI SHARED PARKlNGMETHODOLOGY EXCERPTS ................................. C-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
LIST OF EXIllBITS
EXIllBIT DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NUMBER
I VICINITY MAP.......................................................................................................... 2
2 'PROPOSED SITE PLAN.......................::......:....................:....................:.......:...........4
3 DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO ......................................................................... 5
4 PARKING INVENTORY ............................................................................................9
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
I DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICf LAND USES..................................................... 7
2 DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO SHARED PARKING SUPPLy...................... 8
3 CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... II
4 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET ..................................................... 13
5 ZONE I - SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS ............................................................ 16
6 ZONE II & ill - SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS .................................................. 17
7 ZONE IV - SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS ......................................................... 18
8 ZONES I, II, ill & IV - SHARED P ARKIND ANALYSIS
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET ..................................................... 19
9 ULI: WEEKDAY MIXED-USE SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS .......................21
10 ULI: WEEKEND DAY MIXED-USED SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS ........... 22
fa.J~f:, 'I f- 5
owe c- / a F<or J1'Iafl.5
nor 5~'
htd uJeIf. e..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Table 1 presents a summary of the existing/proposed businesses in the CBD of San Bernardino included in
our analysis. Also shown is the parking zone in which they are located. The San Bernardino Entertainment
Center is expected to share parking with these uses.
Shared Parking Supply
Table 2 sllIIllI1iuizesthe ailticipated parking supply thatthe S~ Bernardino Entertainment Center and the
CBD study land uses (included in this shared parking analysis) are expCCted to'utilize. '. AS slioWn,the
downtown parking supply consists of nine parking fields (in four Parking Zones) totaling 3,244 spaces, of
which 78 spaces are designated for haildicapped parking only. .
Parking Zone I consists of 337 existing and proposed parking spaces located at the City District Parking
Lot # I' and the temporary City parking lot at the northwest cOrner of E Street and 5th Street. Zone II
includes parking spaces in the proposed Caltrans parking structure (925 spaces), existing City District
Parking Lots #212A (90 spaces), and the County Law Library lot (39 spaces). Zone ill consists of 166
parking spaces in City District Lot #3. City District Lot #4 (96 spaces) and City Parking Structure-Lot #5
(1581 spaces) make up Zone IV.
However, since 78 spaces are designated for haildicapped use only and 58 spaces are reservedlleased by
individuals and/or existing land uses not included in our analysis, the shared parking supply in our
evaluation is limited to 3, I 08 spaces. Exhibit 4 presents the parking inventory showing the location and
total number of available shared parking spaces per zone.
6
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 1
DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT STUDY LAND USES
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
. ...... ",....
.-,......."....-. ,........
Z()NElLANDUSE
Zone I '.. . . """
San Bernardino CoWlty Department of
Social Services
Concorde Career Center
Zone II
Caltrans District 8 Headquarters
ro osed "Su rblock Pro'eet"
Coun Law Libra
Zone III
San Bernardino County Department of
A ein and Adult Services
Zone IV
Civic Center
. City Hall, Vanir Tower, EDA, SB
Convention & Visitors Bureau, etc...
. Radisson Hotel and
Banquet/Conference Space
. Various Retail Uses
:P~Y~~Q~M~l'I'J.' .....
. TOtALS """L()CATI()N
52,250 SF
SWC of 5th StreetIE Street
44 550 SF
NEC of 4th Street/F Street
334,786 SF
11 250 SF
NEC of 4th Street/E Street
["
NWC of 4th Street/D Street
9,640 SF
NEC of 4th Streel!F Street
258,590 SF
233 rooms
13,000 SF
16,264 SF
Area loeated north of 2nd Street,
south of Court Street, east of E
Street and west of D street.
'-
[
L
I
r
7
I
I
I
I
I
".1.
. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 2
DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO SHARED PARKING SUPPLY
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
.: PARKING.;
".ZONE..:::'"
I
II
III
IV
.LOT::: ".
Dli:SClUPTION
City Parking
Lot #1
DPSS..reserved lot
NWC 5th/E St
Temporary Lot
Subtotal:
Caltrans Pkg
Structure
City Parking Lot
#2&2A
County Law
Library Lot
Subtotal:
City Parking
Lot #3
City Parking
Lot #4
City Parking
Structure - Lot #5
Subtotal:
Total Downtown
Shared Parkin Su I:
. . PARKING
SUPPLY
188 spaces
25 HlC spaces .
12 spaces
3 HlC spaces
115 spaces
4 HlC spaces
3 15 spaces
32 HlC s ces
906 spaces
19 HlC spaces
87 spaces
3 HlC spaces
38 spaces
I HlC space
1,031 spaces
23 HlC s aces
162 spaces
4 HlC spaces
90 spaces
6 HlC
1568 ~l'aces
13 HlC spaces
1,658 spaces
19 HlC s aces
3, 166 spaces
78 HlC s aces
fJa>;/ q /5 00 fIX IUf- rNt-f
.REMARKs .
Proposed parking layout, per site plan prepared by
Stoutenborough, hic., (See Exhibit 2). Per field
review:16 spaces are currently reserved for use by
California Theatre of Performing Arts employees
and not included in analysis. Remaining 172
spaces are included.
Spaces are located at rear of Department of Social
Services building.
Includes 56 spaces reserved for DPSS use during
the week.
30 spaces for visitors & 93 spaces for Caltrans
Fleet reserved during weekday day, 55 spaces
secured/reserved required 24-hrs/7 days week.
24-hour public use.
Designated private during weekday, day time.
Per City, 26 spaces leased by uses not included in
shared parking analysis (Lrgn-14, L&R-3, SNBG-
4, YHKO-5). 136 spaces designated 24-hour
ublic and included in anal sis.
Per City, 16 spaces reservedl1eased by individuals'
and not included in analysis, remaining 74 spaces
designated 24-hour public and included.
All spaces included in analysis. Radisson, EDA,
City, Vanir, etc... parking needs evaluated as part
of study.
3,108 spaces is the parking supply assumed in the
Sharcd Parkin Anal sis.
8
tnaI- t<Ja4 nO!- sc~,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
PARKING ANALYSIS
Analyzing the parking supply-demand relationships for the CBD study land uses in downtown San
Bernardino (within our shared parking study area) as well as the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment
Center involves detennining the parking needs in relationship to the existing and/or future parking supply.
In general, there are two methods which can be used to determine the parking demand. They are: I)
. application of City parking code requirements (which typically treatS each' use as a "stand alone" use at
maximum demand); and'2) analysis of shared parking usage patterns over time (which recognizes that
parking demand for each use varies by time of day and/or day of week).
The criteria and methodology outlined in the City of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Shared
Parking Policy is utilized to forecast the "shared" parking requirements of the proposed entertainment
center and adjacent existing land uses competing for use. of off~street public parking' spaces. The
methodology outlined in the Shared Parking publication prepared by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) is also
used for comparison purposes.
Code Parking Analysis
To determine the number of parking spaces required by "code" to support the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center and adjacent competing retaiVcommercial and office uses, parking demand was first
calculated using the City of San Bernardino Parking Code. The City of San Bernardino specifies the
following off-street parking standards: I space/4 seats for theatres, I spacel35 SF of public seating area,
plus I space/200 SF of all other gross floor area (GFA) for restaurants, I space/350 SF of office space
greater than 40,000 SF, I space/300 SF ofGFA for libraries, 1.1 space per hotel room, plus I space/50 SF
of GFA of main assembly space, 10 spaces for first 2000 SF, plus I space/175 SF over 2000 SF for
medical offices, and I space/200 SF for retaiVcommercial floor area. Appendix A contains a complete list
of the City's Off-Street Parking Standards.
Table 3 presents a summary of the parking requirements of the proposed project and downtown CBD
study businesses using the above parking code ratios. As shown in Table 3, direct application of City code
indicates that a total of 4,393 spaces is required to support existing retail and office uses in the downtown
shared parking study area and the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment Center. Based on this code
calculation and a shared parking supply on, I 08 spaces, the study area is deficient by 1,285 spaces.
The San Bernardino Entertainment Center, alone, requires 1,629 parking spaces based on direct application
of City 0 ff-street parking code requirements.
10
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 3
CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
San Bemanlino Entertainment Center
...............-. .... 'c. .:.., .. ..:dClT'COF SAN .--- ,..-- -- '.. '. .-...
."'..:::'.:.. ............. ....-.......-......
... ..:. o _"",_, __ __ _. .
....................--.....-...........
.....-........... DEVELOPMENT ..:B~~Al.U.HN.O, .PARKiNCH.:"
.....-.,-."'. ..
ZONEILANDUSE ' :.'rOTALS ./ ... .:. ..':,LPARKINCCODE REQUIREMENT
" ...
Zone 1 . c ..
SB Entertainment Center
20-Screen Theatre 4,600 seals I space/4 seals 1,150 spaces
Rcstaurants/Food Court 10,000 SF - seating I spacel35 SF ofpub1ic seating 50 spaces
Outdoor Plaza 10,000 SF - other area, plus I spacel200 SF of GF A 286 spaces
5,000 SF - seating for restaurants 143 soaces
. subtotal: . 1,629 spaces
.
San Bernardino County
Decartment of Social Services 52,250 SF Per specific DPSS carking needs 329 soaces
Concorde Career Center 44,550 SF I scace13 50 SF 127 scaces
Zone 11
Callrans District 8 Headquarters 334,786 SF Per specific Caltrans parking 880 spaces
("Superblock Project") requirements
County Law Library 11,250 SF I soacel300 SF . 38 scaces
Zone 111
San Bernardino County 9,640 SF 10 spaces for the first 2000 SF, 54 spaces
Department of Ageing and plus 1 spacc/175 SF over 2000
Adult Services SF.
Zone IV
Civic Center
. City Hall, Vanir Tower, 258,590 SF 1 space/350 SF 739 spaces
EDA, SB Convention &
Visitors Bureau, etc...
. Radisson Hotel and 233 rooms 1.1 space/room plus 256 spaces
Banquet/Conference Space 13,000 SF I space/50 SF of GF A of 260 spaces
assembly area
. Various Retail Uses 16,264 SF 1 space/200 SF 81 spaces
Total Reauired 4,393 spaces
Total Shared Parkin/! Supply 3,108 SlJaces
Surplus/Deficiencv(+/_) -1,285 spaces
I....
II
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
However, given the local area joint use parking patterns together with the specifics of this site, there is an
opportunity for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project to share spaces with the proposed
Caltrans District 8 Headquarters as well as the Civic Center uses. This is especially true since the majority
of the parking spaces required for the Entertainment CenteI: is for the proposed 20 screen, 4,600 seat
theatre. This shared parking is a specific component of the project's design.
As indicated in the City's Shared Parking Policy guidelines, "It is well understood and acknowledged, that
within th~powntown District, parkers may make many trips for various reasons without moving their
vehicles. Shopping,business,' gove111li1ent tenters; entertainment andpublic facilities are alllocated in close
proximity in this area." Since the majority of the uses in the shared parking study area are complementary
to the entertainment center (office parking peaks during the weekday, while theatre parking peaks on
weekends), the opportunity to share parking is reasonable and rea1istic.
The following section calculates the parking requirements for the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment
Center based on application of the City's Shared Parking Policy guidelines.
Shared Parking Analysis (City Policy/Criteria)
The shared parking analysis for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center is specifically focused on the
combined demand patterns of the proposed theatre/restaurant uses and existing retaiVcommercial office
uses in downtown San Bernardino, as well as parking supply allocation. Experience indicates that
combining different land uses whose parking demands peak at different times generally results in a parking
demand that is significantly lower than the summation of individual peak demand factors or City parking
code requirements for each use.
The shared parking analysis for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project takes into consideration
that the parking demand characteristics for office uses, retaiVcommercial uses, restaurant uses, and the
theatres are different. The parking evaluation is based on the joint -use parking characteristics of existing
office and retaiVcommercial uses in the Downtown Central Business District and the proposed theatre
project. The analysis follows the methodology outlined in the City's Shared Parking Policy. Appendix B
contains the Shared Parking Policy of the City of San Bernardino and provides a detailed explanation of
the shared parking methodology and approach.
Shared Parking Demand Analvsis
Table 4 presents the Area Composite Demand Worksheet recommended for use in the City's Shared
Parking Policy. The top portion ofTable 4 identifies the size of the shared parking study area (1600-foot
radius from site), the total available shared parking spaces, and the number of on-street spaces in our study
area. For this analysis, only the total number of off-street parking spaces available for shared parking use
was considered. On-street parking spaces was not included in our evaluation to remain conservative.
Hence, our shared parking analysis can be considered "worst case".
12
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 4
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Radius from site: 1600 Feet from 4th StreetIE Street
Total Available Spaces in Area (not including on-street): 3,108 spaces ,
Number of On-Street Spaces: 300 spaces (not-included)
Total Square footage building area: 845,330 SF (excluding hotel floor area)
._n ,..-, , - , " ,
.. Use Required Parking , Land Use Description
Theatre: 4,600 Seats 1,150 spaces SBEC, 20 Screen Theatre
Retail: 10,000 SF 50 spaces SBEC FoodIRetaiJ/Non-seating
Food: 15,000 SF 429 spaces SBEC Food Court Seating Area
Commercial: 52,250 SF 329 spaces Dept of Social Services
Commercial: 44,550 SF 127 spaces Concorde Career Center
Office: 334,786 SF 880 spaces Caltrans District 8 HQ
Commercial: 11,250 SF 38 spaces County Law Library
Commercial: 9,640 SF 54 spaces Dept. of Social Services, Ageing
and Adult Services
Office: 258,590 SF 739 spaces Vanir Tower, City Hall, SB EDA
and SB Convention, Visitors, etc.
Hotel: 233 Rooms 256 spaces Radisson Hotel and
13,000 SF 260 spaces Banquet/Conference Facilities
Retail: 16,264 SF 81 spaces Various retail uses
Total parking spaces required: 4,393 spaces
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
Day Evening Nite Day Evening Nite
Theatre 10% 100% 45% 60% 100% 35%
Restaurant/Food Court 50% 100% 5% 100% 100% 5%
Officc Uses 100% 10% 5% 10% 10% .soy.
Concordc Career Ctr. 100% 100% 5% 10% 5% 5%
Caltrans District 8 HQ 100% 10% 6% 10% 6% 6%
Library 100% 40% 5% 100% 15% 5%
Commercial Uses 100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5%
Hotel 75% 100% 80% 75% 100% 80%
Hotel - Conference 100% 100% 5% 100% 100% 5%
Retail Uses 60% 90% 5% 100% 70% 5%
r
I
L
r
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
In the middle of Table 4, a summary of the land uses included in our shared parking analysis, and their
associated parking needs/requirements (as presented previously in Table 3) is shown.
Also included, at the bottom of Table 4, are the percentages of required parking by usage, time of day and
day of week. All percentages utilized were recommended for use in the City's Shared Parking Policy, with
the exception of the percentages for the theatre, Concorde Career Center, Caltrans, library and hotel
conference uses.
... The percentages of peak demand used for Theatre and Library are based on LLG studies, while the hotel
conference is based on ULI studies. Given the Concorde Career Center is open until 9:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, the percentage peak demand for commercial uses were adjusted accordingly. The
percentages of peak demand for the Caltrans District 8 Headquarters were adjusted to reflect their specific
parking needs during the weekday and weekend.
Definitions of weekday, day, evening, and night, as well as weekend are as follow:
Weekday (Mon-Fri)
Weekend (Sat-Sun)
e Day
eEvening
e Night
7:00 AM - 5:30 PM
6:00 PM - Midnight
Midnight - 6:00 AM
8:30 AM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 1 :00 AM
1 :00 AM - 8:30 AM
Per City criteria, no further reductions to the percentages of required parking have been utilized in this
analysis. Although, one can argue that to provide an accurate shared parking assessment, it is necessary to
account for the interactions (synergy) that can be expected to occur between each use in the CBD of San
Bernardino.
Due to the high concentration and close proximity of the office employees to the restaurants and retail use,
a synergy factor can be used. This adjustment is recommended within the ULI Shared Parking
methodology (adjustment for Captive Market) and is comparable to the Standard (WeekdayfDay)
Reductions recommended in the City's Shared Parking Policy.
Further, this phenomena is known to occur when a cinema is located inside or (in this case) within walking
distance of a shopping center (Carousel Mall). A survey conducted by GorovelSlade Associates in June
1989 of cinema patrons revealed that 20% also patronize the shopping center during the midday hours
(12:00 Noon - 3 :00 PM), with about 12%-13% frequenting the mall during the evening hours.
As indicated in the City's guidelines, "(Synergy) Reductions for weekday/day demand may not be used in
addition to the" shared parking demand approach.
Hence, the results of this shared parking analysis, again, can be considered "worst case" and conservative.
14
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Tables 5 through 8 present our forecast of a weekday and weekend parking demand based on the City's
Shared Parking Policy.
Table 5 present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center and adjacent competing office/commercial uses (Department of Social Services and
Concorde Career Center) in Parking Zone I. Table 6 presents that expected parking demand for the
Caltrans District 8 Headquarters, County Law Library and the County Department of Ageing and Adult
Services located in Parking Zone II. -.
-.'
Table 7 presents the parking characteristics of existing uses in the Civic Center, Parking Zone IV, while
Table 8 presents the expected shared parking demand forecast for all the downtown area uses included in
our Shared Parking Analysis, during a weekday and weekend day.
~.-
Zonal Parking Evaluation
As shown in Table 5, the peak day, evening, and night parking demands for the proposed project and the
existing office/commercial uses in Zone I during a "typical" weekday and weekend significantly exceeds the
shared parking supply of299 spaces. This zone, when evaluated alone, will be extremely underparked.
Table 6 indicates that the shared parking supply of 1,167 spaces in Zones II & ill is sufficient enough to
meet the parking demands of the Caltrans District 8 Headquarters, the County Law Library, and the
County Department of Ageing and Adult Services. It is important to note that these two zones are forecast
to have a I,OOO:t space parking surplus during a "typical" weekday evening, and night, and weekend day,
evening, and night.
Similar results can be expected in Zone IV. Review of Table 7 indicates that the weekday and weekend
day, peak day, evening, and night parking demands for the existing uses in the Civic Center can easily be
accommodated by the existing parking supply of 1,642 spaces in City District Lot #4 and the City Parking
Structure.
Area Composite Demand Evaluation
Table 8 presents the shared parking results of an Area Composite Demand analysis. Review of Table 8
indicates that when Zones I, II, ill and IV of downtown San Bernardino are evaluated as one shared
parking zone, the peak parking demands of CBD study area can be accommodated by available shared
parking supply. This supply, which is provided in the City's District Parking Lots, City Parking Structure,
and the proposed Caltrans Structure, total 3,1 08 spaces.
f
L
L
The combined weekday peak use parking demand for the CBD study area uses is expected to occur during
the day and totals 3,022 spaces. The combined weekend peak use parking demand, which is forecast to
occur in the evening, totals 2,325 spaces.
r
15
1
1
1
1
1
I,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 5
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - ZONE I
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
ZONE I Day .. Evening 'Nite "Day Evening 'Nite
Theatre
% of Peak Demand 10% 100% 45% 60% 100% 350/.
Parking Demand
Retail/Non-Seating
% of Peak Demand 50% 100% 5% 100% 100% 50/.
Parking Demand
Food Court Seating
% of Peak Demand 50% 100% 5% 100% 100% 50/.
Parking Demand
DPSS - Offices
% of Peak Demand 10% 5% 10% 5% 50/.
Parking Demand 33 '16 16
CCC - Commercial
% of Peak Demand 100% 100% 5% 10%
Parkin Demand 13
Zonal Parking Demand 811 1,789 564 1,214 1,651 449
Zonal Parking Supply 299 299 299 299 299 299
Su luslDeficien (+/-) -512 -1,490 -265 -915 -1,352 -150
16
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 6
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - ZONE IT & m
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
ZONEll&m Day Evening Nite Day Evening Nite
Caltrans District 8
% of Peak Demand 100% 10% 6% 10% 6% 60/.
Parking Demand
County Law Library L
% ofPcak Demand 100% 40% 5% 100% 15% 50/.
Parking Demand
DPSS - Adult Services
% ofPcak Demand 100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5%
Parkin Demand S4 5 3 5
971 108 60 131 63 60
1 167 1.167 1167 1167 1167 1.167
+196 +1,059 +1,107 +1,036 +1,104 +1,107
,
,
,
L
L
r
!
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
TABLE 7
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - ZONE IV
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
ZONE IV Day Evening Nite Day Evening Nite
Vanir, City Hall, dc...
% of Peak Demand 100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 50/.
Parking Demand
Hotel - Radisson
% of Peak Demand 75% 100% 80% 75% 100% 800/.
Parking Demand
Radisson Conference
% of Peak Demand 100% 100% 5% 100% 100% 5%
Parking Demand 260
Retail- Various
% of Peak Demand 60% 90% 5% 100% 70% 5%
Parkin Demand 73 .4 :'57 4
1,240 663 259 607 610 259
1.642 1.642 1.642 1.642 1.642 1642
+402 +979 +1,383 +1,035 +1,032 +1,383
18
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
E N G I NEE R S TABLES
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - ZONES I, II, m, & IV
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND WORKSHEET
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
Day Evening Nite Day Evening Nite
Theatre
% of Peak Demand 10% 100% 45% 60% _ 100% _ 350/.
Parking Demand 15 t,:l5Q 'I,I$Q_ d':4Q3-
-.... ._....~.........__..
RetaiVNon-Seating
% of Peak Demand 50% 100% 5% 100% 100% 50/.
Parking Demand -~,59 ,
Food Court Seating ,--. -- .
% of Peak Demand 50% 100% 5% 100% 100% 50/.
Parking Demand 214 '429 429" "21
D PSS - Offices
% of Peak Demand 100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5%
Parking Demand 329 33 -"33 16 '16
CCC - Commercial
% of Peak Demand 100% 100% 5% 10% 5% 5%
Parking Demand 127 127 6 ,'13 6 6
Caltrans District 8
% of Peak Demand 100% 10% 6% 10% 6% 6%
Parking Demand 880 88 '55 88 55 55
County Law Library
% of Pcak Dcmand 100% 40% 5% 100% 15% 5%
Parking Dcmand 38 15 2 38 6 2
DPSS - Adult Services r-
% of Peak Demand 100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5%
I
Parking Demand 54 5 3 5 3 3 L_
Vanir, City Hall, elc...
% of Peak Demand 100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5% ,
Parking Dcmand 739 74 37 74 37 37 L
Hotel - Radisson
% of Pcak Demand 75% 100% 80% 75% 100% 80%
Parking Demand 192 256 205 192 256 205
Radisson Conferencc r
% of Peak Dcmand 100% 100% 5% 100% 100% 5%
Parking Dcmand 260 260 13 260 260 13
Rctail - Various
% of Peak Demand 60% 90% 5% 100% 70% 5%
Parkin Demand 49 73 4 81 57 4
3,022 2,561 883 1,953 2,325 768
3108 3.108 3.108 3.108 3.\08 3108
+86 +547 +2,225 +1,155 +783 +2,340
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Based on the results of the shared parking analysis, and with the weekday, day time conditions (7:00 AM -
5:30 PM) being the worst case, it can be concluded that a 86 space surplus will exist to support the joint
use parking demands of San Bernardino Entertainment Center. During the weekend, a surplus of 783
parking spaces will exist during the peak evening time period (6:00 PM - 1 :00 AM).
Shared Parking (ULI Methodology)
The following section calculates the parking requirements for the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment .
Center based on methodology outlined in the Shared PaHang 'publication prepared by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI). This analysis is provided for comparison and informational purposes only. Appendix C
contains an excerpt from the Shared Parking publication that provides a detailed explanation of the shared
parking methodology and approach.
Tables 9 and 10 apply the ULI methodology directly to the City's code, and forecast the weekday and,
weekend shared parking requirements for the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment Center project, as
well as the portion of CBD evaluated in our report. Columns (I) through (4), (6), (7), (9), and (11)
through (13) present the accumulation characteristics and parking demand for the proposed project and
existing/future development in the CBD for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Columns (5), (8), (10) and
(14) present the expected hourly shared parking demand for each zone combination, and the area
composite demand, respectively.
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, column (14), the shared parking supply provided in the City's public parking
facilities can accommodate the projected peak day and evening parking requirements for the San
Bernardino Entertainment Center and the adjacent retaiVcommercial and office study land uses. A surplus
of 193 spaces can be expected during the peak weekday day time period, while a surplus of 888 spaces is
projected during peak weekend evening activities.
This alternative ULI analysis validates the results of the parking evaluation based on the City's Shared
Par/....ing Policy guidelines.
20
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
'"
Ol
..J
'"
~
'"
-
'"
~
~
Cl
Z t
~~
..-
5
~ .!
_ t
"'-
Oltll
'" 0
::t~
'" "
Ol =
>< ~
51'"
;. ~
",,,,
~
Ol
Ol
::
;-~i .
-ii ~
"" .
- - ~
..
~ s
. "
5 ~ i
E ~ ~
_1:l.
=.~
i
iq .
"
"
., a . ~
.. ~
-~ ~ .
~
:: '" ~
-.;;} ~
. "
.i;\=
..
-
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
E ~ ~ ;; 1
nH ~
~
, .
~ "
;::"..11&.8
- . "}
. .
..l r.
,e...: ..
~ - @
i i.
_ ~ ... ... lJ
~.a '" .. I
~ ~ 1 ,; r.l
~ ~ e- r ~
~ ~ I. f;
::l
::>
.
. .
~ $ l:i ;
~ ~ ~ ~
, '"
= ; .: ~
~ "
E .
N
. . N
;;~~';l
~ 1: 1 ~
.. .
- l ~
-, I l't ,~,
~ ;~
~Il~$g~~~!!.~!~!!!~~!!gj~
f~ .-
ssfl ._=~.~s.S~~'~~R~ft-.
~ ! .
l~ls!!~~~!~!~ii~~"!~s
s s I] · .. a a a a a a a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a..
J~l~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~
~~ll n~~~E2~~22E~EgR~nnn
J~I~!~!~!II~~~i~~15~~~
~~Ei'R-=~~~=-~:-.~.;RR..
,,!~'" :.....~ II... ~,;_...
J~l~i~e~~llee~~~ll~~~~
!fl~ft~g5!~~S!~5~~!13~3~~
....Cl ~:1Z4
~sf]'"=~a~~~~~~;~~......""OO
l~l~i~e~~llee~~~ll~~~l
.....~ p;;'",~ 'Z.....
~ t J ~ ~ ! ~ ~ 3z515- s S ! 5 ~ 5 ~ ~. ;~. 3 ~ 5 5 ~
110 .. r..t:i:',;?~::': ,":
~; .
~ 8 5 ~ a M 0 - ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ _ _ 0 0
! d ....
~
.
"
i ~ 1 . ~ ~ i I ~ I I I I 5 i ~ l ~ ~ ~ l .
. . 0
: 66fl:~~~;ii~~~;G~RQg~~~~
. ~ "
! 1 i . . . . I · . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . .
b:: .. '" Oil Q :;: _ ~ 'Ii: & ... .. ... ... .... ... ... .. .. ... ...
. . 0
i .; -= _ _ _ ... ....". ".:.: ... .... .... .. .. ;; ;: ::; ",;! ! .. :::! ... ::
~~&~2~:~~i,~~:~n~~:~~=~~~~
.;: :. ~ :i:-,,;.:~.;" "
",","','1 ,
l~!I;'~~EEEEEEEEEEEE~=~'~~~
.. ~ .... Cl ~ Iii
~ ~ ~ g
! ~ ~ . i 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 5 ~ . ~ 2 g
.. 0 0 ..: < 5
~ .. '"
. . E ~J ; . . s . " " . . " . R . . ~ R . . . c '
e. e. 1I ... - f"I;O;...... f" iG ... ... ... _
. "
'j1i ~"'II'I"""~""
l~~ ~Q&::--g ~;:~;~... ......
'" 8~'
11i!t ssjl~""A-=;~~nft~~~~~~~~~
i!..!.---...... ~J!.::- - .. -.... ......................
.... r.... tl tl '"
"i;q~~
. ~ . ! - ~ ] ~ 1 · " ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
Oll!;:'"
I
- , I ;
" · " 1
~ ~ =
..
.
~]' ----.--..-.
:4~:.lI lil..........,;,;,;___................_:!""..
e.e.1I ii ____......___.-
. "
~, !~i...ll~.~~~~~~~~~~~i
e; '~ .. Q d
I ! I ~ ~ ~ I I I I I ~ l l l l l l l l l
i~& ~~~~!~~~z~~~!!~~!~
L.
f
I
L.
r
-
..
~
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
CIl
-
CIl
~
~
Cl
II
~~
" ~ ,I .
~ :i
- !Sell
~ '0
r &l:1l
~ ~
:;; ~
;:.'"
-< 0
~t:l
~
~
~
g
".~~
"! ~ ~
..
Iii
_'He
~ ~
-i
=
HI
- ~ .~
:: 0 ~ a
-i2'i
, "I .
U ~ .=
"
~ ~
;. H ~
e:!ti!!
:~,R= ~~
c ... ~ a ~
2"i.
.
, ~
,,~ ~ i"
- . "
. .
~ ~
t-": ..
~ .. @
: f.
"t ~ . 'I
--.A ",,,
Q '" ]
~ 5 e-.r ~
~ ;:;: l. ll;
. ~
~ E 1:; ;
~ · 'i
. '
!:s !
~ ..
f
.... II'l ... Jl, 1
~ If.I '" .l! Il
~ ~H
.... r ~
. l ~
H~
ii ....1.0....
~ e ... ... l.L. III
"i~~H~
llil g vi ~ ~
- - .
" ,"
!
.... t i :
- - " 1
~ ~ =
..
ifJl~na~~~i~~~~~~~~i;~~.;E
.... -,t;--------ri...--;.:~
.. ~. ','
fl ~
:: lli o~-;!i~~=r::=;~;:Rt;s::~::o4
"
~
J~I~~~~~~!~~~i~5i~i,~~~
~ llf] .0!RRRRRfiRRRfifiR.!"
J~]ll~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~l~
~
~
~
~ llJ] R~!!~a~~i~!!~nR~~~~
.... : II'l
"
~ 1~]i~i~i~~~~i~i~li~~~~
~ l s {1 ~ ~ ~ = =!! = ~ ~ ~ R R R R <:> <:> <:> <:>
..! .
l~ll~~~~EE5~lltt~tlll~
. . .!
IJ1~;Ea~~;leiii~~!i~~5!!'
:; lsf] "~"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''fl"''''"OO''o~
. ~
1~1~t~55EE5~llttt~ll~~~
. . .!
'i.." ~,;-.....
!~j~~E~R~;~~:5~~5!?~~5S5;
~ l. l f ] . 0 - . ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ " n . . - : . . 0 . i
In..~HnH5gHHUgN
. . 0
~
~
~ .. J] , . . . . . ~ ~ . = " ., . . . . . . . .
.. ~~1l ........ ::::::_-= ..............................'"
. "
I ~ l l ~ ~ 5 E ~ ~ E ~ t t l ~ , ; ; ; ; ~
. . 8
.. .. ~':. ... ..... .... .. 0
~tio~~==~~~~~~~~Ea5!~ES~~
M ~ 0,;
-. ";'<'
"~ . ~ ffi i
~ ~~t! o.~==RR=~....~~~~occ02~t
... B - ~ ii
~ . 0
i~1~t~55~~5~tl.~.t~~.g~~~
... 0 a ~ 0( :3
~ . ~
1: !;!;1.1;o~s:l;!;!!;!~~Q~~r:eeeeoooo~ '"
1'1 ... ~ '" ~
,
~
~
i~i~~~55~55~UHH~Ug
. . 8
j ~ -
u ..... ................. _ ....... ..... f"- .....
.. J oo.....~_~....___~~.....~.....o~
bbll --MnN....NNNN.~~~.~...
. "
iPHunHHHnH€u
. . .Ii
. "j' ..........0..
..... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ N n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : = ~ ~ ;
. "
~ g
e; .~
~ Ii
!~~
i 1 01 ' . . . . . . . t . ~ . t . . ~ ! . .
lie: !>bbbb....._~....:it...~:z"'...._..~...
. .
~?(~~~~~~7.~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 ~ $ ~
0.;,;.....0..2:: ._~.~..."''''..........
22
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
· Direct application of the City of San Bernardino Off-Street Parking Standards to the Central Business
District (CBD) study area indicates that 4,393 spaces will be required to support the existing/proposed
office uses and retaiVcOrnmercial businesses, and the proposed San Bernardino Entertainment Center.
Based on this code calculation and a projected shared parking supply of3,I08 spaces, the CBD study
area will be deficient by 1,285 spaces.
· Based on City parking code requirements, the San Bernardino Entertainment Center, alone, would .
require a 1,629 space parking structure to support its 20-Screen, 4,600 seat Theatre and 20,000 SF of
retaiVrestaurant uses.
· Given the joint use parking patterns of the existing uses in the CBD study area, there is an opportunity
for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project to share spaces with the proposed Caltrans
District 8 Headquarters as well as the Civic Center uses, especially since the majority of the parking
spaces required for the Entertainment Center is for the proposed 20 screen, 4,600 seat theatre. This
shared parking is a specific component of the project's design.
L
· The shared parking analysis for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center is based on combined
demand patterns of the two proposed uses (theatre and restaurant) and the existing/proposed offices
uses in downtown San Bernardino. The parking analysis follows the methodology outlined in the City
of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Shared Parking Policy.
. The San Bernardino Entertainment Center is expected to rely heavily on the use of the Caltrans Parking
Structure and the Civic Center parking structure to support its weekday evening and weekend parking
demands.
. The downtown shared parking supply consists of nine parking fields (in four Parking Zones) totaling
3,244 spaces, of which 78 spaces are designated for handicapped parking only. However, since 78
spaces are designated for handicapped use only and 58 City District parking spaces are reservedlleased
by individuals and/or existing land uses not included in our analysis, the shared parking supply in our
evaluation is limited to 3,108 spaces.
r
~.
'-
· The combined weekday peak parking demand for the CBD study area uses is expected to occur during
the day and totals 3,022 spaces. The combined weekend peak use parking demand, which is forecast
to occur in the evening, totals 2,325 spaces. With a shared parking supply on, I 08 spaces, a surplus of
86 spaces and 783 spaces will exist during the weekday peak day time period (7:00 AM to 5:30 PM)
and the weekend peak evening time period (6:00 PM - I :00 AM), respectively. Note, the 300:t on-
street parking spaces that exists within the CBD study area have not been included in our evaluation.
Hence, our shared parking analysis can be considered conservative and "worst case".
1850SPA.DOC (Monday. Fcbrua.y 24.1997.5:48:21 PM)
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
APPENDIX A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
I
:.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
! I
I
. OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS.;19.24
CHAPTER.19.24
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
19.24.010 PURPOSE
These regulations are.intended to achieve the following:
1. To provide accessible, attractive, secure, properly lighted, and well-
maintained and screened off-street parking facilities. .
2. To reduce traffic congestion and haZatds.. .'
3. To protect neighborhoods from the e(fects of vehicular noise and traffic
generated by adjacent non-residential land use districts.
4. To assure the maneuverability of emergenCY,vehicles.
5. To provide appropriately designed parking facilities in proportion to the needs
generated by varying types of land use.
19.24.020 APPUCABIUTY
Every use hereafter inaugurated, and every structure hereafter erected or altered, shall
have permanently maintained off- street parking areas pursuant to the following
provisions.
19.24.030 GENERAL REGULATIONS
1. No structure or use shall be permitted or constructed unless off-street parking
spaces are provided in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
2. The word "use" shall mean both the type and intensity of the use, and that a
change in use shall be subject to all of the requirements of this Chapter.
3. When a structure is enlarged or increased in excess of 25% of the floor area, or
when a change in use creates an increase in the required amount of parking, ad-
ditional parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter. The only exception to this requirement may be for structures and
uses located in the CR-2 (Downtown) land use district A parking study may be
prepared examining the proposed use in light of available public off-street park-
ing facilities which may result in a City approved parking reduction program. H
a study is not prepared, the required parking shall be provided. However,
tenant improvements for any type of proposed permitted use in the CR-2land
use district shall not require additional parking spaces to be provided.
4. Within the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan area, parking required by this Chapter
may be provided on-site or off-site within an established parking district lot or
A-I
ID-49
7192
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS - i9.24
,
. structure. Required parking within this area may be reduced by up to 20% by
the review authorfty provided that off-site parking districts have been estab
lished and developed. MC 830 4-6-92
S. For parcels within the University Business Park Specific Plan, the number of park-
ing spaces required for any use may be reduced by up to 2S percent provided:
~ .
a. - The required 75 percent is fully paved and meets all other Development
Code standards for parking areas, .
b.
The remaining 2S percent is set aside as expansion area and is paved with
approved concrete landscape pavers, plant-with turf, irrigated and proper_
ly maintained, ...
The expcmsion area is not used for~~~ge of any type,
c.
d.
-~>'.: .
- - -
Trees shall not be required to be pIaii~d:within the expansion area until it
is brought up to full developmenf standards. MC 85612-21-92 _
6. Requirements .for uses not specifically listed herein shall be determined by the
Director based upon the requirements for comparable uses and upon the par-
ticular characteristics of the use, pursuant to Section 19.02.070 (3) (Similar Uses
Permitted).
7. In any residential land use district, a garage with a garage door shall be
provided, and permanently maintained. Exceptions to the garage requirement
shall be for apartments and affordable housing as determined by the Director.
8. Fractional space requirements shall be rounded up to the next whole space.
9. Required guest parking in residential land use districts shall be designated as
such and restricted to the use of guests.
10. All parking, including recreational vehicle parking in residential land use
districts, shall occur on paved areas.
r
L
11. Senior citizen apartments/congregate care parking requirements may be adjusted
on an individual project basis, subject to a parking study based on project lo.ca-
tion and proximity to services for senior citizens including, but not limited to,
medical offices, shopping areas, mass transit, etc.
L
12. Existing residential lots of record, 10,800 square feet or larger which front on a
major or secondary arterial shall provide circular drives or turnarounds.
r
4-2
m-so
1/94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OFF-STREET P ARI<lNG STANDARDS; 19.24
19.24.040 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
The following minimum number of parking spaces shall be provided for each use
(where "sf." refers to square foot and "gfa." refers to gross floor area):
.
USE
NUMBER OF REOUIRED SPACES
Residential Uses
Mobile home parks
2 oovered spaces within an enclosed garage,
which may be tandem, ~d 1 uncovered guest
space for each unit
Multi-family Residential:
Studio and 1 bedroom
15 covered and 1 uncovered guest.~pace for
every 5 units.
2 covered. and 1 uncovered guest space for
every 5 units.
25 covered and 1 uncovered guest space for
5 units.
Two bedrooms
Three or more bedrooms
Planned residential
developments, including
single-family dwellings and
oondominiums
2 covered spaces within an
enclosed garage and 1 unoovered
off-street guest parking space for every
5 units.
Residential day care
2 spaces in addition to those
required ror primary residence.
1 covered space for each unit, plus 1 uncovered
space ror each space for 5 units for guest park
ing.
.75 oovered space ror each unit.
2 covered spaces within an enclosed garage.
Senior citizen apartments
Senior congregate care
Single-family dwellings
Commercial Uses
Adult businesses
1 space for each 200 sf. of gfa.
plus 1 space for each employee.
Amusement/ recreational
facilities:
Bowling alley
3 spaces per lane, plus as required for inciden
tal uses (Le., pro shop, coffee shop, etc.).
m-St
1194
4_3
1---
llSE.
Driving range
Golf course
Miniature golf course
- Tennis/racquetball courts
RV Parks
Theme amusement/
recreational parks,
skating rinks
Video arcade! go carts
Art/ dance studio
Banks, savings and loans,
financial
Barber shop/beauty parlor
Business/ professional
trade schools
Carwash - self service
Commercial Uses
Carwash - full servicel
Comm~rcia1 stables
",;,., .'.,':i\:;:;. .
OFF~STREET PARKING STANDARDS -19.24
"NUMBFR OFREOUIRED SPACES
3 spaces, plus 1 space per tee.
6 spaces per hole, plus as
required for incidental uses
(ie., pro shop, bar, banquet room, etc.).
::I spaces per hole, plus as
....equired fOl" incidental uses
(ie., game l'iX1m, food service, etc,).
3 spaces per court, plus as
required for incidental uses.
1 space for each recreational vehicle space.
Determine,; lIt project review.
1 space per 200 square feet of area within
enclosed structures, plus 1 space per 3 persons
at maximum capacity.
- 1 space per employee, plus 1
space per 2 students at maximum capacity.
1 space for each 200 sf. of gfa.
plus 1 lane for each drive up
window and/ or automatic teller machine with
6 vehicles per lane.
2 spaces for each barber chair;
3 spaces for each beautician station.
1 space per 1.5 students.
f
L
,
L
2 spaces per stall plus 2 space queuing lane in
front of each stall.
r
space per every 3 employees on the maximum
shift plus reservoir capacity equal to 2 times
the capacity of the washing operation (the
length of the conveyor divided by 20).
1 space for each 5 horses boarded on-site.
4-4
m-sz
1194
. OFF-STREET PARKlNG STANDARDS -19.24
I . J.!S& NUMBER OF REOUIRED SPACES
Commercial Uses
. Furniture/appliance stores 1 space for each 500 sf. of gfa.
of sale floor display area, plus
I' 1 space for each 2500 sf. of gfa.
of warehouse storage.
. Health clubs 1 space for each 200 sf. of gfa.
Hotels/ motels . 1.1 space for each bedroom, plus . .
I requirements for related comme~
. cial uSes, plus 1 space for each
50 sf. of gfa. of main assembly
I room, plus 2 spaces for manager's
unit. For facilities visable from
. any freeway, on-site parking for
"big rigs" shall be determined at
project review.
. Indoor retail concession mall 1 space for each 200 s.f. gfa. plus
1 space for each vendor. MC 825 3-17-92
I Lube-n-tune 1 space per bay, plus 1 space for
each employee, plus 2 space
I queueing lanes for each bay.
Multi-tenant auto-related 1 space for each 200 sf. of gfa.,
facilities plus 1 space for each employee.
.
Offices, general:
I gfa. up to iooo sf. 1 space for each 200 sf.
2001 to 7500 sf. 1 space for each 250 sf.
7501 to 40000 sf. 1 space for each 300 sf.
. 40001 and greater 1 space for each 350 sf.
. Office, medical! dental 10 spaces for first 2000 sf.,plus
1 space for each additiona1175
sf. over 2000 sf.
I Office, conversions from Determined at project review
single family MC 8181-7-92
I Restaurants, cafes, bars 1 space for each 35 sf. of public
and other eating and seating area, plus 1 space for
I drinking establishments each 200 sf. of all other gross
(gfa. includes outdoor floor area, with a minimum of 10
seatingl eating area) spaces. A-S
I
m-53 1194
.llS.E
Commercial Uses
Restaurants, with drive-up
or drive-thru facilities
(including outdoor seating areas)
Delicatessen/donut shop ,
..
Retail commercial
Retail nursery/garden shop .
Service stations
..;-. :-
Shopping centers .
Swap meet
Vehicle repair/garage
Vehicle sales
All other commercial uses
not listed above
_-~~ /Ii
OFF-STREET PARIaNC STANDARDS :19.24
. NUMRER OF REOUIRED SPACES
1 space for each 100 sf. of gfa. plus one lane for
each drive-up window with stacking space for
6 vehicles before the menu board.
1 space for each 100 sf. of gfa.
1 space for each 250 sf. of gfa.
1 space for each 500 sf. of
indoor display area, plus 1 space
for each 2500 sf. of outdoor
display area.
1 space foreach pump island,
, plus 1 space for eaCh serviCe bay.
1 space per 180 sf. of gfa. for tenants
within the main structure and in
stand alone buildings.
1 space per 2SO sf. of gfa. for single tenants
over 15,000 sf. Me 888 1-6-94
1 space per 200 square feet gfa,
plus 1 space per vendor space.
5 spaces plus 1 space for each 200 sf. of gfa.
1 space for each 400 sf. of gfa.
for showroom and office, plus
1 space for each 2000 sf. of outdoor
display area, plus 1 space
for each 500 sf. of gfa. for vehicle
repair, plus 1 space for
. each 300 sf. of gfa. for the
parts department.
1 space for each 200 sf. of gfa.
m-S4
SI9l
L
r
~.
L
I
r
A_b
!
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OFF-STREF.TPARI<ING STANDARDS -19.24
~.
. NUMBER OF REOUIRED SPACES
Institutional Uses
Churches, conference/
meeting facilities,
mortuaries, theaters,
auditoriums
1 space for each 4 fixed seats,
or 1 space for each 35 sf. of
non-fixed seating area in the
principal sanctuary. conference
space or auditorium, whichever is
greater.
l.space for each patient bed,
plus 1/2 spaCe for each patient
bed for employees, or as deter-
mined at project review.
, Hospitals
Institutional Uses
Ubraries, museums, art
galleries
1 space for each 300 sf. of gfa.
Residential c1ubs,fra-
ternity / sorority houses,
rooming houses and
similar facilities with
guest rooms
1 space for each 2 guest rooms.
Retirement homes
1 space for each 1.5 living units.
1 space for each 6 beds, plus
1 space for each employee on the
largest shift, plus space for
each staff doctor.
Sanitariums/nursing homes
Schools:
Nursery / pre-school
1 space for each staff member,
plus 1 space for each 10 children.
2 spaces for each classroom.
7 spaces for each classroom.
10 spaces for each classroom.
Elementary/junior high
High school
Community / college/
university
Industrial Uses
Auto dismantling/junk
yards/recycling
centers
1 space for each 300 sf. of gross building
area plus one space for every 10,000 sf. of
gross yard area.
m-55
A-l
5191
OI'F-STREIIT P ARKrNG STANDARDS -19.24
~
. NUMBER OF REOUlRED SPACES
Mini-storage
Industrial! warehousing
1 - 3,000 sf.
3,001 - 5,000 sf.
5,001 -10,opO sf.
10,001 - 50,000 sf.
50,001 + sf.
7spaces.
For each structure
1 space for each 250 sf. of gfa.
1 space for each 500 sf. of gfa.
1 space for each 750 sf. of gfa.
1 space for each 1,000 sf. of gfa.
1 space for ea.ch 1,250 sf. of gfa.
19.24.050 HANDICAP~J::D PAlU(INGREQtJIREMENTS
Handicapped parking requirements are established by the State of California. The park-
ing standards contained in this Section are identb...l to those established by the State at
the time of the adop:::on of this Development Coo..:: tuly change in the State's handi-
capp~ parking requirements shall preen.pt the affected requirements in this Section. _ ..
. -
1. Handicapped parking for residential uses shall be provided at the rate of 1
space for each dwelling unit that is designed for occupancy by the handicapped.
2 Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided for all uses other than residential
at the following rate:
Total Number of Parking
Spaces Provided
3.
Number of Handicapped
Parking Spaces Required
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7 + 1 for each 200
additional parking
spaces provided
Handicapped parking spaces shall be designed in a manner consistent with
the standard drawings approved by the Director of Public Works/ City Engineer,
as illustrated by Figure 24.1.
When less than 5 parking spaces are provided, at structures and uses
subject to these regulations, 1 space shall be 14 feet wide and striped to provide
a 9 foot parking area and a 5 foot loading and unloading area. However, there is
no requirement that the space be reserved exclusively or identified for
handicapped use only.
1-40
41 - 80
81 - 120
121 -160
161 - 300
301 - 400
401 - 500
over 500
4.
5.
Handicapped parking spaces required by this Section shall count toward fulfill
ing off-street parking requirements.
m-S6 SI91
,,,
f
L
L
r
A-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
~
I 0.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS .19.24 .
"~.MIN.
WALK
4&'M'N.
.
........,
~
CURS RAMP REQUIRED FOR
GRADE DIFFERENCES.
SEE PUBUC WORKS STANDARD
HANDICAP PARXINGSlGN
BO' HIGH,5EE PUBUC WORKS STANDARD
].~ .
BLUE STRIPING AND Cl1IIIJ
FACE. STRIPES'" WIDE.
lYI'ICAL SYMBOL:
BLUE FIElD 4&' J: 48.
WHmi WHEELCHAIR.16' J: 36'
36' 7YI'.
;1-1
FIGURE 24-1
HANDICAP PARKING DETAIL
m-57
SI91
.,~> .\')~'r,:-'ii~';'~ .
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS -19.24
19.24~060 DESIGN STANDARDS
Off-street parking areas shall be provided in the following manner:
1. ACCESS
A All parking areas shall provide suitable maneuvering room so that all
vehicles may enter an abutting street in a forward direction. The Director
may approve exceptions for single-family homes and other residential
projects.
B. No parking space shall be located so that a vehicle will maneuver within
. 20 feet of a vehicular entrance measured from the face of the curb.
MC 888 1-6-94. '.' _
2.
COMMERCIAl. VEHICLE PARKING
. ' . No commercial vehicle exceeding 8 feet.in:height and! or 20 feet in eoritbined
total length, or towed equipment, shall::park between the hours of 6:00 P.M and
6:00 AM on private property or public rights-oi- way in residentially designated
areas, unless the vehicle or vehicles are screened from public view and adjacent
properties subject to the approval of the Director. This prohibition shall not
apply to construction sites during the construction process or to vehicles in the
process of making delivery or pickup.
3. DIMENSIONAl. REOUIREMFNTS
A Parking stalls shall be non-perpendicular whenever possible.
B.
A minimum unobstructed inside dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet shall
be maintained, for a private two-ca.r garage or carport. The minimum un-
obstructed ceiling height shall be 7 feet, 6 inches.
c.
Parking structures may be subject to dimensional adjustments based on
utilization (i.e., public or private garage with or without an attendant),
but in no case shall the stall width be less than 8 feet, 6 inches. Reductions
in design standards shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
m-ss
5t91
.
l
r'
I
~
L
f
!
A-Iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
OFF-STREET pARKING STANDARDS -19.24
D. Minimum parking dimensi9llS shall be as indicated in the following
table as illustrated by Figure 24.2. .
A B C D E F A B C D E F
00 9'.0" 9.0 15.0 23.0 - 600 9'0" 21.0 18.0 10.4 55.5
9'6" 9.5 15.0 23.0 - 9'6" 21.2 _ 18.0 .11.0 55.6
10'0" 10.0 15.0 23.0 - 10'0. 21.5 18.0 11.5 56.0
200 9'0" 15.0 15.0 26.3 36.5 . 700 9'0. 21.0' 19.0 9.6 .57.9
9'6" 15.5 15.0 27.8 37.1 9'6" 21.2 19.0 10.1 58.2
10'0" 15.9 15.0 29.2 37.4 10'0" 21.2 19.0 10.6 58.0
"
300 9'0" 17.3 15.0 .18.0 41.8 SOO 9'0. 20.3 24.0 9.1 63.0
9'6" 17.8 15.0 19.0 .42.4 9'6" 20.4 24.0 9.6 63.2
10'0" -18.2 15.0 20.0 42.7 10'0" 20.5 24.0 10.2 63.3
4S'..- 9'0" 19.8 15.0 12.7.- 48.3 900 9'0" 19.0 24.0 .9.0
. 9'6" 20.1 15.0 13.4 48.5 9'6" 19.0 24.0 9.5
10'0" 20.5 15.0 14.1 48.9 10'0" 19.0 24.0 10.0 -
FIGURE 24-2
PARlClNG STANDARDS
A. PARKING ANGLE
B. STALL WIDTH
C. STALL DEPTH
D. AISLE WIDTH
E. CURB LENGTH PER CAR
F. CEtmR TO CEtmR WIDTH OF
DOUBLE ROW AND AISLE
m-59
SI9l
A- II
,
OFF-STREET P ARKING STANDARDS -19.24
4. DRAINAGE
All required off-street parking areas shall be so designed that surface water will
not drain over any sidewalk, or adjacent property.
5. DRIVEWAYS
CommerdallIndu!;trial/Multiple Family Rp!:idential
Driveways providing ingress and egress to off-street parking spaces shall be a
minimum width of 15 feet for a one-way driveway and 24 feet for a two-way
driveway.
Single Family Re!:idential .
Attached Garage
Driveways for an attached 2-car garage shall have a minimum width of 16
feet and a minimum length of 24 feet measured from the inside sidewalk
or apron to the front of the garage.
L.
Driveways for an attached 3-car garage shall have a minimum width of 24
feet and a minimum length of 24 feet measured from inside the sidewalk
or apron to the front of the garage.
Detached Garage
Driveways for a detached 2-car garage shall be a minimum width of 10
feet with a minimum 16 feet wide by 24 feet deep back up area inunedi-
ately adjacent to the garage door.
Driveways for a detached 3-car garage shall be a minimum width of 10
feet with a minimum 24 feet wide by 24 feet deep back up area inunedi-
ately adjacent to the garage door.
6. LANDSCAPING
A minimum of 15% of the net area of all surface parking areas shall be
landscaped as follows:
r
,
L
A. Where parking areas adjoin a public right-of-way, a landscaped planting
strip equal to the required yard setback shall be established and con-
tinuously maintained between the public right-of-way and parking area.
Any planting, sign, or any other structure within safety sight- distance of
a driveway shall not exceed 30 inches in height.
L
B. Provisions shall be made to ensure that adequate pedestrian paths are
provided throughout the landscaped areas. At least one 24 inch box tree
for every 4 spaces shall be included in the development of the overall
landscape program. The maximum spacing between trees in parking
areas shall be 30 feet; however, appropriate clustering of trees may be per_
mitted.
ID-60
5191
4-1(-
l
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS -:19.24
7.
C. All areas in a parking lot nqt used for driveways, maneuvering areas,
parking spaces, or walks, shall be permanently landscaped with suitable
materialS and permanently maintained, pursuant to a program submitted
by the applicant and approved by the Director of the Parks and Recrea-
tion Department.
D. All landscaped areas shall be bordered by a concrete curb that is at least
6 inches high and 6 inches wide. All landscaped areas shall be a mini-
mum of 6 feet in width. Concrete mow strips at least 6 inches deep and 4
inches wide shall be required to separate turf areas from shrub areas.
E. ... A permanent and automatic irrigation system shall be installed and
permanently maintained in all landscaped areas. The system shall
'. . employ state-of- the-art water conServation teclinology and recogriiZe dif-
fering inigation needs of various plant materials.
F. The landscaping plan shall provide for a variety of plant materials, with
an emphasis on drought tolerant species, appropriate for the local en-
" . vironment and shall include a legend showing COmmon names, sizes,
..' quantities, location, dimensions of planted area, and percentage of park-
ing lot landscaping.
G. To increase the parking lot landscaped area, a maximumof2 and 1/2
feet of the parking stall depth may be landscaped in lieu of asphalt while
maintaining the required parking dimensions. This overhang is in addi-
tion to the required yard setbacks.
LIGHIlNG
Parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for
security and safety. The minimum requirement is 1 foot candle, maintained
across the surface of the parking area. Lighting standards shall be energy-effi-
dent and in scale with the height and use of the structure. Any illumination, in-
cluding security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties and
public rights-of- way.
LOCATION OF REOUIRED PARKING SPACES
All parking spaces shall be located on the ~e parcel as the structure or use, un-
less approved otherwise by the review authority.
Off-street parking spaces for multi-family residential developments shall be lo-
cated within 150 feet from the dwelling unit (front or rear door) for which the
parking space is provided.
No parking space required by this Chapter shall be located in the front, side or
rear setback area of any land use district except for a detached garage or carport
structure and driveways which may be located in interior (non-street) side or
rear setback areas.
8.
4-/3
ID-61
5/91
.. "",,,,,,,,,,_,, '....,_'n
" .QJ;J:.:5TR.EET P AIUaNG STANDARDS .-19~4
9. MAJNTFNANCF.
All required parking facilities shall be permanently maintained, free of litter and
debris.
10. PARKING STRUCTImES
All parking stru~es shall be landscaped as follows:
A The parking structure shall have a continuous minimum 10 foot perimeter
landscaping with vertical elements at least every 20 feet
.. . -.""'l'!'!.
B. The entries and exits of the parking structUi'e shall include a minimum 6
foot wide landscaped median island and accent paving in the driveway.
c.
Landscaped materials, excluding vertical element openings, shall be
provi4~ in planters and/or pots for 5% of the total surface deck area.
The P1an.ters and/or pots shall be distrl~~ throughout the top deck :
area, and perimeter of intermediate decks. .
D. All landscaping shall be permanently maintained and automatically irrigated.
L
E. Lighting for the above ground deck shall be energy-efficient,
low-level and directed so as not to spill beyond the surface deck. Lighting
fixtures shall not exceed 4 feet in height
11. RECREATIONAL VEHTCLF. PARKING _ RESIDENTI AT.
A
B.
A recreational vehicle may only be parked on a lot behind the front
line of the house or, in the case of a corner lot, behind the front line facing
each street or right-of-way, and shall be screened to a height of 6 feet from
view from any public or private right-of-way. A recreational vehicle used
as daily transportation may be parked overnight in recognized driveways.
Recreational vehicles may be temporarily parked on public or private
rights-of-way in front of residen~ for not more than 48 continuous hours
for the pwposes of loading and unloading. Forty-eight hours must elapse
before the start of a new 48 hour period, together with movement of the
vehicle a distance of at least 500 feet
r
I
L
I
L
12. SECURITY
All parking facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained with security
as a priority to protect the safety of the users.
r
I
1
4-/1-
ID-62
5191
.
--0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
! .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS~19.i4
SCREENING
Commercial/ industrial and public parking areas abutting residentially desig-
nated property shall have a 6 foot high solid architecturally treated decorative
masonry wall approved by the Director. All wall treatments shall occur on both
sides.
SHADING
All parking areas shall provide 25% permanent shading for parked vehicles. Any
reasonable combination of shading methods can be utilized. H trees are used,
they may not thereafter be trimmed so as to reduce the effectiveness of their
. shading ability. . .
SHARED PARKING
Parking facilities may be shared if multiple uses cooperatively establish and
operate the facilities and if these.uses generate parking demands primarily
during hours when the remaining uses are not in operation.. (For example, if one
use operates during evenings or week days only.) The applicant shall have the
burden of proof for a reduction in the total number of required off-street parking
spaces, and documentation shall be submitted substantiating their reasons the re-
quested parking reduction. Shared par!dng may only be approved if:
A. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greater parking
demand of the participating uses;
B. Satisfactory evidence, as deemed so by the Director, has been submitted
by the parties operating the shared parking facility, describing the nature
of the uses and the times when the uses operate so as to demonstrate the
lack of potential conflict between them; and
C. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreenlents
as may be deemed necessary by the Director are executed to assure that
the required parking spaces provided are maintained and uses with
similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking
facilities remain for the life of the commercial/industrial development
SLOPE
A. Parking areas shall be designed and improved with grades not to
exceed a 5% slope.
A-IS-
ID-63
sm
rr "OFF-STREETPARI<INC STANDARDS.-19::Z4
.
.,
"
B. Driveways shall have no grades exceeding 8% slope or as approved
by the City Engineer.
17. SmIPING
All parking spaces shall be striped in accordance with City requirements. The
striping shall be maintained in a clear and visible manner. Each exit from any
parking area shall be clearly marked with a "STOP" sign as required by the City
Engineer.
18. SURFACING
All driveways and parkin$!; areas shall be surfaced with a minimum thickneSSot
3 inches of asphaltic concr~;; :oncrete, or any City Engineer approved
bituminous surfacing ove!",. :"linimum thickness pf 4 inches of an aggregate
base material. An appropriate structural section of slag or other material may be
appro~ed by the City Engineer and Director for storage areas of industrial uses,
provided that toxic or hazardous materials, including but not limited to those .
enumerated in Section 8.80.010 of the Municipal Code, are not located in such
storage areas. .
19. TANDEM PARKING
The review authority may approve an off-street parking program utilizing
limited tandem parking for commercial and industrial uses provided that the
development requires ISO or more parking spaces, with no more than a maxi-
mum of 10% of the total number of spaces designated as tandem and an atten-
dant is on duty during the normal hours that the commercial/industrial develop-
ment is open for business.
20. WHF.F.T. STOPS/nmBING
Continuous concrete curbing at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide shall be
provided at least 3 feet from any wall, fence, p.ope.l.f1ine, walkway, or structure
where parking and/or drive aisles are located adjacent thereto. Curbing may be
left out at structure access points. The space between the curb and wall, fence,
property line, walkway or structure shall be landscaped, except as allowed by
the Development Review Committee. The clear width of a walkway which is ad-
jacent to overhanging parked cars shall be 4 feet. All parking lots shall have con-
tinuous curbing at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide around all parking areas
and aisle planters; wheel stops shall not be used in lieu of curbing, to protect
landscaping, signage, structures and walls.
-
r
I
,..
L
I
r
A- /0
moM
51'91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
APPENDIX B
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARlMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SHARED PARKING POLICY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::1 /" -,.-::'
_ ,'r,," :..-"
'--' .y.,
F y/../::...J'"/
1
2
RESOLUTION NO.
96-135
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
POLICY FOR SHARED PARKING WITHIN THE CR-2 (DOWNTOWN) LAND USE
3 DISTRICT.
4
WITNESSETH:
5
WHEREAS, imposition of the same requirements applied
throughout. the. City to the Central Business. District:Area has
~lHEREAS ,
it
is
desired
to adopt a policy
tha t \wuld
9
10
11
12
13
14
recogniz~ the. special nature of the Central Business District;
and thereby promote deveiopment; and
WHEREAS,
Section
19.24.030 of the San Bernardino
Development Code authorizes an exception to the normal parking
requirements within the Central Business District; and
\mEREAS, the Shared Parking Policy has been prepared to.
15
take better advantage of the parking spaces provided wi thin the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
entral Business District by allowing adjustments in the parking
equirements due to different peak demanns for various land uses;
nd
WHEREAS, the proposed Shared Parking Policy has been
eviewed by the Central City Parking Place Commission and
lanning Commission, both of which have recOI:lI'lended that it be
dopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COHMON
OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The Shared Parking Policy, attached hereto
26 and marked Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference as
27 fully as though set forth at length herein, is adopted.
28 / / / /
B
..
1.
5-14-96
RESO: ADOPTING SHARED PARKING POLICY
1
SECTION 2. The Shared Parking Policy shall be in effect
2 upon adoption.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4: adopted by the Mayor and COllUl\on Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a reguJ.ar meeting thereof, held on the
6 20th day of May , 1996, by the following vote, to-wit:
7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
8 NEGRETE x
9 CURLIN X
10 ARIAS X
11 OBERHELMAN X
12 DEVLIN x
13 ANDE~SON x
14 MILLER
x
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ktL ~~-~
6u :'c l>1.PcUfleV
-~ Rachel Clark, City
day of
May
, 1996.
l
I
I
\-
~~~~
f Tom Minor, Mayor r
City of San Bernardino 'I
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
Approved as to form
and legal content:
I
I
r'
I
23 James F. Penman
City Attorney
24
25
26 By Ja'Y'^<!C>
;j
U
.f:
'J )
7 - .J e-v/?7~
27
28
B
?.
- 2 -
I I
I
I
I
I
I~>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APRIL 17.1996
CITY OF SAN BE.RNARDINO
. ~ART.r.iKNT OF PUBLlCWORKS!CITY E.N6INE.E.R.
SHARED PARKING POLIcY
Dl'lIsION L AUTHOlUT):"
Dl'lIsION II. PURPOSE
Dl'lIsION IlL CRITERlA
Dl'lIsION N. STANDARD REDUCTIONS
Dl'lIslON V. COMPOSITE DEMAND
Dl'lIsION vt RESTRlCTION
Dl'lIsION VII. WORKSHEETS
B
'"
.)
EXHIBIT U A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SHARED PARKING POLICY
-.7"" .. -~. -"
DIVISION I. AUTHORITY
DIVISION II. PURPOSE
DIVISION III. CRITERIA
DIVISION IV. STANDARD REDUCTIONS
DIVISION V. COMPOSITE DEMAND
DIVISION VI. RESTRICTION
.
DIVISION VII. WORKSHEETS
Exhibit "A"
4-],7-96
. . ~ -'. +.
8
L
i..
l
L
.
I
!
/"
':I:
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIVISION I.
AUTHORITY
Contained in Chapter 19 of the city 'of San Bernardino Development
Code in subsection 19.24.030 "General Regulations" paragraph 3
exceptions are provided "for structures and uses located in the CR-
2 (Downtown) land use district. A parking study may be prepared
examining the proposed use in light of available public off-street
parking facilities which may re'sult. in a city approved parking
reduction program" .',Additionally ,General Plan Policy 6.8.6 and
Implementation Measure 16.26 provides for shared. parking to
. mCl,x),mize "theuse.ofexisting ,'and.,proposed:parking in ,the "Central
Business District..
DIVISION II.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the shared parking policy is to conform with Chapter
19.24.030, Policy 6.8.6 and Implementation. MeasureI6.26 and
provide for maximum use in the CR-2 land use designation (Downtown)
by r&cognizing shared parking. It is well understood and
acknowledged that within the Downtown District, parkers may make
many trips for various reasons without ever moving their vehicles.
Shopping, business, government centers, entertainment and public
facilities are all located in close proximity in this area.
Parking facilities in the form of assessment district lots are
available for public parking needs. Additionally, many 'downtown
workers combine shopping, business transactions and eating during
normal work days. Again, this mUlti-destination approach needs to
be recognized and parking requirements redUced to reflect such
multi-destination uses. Further, after normal work hours, many of
the parking spaces used by the work force are available and unused,
but are not presently counted in meeting the parking requirements
of after hours users (entertainment, evening meals, shopping or
late night activities). Peak demand is weekday/daytime use, yet
many off-hours businesses are prevented from using the Downtown
District due to lack ox available parking.
This document sets forth the policy to be used that attempts to
provide relief from the "no=al" parking requirements in
recognition of the unique features of a downtown area. It also
accounts for the Downtown parking district and the district lots
that downtown property owners have paid to develop and maintain.
DIVISION III CRITERIA
A. General
1. The shared parking concept will apply only to the
Downtown District as defined in the Municipal Code and
General Plan unless other areas are specifically approved
by the Mayor and Common Council.
B 5
e,.;.
2. All shared parking requests and calculations must be
reviewed and approved by the Parking Place Commission
with recommendations to the Mayor and Common Council
prior to approval of shared parking projects.
3. Specific reductions in parking requirements for
weekday/day use only, require no specific action and may
be applied to the downtown district upon submittal of
plans. This reduction is for on-site parking only and
site only composite calculations may be required.
. Shared parking proposals must be submitted with the
appropriate calculation sheets to Public Works staff for
review and transmittal to the Parking Place Commission
for action.. Questions. on interpretation of the policy or
its application should also be directed to the Public
Works Department.
4.
L
5. The standard study area will be 1,320 feet from the
corners of the property being developed or proposed
project property. Larger or multi-storied projects
exceeding 50,000 square feet may have larger study areas
but this shall be determined at the time of project
submittal and prior to shared parking calculations.
Increases in study area shall be at the sole discretion
of the City and shall consider the type, purpose and
overall affect of the proposed project.
DIVISION IV. STANDARD REDUCTIONS
A. WEEKDAY/DAY PARKING REDUCTIONS (DOWNTOWN)
1.
Parking requirements in the Downtown area are
reduced from those contained in the
Development ~ode by the following percentage
for weekday/day time requirements for required
on-site parking:
r
:
L
Commercial
Retail
Food
Office
Hotel
Residential
10%
30%
40%
,
I
~
0%
I
f
0%
0%
The above usages are general usages contained
within the Development Code. The city will
determine which category a proposed
development falls in and apply the percentage.
Specialized usages may require additional
study to determine what, if any, reduction
might be allowed. Refer to Development Code
Section 19.24.040 for specific types of us~e.
..~
\)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIVISION V. COMPOSITE REDUCTIONS
composite demand shall apply to a single development that proposes
multiple usages within the same building. Composite demand may be
calculated for on-site parking provided the parking areas are open,
posted and available to the public at large after 6:00 pm every day
of the week. Further, composite demand may be used to establish
peak parking demand for the area composite demand, again provided
the parking area is made available to the general public after 6:00
. pm each day.
1. Definitions of weekday, day, evening and night as well as
weekend are'as follows:
. WEEKDAY (MON - FRI)
WEEKEND (SAT - SUN)
Day
7:00 ~m - 5:30 pm
6:00 pm - Midnight
Midnight - 6:00 am
1:00 am - 8:30 am
8:30 am - 6:00 pm
Evening
6:00 pm - 1:00am
Night
2 . SHARED PARKING PEAK DEMAND.
The following are the percentages of required parking by
usage, time of day and day of week and may be used in
computing shared parking demand as a part of the work
sheets. No additional or modified percentages may be
used. Reductions used for weekday/day demand may not be
used in addition to the following. Either method may be
used but only one may be applied.
Usage
WEEKDAY. WEEKEND
day evening night day evening night
60% 90% 5% 100% 70% 5%
50% 100% 5% 100% 100% 5%
100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5%
100% 10% 5% 10% 5% 5%
40% 70% 100% 60% 70% 100%
75% 100% 80% 75% 100% 80%
Retail
Food
Office
Commercial
Residential
Hotel
J. Totals for weekday and weekend in each period (day,
evening, night) must be calculated with the final design
being based on the highest ~rking ~~mand.
I: '. .,..~!
4. Existing land uses in the study area must be determined
and approved by the City prior to final acceptance of the
parking demand study. This data must be presented to the
Parking Place Commission prior to final action by the
Mayor and Common Council on acceptance of the peak demand
study.
5. All computations must be submitted on standard work
sheets (see attached).
.DIVISION VI
RESTRICTIONS
Within the parking district,. there exists both leased spaces
(leased from the parking district lots) and private parking lots
under private ownership. The following shall determine if shared
parking may be applied to leased spaces or privately controlled
spaces.
r
l.
A. Leased District Spaces
1.
2.
B.
If lessee allows unrestricted use for
evening/night and enters into a written
agreement to such use and also provides
adequate signing indicating public usage and
availability of such spaces, then the lessee
may use shared parking. calculation sheets.
However, if no such agreement is provided,
they may not use shared parking calculations.
,
I
,
!
L
If lessee does not allow unrestricted public
evening/night usage, they may use weekday
reductions only on their parking requirements.
Lessee must meet all other parking
requirements.
[
3.
Unrestricted use by the public must be
designated by signs and be prominently
displayed. Restrictions on parking must end
by the beginning of the evening time frame to
qualify.
L
Private Lots/Spaces
1. Private lots wishing to use composite parking
may do so for their private lot only unless
the lot is made available to for general
public usage beginning at the start of the
evening time frame. No area composite area
parking may be used unless the entire lot is
made available for unrestricted public usage
beginning with the evening time frame.
I
r
8
,"'J
(J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
Exhibit 2 illustrates the proposed conceptual site plan for the theatre project prepared by Stoutenborough,
Inc. Review of the current development program indicates that the proposed Multiplex Theatre project
consists of an 80,000 square-foot (SF), 20-screen theatre with 4,600 seats, and 20,000 SF of
retail/commercial floor area. It is expected that the retail space will be occupied by a combination of
specialty retail shops and/or restaurant uses (quality and/or in-line food court uses). In addition,
approximately 5,000 SF of outdoor seating area will be provided in the outdoor plaza.
For analysis purposes. (and to remain conservative), we have assumed a1l20,OOO SF of retail/commercial
. space .willbe occupied by sit-down restaurantfm-Iine food court uses. The proposed project is expected to
be completed by the middle of1998.
Parking for the entertainment center is expected to be provided at the proposed 925 space Caltrans parking
structure. This facility, located directly east of the site, will primarily be used by Caltrans during the day, but
. will support the planned 4,600 seat Cinema during late weekday afternoons, early evenings, and weekends.
The five (5) City District Parking lots, as well as the City Parking Structure located just south of City Hall,
adjacent to Radisson Hote~ are also expected to be utilized by patrons of the SBEC project.
It is also possible that the proposed theatre project will have access to the Carousel Mall parking structure
to the south. However, at this time, a reciprocal parking agreement between rna11 owners and the project
applicant has not been forma1ized. Hence, for this report, we have not included the maWrna11 structure in
our shared parking analysis.
SHARED PARKING STUDY AREA
Central Business District (CBD) Land Uses
Existing development in the vicinity of San Bernardino Entertainment Center consists ofa mixture of uses,
including office buildings, retail and commercial businesses. Existing office/commercial uses located within
the same block of the project includes the Concorde Career Center/Southern California Gas Building,
California Theatre of Performing Arts, and the San Bernardino County Department of Social Services.
Directly to the south is the Carousel Mall regional shopping center. East ofE Street is the future home of
the Caltrans District 8 Headquarters and the State Agencies Consolidated Office Building (Superblock
project). For this study, only the Caltrans office building, which is currently under construction, has been
included in our analysis. North and west of the project site is St. Bernardine's Church and Plaza, and the
Stater Brothers Shopping Center, respectively.
Southeast of the site is the Civic Center, which contains City Hall, the City's Economic Development
Agency, the San Bernardino Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Radisson Hote~ as well as a mixture of
office and retail uses. Exhibit 3 presents a conceptual plan for downtown San Bernardino and shows the
location of the proposed SBEC (Multiplex Theatre) project.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I ... INTRODUCTION.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
. SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, California
_,"i!;' ~::'.' ~
....'";'...!l. ,,-:,'
':-.,7.;; ,,;;.'~'-
~~, ,.i,-';.
." ; ~,.,......
" .--' ",. .<"'.
-..,.-' '. ,'. ,. ~~,,:'.
..-~". ,c':'.L_."
':',;T".',,,;-'
. . . .
This Shared Parking Analysis addfesses the potential parking impacts and requirements associated with the
development of a retaiVcommercial and entertainment center known as the San Bernardino Entertainment
Center. The project site lies generally in the northwest quadrant of the E Street/4th Street intersection in
the Central Business District (CBD) of the City of San Bernardino.
. . ..~
':;:..:;..
The Scope of Work for this project has beCn developed based on discussions with Mr. Anwar Wagdy, City
Traffic Engineer, as well as application of the City of San Bernardino Department of Public Works Shared
Parking Policy guidelines, dated April I? , 1996.
This parking report documents daytime, evening, and nighttime parking demand for the land use
components that are proposed as part of the San Bernardino Entertainment Center. The components that
are analyzed as part of this study include cinema, restaurants, as well as office uses and retaiVcommercial
businesses in close proximity to the entertainment center. Existing land use information and development
totals for the existing CBD retaiVcommercial and office uses within the shared parking study area have
been obtained from the City of San Bernardino and through research by LLG staff. Estimates were made
to identifY the interaction or synergy between the various uses.
The project site and shared parking study area have been visited. An inventory of all existing City District
public parking facilities was provided by City staff and field verified by LLG in January, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND WCA TION
The project site for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center (SBEC) is located north of 4th Street and
west of E Street in downtown San Bernardino. F Street borders the project site on the west, with 5th
Street to the north. Exhibit 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project
and depicts the surrounding street system The project site currently contains the United States Social
Security Administration offices, the Lier Music Company, and a Bible Supply Store; all of which will either
be demolished and/or relocated.
,:fO'il'..,~t""""'::")'~:--i"''"'''"':'''F>j.~'' .-
, .,
1 ~ '"1)''' h,lI, I ,:1 Sf h ,>. .1'N!I",t;; ~ -"'S"'T . .-. - O".tr?< E~~
.~ ~.~ u"l~w.. =<.111. ... .... t; BAS :NE' ....
~ .... )00 J !C~J, 1100; sr-;;. -...- 'oj 100 ;j 04WfC( "'Sy fx
- 0 t;; .~ "- s: = ~ s
~s_ v = > ~! !~ I !!_ _-< 1'0 1~' -< - :. SY I:
V:o: -<-IITH~- sy.- V _
!:;t.~ """400 JIll 'i -
:; V 1<00 l ~j oelVE ,0>0 Sf:;; I~' x V ~""~ "I ': ~ oelVE ~ ~> Sf ,
;~ .:i"~ 11ll.~ \.'OO.mou Sf~: ~~ I~r~ IOIll ~p' IOIll
Z . i W t ,. ~ ~ r r I~ ~~ k
I W ..:> . 911i ,...
11- - . "" - q JOG "zoO'
I. HOD 13}l I ,Ilt,.. - 7\""" >- V U1IClll ....., Ift~
V I>llllll _;~ t;; t;;,J--I:;;1 ~l ~z >OS; ~ ~i ~IST
~!C ;:1300 W II 200
,- · !z: VlNElfr~, I PROJECT.... Zs .ztIl~.Ill-sl .s'
v ~!! 71ll ~ e; .! SITE " !! . -, ~:!CO ~
~ !I v. '" 'fICTOR1~ t ~ Sf .01 ';Iat'- ... QOQ,fA SY
~v;.- r~jjOO ~... I~T I I'" "''''I. i~ ~ !} V "0;' 6lll ~,' '. CD !} ST
~ ~'.Is~' WZSPIII.C'!}"Ol. ':11111. El ,,,,,~ ..'" STx,,'" Gl '...- ~
; . R. . CTU R - ST '"- !I W ,.~!I ~ III ~
"W .~,_.."" '~on ~ E 11?< !I' . I
0>0 801 00 )'! SOl I .PO CD I 1.1I .I~ I;~-!..-.
K 'I C'IIQWl \!!.2) 1.00 1200 ~ SI Z _ .. .I.~iI.~--,r. ~
~ ST, g.. ~ ;.:::~.:== _.,_.,:, :_ ."."
===== JRO S,,~ 0.. fa' -L 3000 ST
"\ I\r ~"\ ~~ :' ST /~:wl '2"~HOt;; L :~ "'ST,': ~jk Ie f',(1 w Ii; :.; , ~ :HO ='" ~HO ; ~;
. I'IW i:~~~ sr ~ ~ ./.'~ Sf w.:;;:, ~'.'e. ,\lIT , ~ '" t;; 'I':l ; I vI- KING. ST Z E .11" ST
atll~t; ~.iz 1Z:~loC H""~ -( "- I ; ~ E R ALTO I
~ ;; lie RI~LT . :\. rn -:u z:z: -..;;. AV :II:: VI IOO~
~:~ I3<<IW~>;;I.Jt:\I100 1000 ,~~ ATCll tLl_600:" &<i113OO1sF ZOORR -ffi~P(XJK....
~l...S: ~W\"l(Y~BElIEYthlt;ST I L. -ST ~t:i t;~ ~ W~IIHJ.l!I.II;l EJULtA{;;~""'_
.. ....:>:. ~ woW - I." I W ICOflCktSS .~ COHm'S'.",'cc ... S 10 V..l..loJA'f ST _:<
: 1< . 1:(W ..........AESS -It Sf ~.,:-..:.~ VI L._...c :...::pm:'1 ~ .,. z
;;: . i t; HEOERSOH .!J! .S,t~CJ".~.~',:'~':W " lnlll:TW >- >- CiS ~ VI
-., ltf,4it-
~ ~";~ !Sf! t;;: ~ L rl.( D<LT~ i .M Sf~! U~~ J ,,": ~. ICW Tl~ ~ \1. E VAlLEY I
s """~l~" :z: still' Sf^ 0 "'N ~(".._ ~:1 ~E~~ ST' i1 ~~ Sf t;.y- ~ Sf
" q: '-e; VI ~!< ~ >0J!."!rl V1 \~.~"'" E '.'r ST
" __ . ~ i2 POI' iA ST .. j ST ~ e '" ~ ~ jZ Z " :\'e....... ~
~'. ~ ~ ST' L.!LRCH cr 8 _ ST E .'OT N
... : .--- w ... <........ ~;. E aERRY
!::: J W - 'W';! i~ _ ~~\ ~ \;;::J ~ ~ '" 101 '.7
\~,.,....l;,;fl .... \I .......> 51 ~~V'I M LL '-. I..LJ III VI .. XX) I 51 .... 0 E ..~ M1'CL~.
\ \' "." \. ST ~ ~ ... W. I 1 .'0/ '"
t't-\4" P1"" ?:<~ d 1300 'iIlAL.l..IU.... W ~,. l j 5f!i ..' .: If.-; 'I - 100 L7- 2 ~ 1
Iv-' W IfJFF ~rj.---E--t;;"o(i ~"-'- ~HUFw~ST ,,/; ." "fF~. 01'/ _:2 '5
;,'?( ~ is ',1. 1A .i ~ "'~. ~ ~ ;t)~; r;:;" ~ ~,~
'It',', ;,,:....:. - ~.". W L' OR , ~ ~, ~I:.
~~<< ~-. ",,'II!J FFERSOtI ~ <":\,,,~' V)'. :<_ .... DllAKf:
..., I", ~ i I AV ~:c ~/)~'\.. ~ tii ~ ~
k~!< ". l!i' ::..-. ~ ! lW" ~ ::. ~(~'-r."'I - " :;!
~'~-11 .., -:- I!i ' ., AV ~~; _ LAV -E ~ CEHTR.
I_-:~ ~ .
~. ", , ;;. ~ ~~ ,~~ W ,oil:; AV ) III .. ::' ~" ~ v
~A,. >i{;~'1M':'{n'.!~: . ~ ~<O I ~ "(1) '" B:~ICT
~7 7'\ E _....: lo!!, LCtfS1 AV L: ST V HtLlr:R(~T
", ,.,- ...,
~Ei."fNE' ,
M I. _!':~
. . ..,.,.
'z: ST ~
OliVE
<T
-
E I I iIIml
~~ ZOO,
i
L_
[
~
~ ~
~ " L
Z
~ ~
8
Z 01
::; ~
>>
>> ~
0
w
0
'"
co
-
e~
\1
X
~
~o SCALE
UNSeOlT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
EHCINEERS
MAP SOURCE: THOMAS BROS,
1
VICINITY MAP
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C.
2. Private lots made available to' the general
public for use must be marked as such, open
and unrestricted during evening and night
hours.
3. Notice must be given to the general public on
the liability of using private lots during
evening and night hours.
4. Private lots made available will allow the
building owner to participate in shared
parking calculations for their own lot and in
shared composite demand within the specified
distance of the project.
Time Limited Parking Restriction
1. All on-street and district lots with time
limited parking shall be revised to eliminate
time limits during evening and night time
hours.
2. Citation time limits will be set for a 30
minute grace time beyond the designated time.
Vehicles parked and marked by control officers'
during time limit parking hours. will be cited
unless moved or re-parked after the limits are
removed. This insures that all parkers have
access to the spaces and that those parking in
later afternoon will still be subject to
parking restrictions and may not overlap into
unrestricted parking.
3. On-street and district lots will not have time
limits during weekends.
4.
Private
spaces
program
lots may not: place time limits on
and remain 1n the shared parking
unless the above conditions are met.
B 9
DIVISION VII
WORKSHEETS
SHARED PARKING WORKSHEET
ON SITE LOTS'
USAGE
A. BASELINE DATA ON DEVELOPMENT (USING STANDARD REDUCTIONS)
Commercial
Retail
Food
Office
Industrial
Residential
Hotel
Other
TOTAL
SQ. FT.
CODE
%REDUCTION
(weekday)
PARKING REQD
(weekday)
B. COMPOSITE DEMAND - ON SITE ONLY
NOTE: Parking must be available for unrestricted public
parking beginning at 6:00 pm
USAGE
Commercial
Retail
Food
Office
Industrial
Residential
Hotel
Other
TOTAL
Day
WEEKDAY
Evening
Nite
WEEKEND
Day Evening
Nite
B
J. ,)
..i.\
L
r
I
'-
L
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c.
AREA COMPOSITE DEMAND
Radius from site:
Total Available Spaces in area (not incl on street):
Number of On Street Spaces:
Total Square footage building area
Commercial:
Retail:
Food:
Office:
Industrial:
Residential:
Hotel:
other:
USAGE
Day
. Commercial
Retail
Food
Office
Industrial
Residential
Hotel
Other
TOTAL
WEEKDAY
Evening
Nite
WEEKEND
Day Evening
TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES AREA DEMAND:
TOTAL EXISTING SPACES NOT INCL ON STREET
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED
(subtract existing from
area demand)
B
-I ~
..l.l,
Nite
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
APPENl>IX C' '-' .
ULI: SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY
I
I
II
I
fl
I"'.'
I
I
I
I
I
1'1
I
I
The survey results demonstrated that a reduction
in the number of parked vehicles occurs as a
result of shared parking. The data were suffi.
ciently consistent to indicate that a quantitative
basis for estimating the demand for shared parking
does exist. Based upon the findings of the survey. a
methodology was developed to determine parking de.
mand for the conditions typically found in a mixed.use
development. This methodology is universal in its ap.
plication and flexible enough to incorporate adjust.
ment factors as necessary to suit specific policies.
programs. and market conditions.
t~_...__...
..............~."....-
IL, ,. ". - .......:i$,~-
. ..... --...; '. '.
;.,...~....~,..- .,~~,. II ~t~h
~ / <. .. . d' ..' '. : ._.
:(.:;~~}:i~;;tt.il~~~;:-.-,.,.~... .' ..
c
t';
,.
THE METHODOLOGY
The methodology involves four basic steps that may
be applied. with appropriate background information.
to an existing or proposed project. Exhibit 2S illus-
trates the organization and flow of work. The basic
flow of work begins with a review of the development
plan and proceeds through the four steps (and sub-
tasks) to an estimate of demand for shared peak park-
ing. In support of these activities. input from other
analyses may be added. They could include an addi.
tional data base to refine or modify unit parking fac.
tors or other characteristics and market analyses.
The methodology is designed to be sequential. but it
can be used in an iterative fashion to test the impact of
alternative development plans, assumptions, or
policies.
STEP J: INITIAL PROJECT REVIEW
An analysis of shared parking deals with more de.
tailed issues and relationships than traditional analy.
ses of parking demand. Knowledge of the site and
intended land use therefore becomes more important.
,. I n addition to square footage or other measurements
....
.
EXHIBIT 25
SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY
_.~..,
.. .. R:~.
, "~..2m'"
.iJ'_~
-.
@ STEP AND TASK NUMBERS
~~tt~~~~~Wli~~.~~~:"
"YACC~ONS,.i;'" "S"-F.
-~ \=O;:\t~::~"\;.:::::>.:~ .~. 7; :~'.~: .; -'.~' ~}i.:,:
of land use, it is necessary to describe both the physi.
cal and anticipated functional relationships between
the land uses. While the physical relationships con-
cern the basic physical layout and organization of
facilities-for example, vertical or horizontal projects,
distances between land uses, surrounding uses, prox-
imity to transportation and other parking facilities-
functional relationships concern the intended charac-
ter and type of land uses and how the project will work.
For example, in a project that includes retail, hotel,
and office space, retail facilities may be clearly ori-
ented to hotel guests, office workers, or other "captive
persons," or to external shoppers. Early in the plan-
ning process for a development, the information de-
scribing relationships between land uses may not be
available. If not, a set of assumptions and/or alterna-
tive development scenarios should be identified for the
c
44
~--...._._~.._--_..._.-.
analysis. A checklist of questions dealing with these
assumptions is as follows:
· What is the square footage by use (or number qf
hotel rooms and theater seats)?
· If a hotel is included, will banquet rooms and con.
vention facilities be available?
· If meeting rooms and convention facilities are pro.
vided, what are the intended concept for programs
and the intended audience?
· What is the assumed market support for any retail
or entertainment space?
· If a cinema is included, how many theaters will it
have? What type of programs will be scheduled?
What are the assumptions regarding show times?
· If residential space is included, will any parking
constraints be observed (reserved parking. for
example)?
L
r
L
[
l
o
"'"
-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STEP 2: ADJUSTMENT FOR PEAK PARKING FACTOR
This step produces an appropriate set of peak park.
ing demand factors. They represent the number of
parking spaces needed per unit of land use or other
parameter. 1b determine the factors, the following
subtasks are necessary.
Verification of Land Use and Selection of Parking
Parameters. The land uses described for the project
in step 1 define the specific set of peak parking factors
needed for the analysis of parking demand. The pa-
rameter for each factor should be verified. Generally,
square feet of floor space or rooms or dwelling units
would be used; however, other variables might be more
appropriate for certain unique activities.
Specifically, the following information must be
verified:
· Verify that occupied GLA is to be used, including or
excluding common areas.
· Convert convention facilities to equivalent square
feet if capacity per person is used in the building
program (15 square feet per person may be used if
another density factor is not available).
Selection of Parking Factors. A preliminary value
should be selected or determined for the set of peak
parking factors. Information could be drawn from
three sources: (1) parking factors suggested by the
study (see ex!jibit 26), (2) validated experience of the
developer or other local authorities, or (3) new park.
ing field surveys. It is essential to know what season
or time of year and mode of travel are represented in
the specific source for factors. This information
should be described in terms of month of year (by land
use) and approximate percent of nonauto use (that is,
percent of person.trips made by modes other than
auto).
. Adjustment for Season. For demand analyses, all
parking factors need to reflect the same "design con.'
dition. "1YPically, the 30th highest hour has been used
for highway projects. Similarly, for development analy.
ses, the appropriate design period must be selected;
that is, the peak season for each land use .must be
det~rmined, based on developer's data, another
source, or study results (see exhibit 27).
However, because the design month frequently is
different for each land use in a multiuse development,
trial and error may be required to determine which
month produces the maximum aggregate parking de-
mand. The intent of the exercise is to recognize the
"aggregate effects" of seasonality. This concept is the
same as that used to determine the impact of daily
peaks.
Using the quantity for each land use, test calcula-
tions (parking demand factor multiplied by floor
space) are made to identify the controlling land use.
On this basis, a design month can be selected. Each
EXHIBIT 26
REPRESENTATIVE PEAK PARKING DEMAND FACTORS
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per seat
Parking spaces per dwelling unita
Land Use
Office
Retail (400,000 sq. ft.)
Retail (600,000 sq. ft.)
Restaurant
Cinema
Residential
Hotel
Guest room
Restaurant/lounge
Conference rooms
Convention area
Unit
Weekday
3.00
3.80
3.80
20.00
0.25
1.00
Parking spaces per room
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per seatc
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLAc
1.25b
10.00
0.50
30.00
Saturday
0.50
4.00
5.00
20.00
0.30
1.00
l.25b
10.00
0.50
30.00
aPer one auto owned per dwelling unit.
bFactored up to 100 percent auto use lrom the 80 percent auto use indicated in exhibit 13.
eUsed by nonguests; the given rates thus are upper bounds. which are very rarely achieved.
C 3
.c
parking factor is then adjusted to the same month. For
example, if December is selected as the design month
for a mixed-use project, the retail factor would be the
normal peak, but the hotel factor would be factored to
a value less than its seasonal peak.
Adjustmentfor Mode of Transportation Used. Just
as the parking demand factors must be adjusted to the
same season, they must also be adjusted to reflect the
mode of transportation used. The recommended ap-
proach is a twofold change. First, available peak park-
ing demand factors are adjusted upward to reflect 100
percent auto use. Second, these parking factors for
100 percent auto use are adjusted downward to reflect
the expected conditions at the development project
being analyzed. For the typical suburban project
where transit is not available, the second modification
is not needed. However, for downtown projects in ur-
ban areas where transit may be used for 10 to 60
percent of the trips, this correction is significant.
The source for data about transportation modes
may be specific transportation surveys or transporta.
tion data available from planning studies for the urban
area. The latter choice requires an assessment of the
information's applicability to a specific site.
Adjustment for Captive Market. This adjustment
is optional because the effects of a captive market are
C
'It,
difficult to identify. Without this adjustment, the de.
mand estimate for shared parking would probably be
too conservative. .
The existence of the captive patron relationship is
identified by surveys of employees, visitors, and pa-
trons as well as by parking surveys. Captive markets
could be large enough to significantly lower parking
demand. The data might indicate a widely ranging
relationship that may not be predictable, however.
They might be analyzed in a "what if" sense to test the
possible impacts. Assuming a representative value of
captive market support could reduce parking factors
for retail or entertainment uses. An alternative would
be to undertake a specific market analysis. This analy-
sis would include a site-specific assessment of the
potential for captive market support.
l
,
L
L
L
STEP 3: ANALYSIS OF HOURLY ACCUMULATION
I
r
This step produces an estimate of hourly parking
accumulations for each land use during a typical
weekday or weekend day (Saturday). The results of
this step identify the shape of hourly accumulation
curves for five basic land uses. The curves were rea-
sonably consistent for a wide range of surveyed sites
4
,
~.
I
I I
,
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 28
REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION BY
PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR
Mottl
llul4t.u.l ..."u. c..r..uoU _..
..... .... R...,uul Ci.... 1_.taDI IW ICaDJ G...'R_ Rcttu.utIt.ooo&I' .... .....An.
KOII."'o., W..".., ......., ......., ......, tre."..,. Sail.....,. ..., ......"u, 1.11....' ..., ......., $If",..,. Wett":r ......., ..., ...,
6:00 a.m. 3" I_ um, 100% 1- 90% 20% 20%
7:00 a.m. 20 20% 8" 3" 2" 2" 87 95 95 85 70 20 20
8:00 a.m. 63 60 18 10 5 3 79 88 90 65 60 20 20 50% 50~
9;00 a.m. 93 80 42 30 10 6 7J 81 87 55 50 20 20 100 100
10:00 a.m. 100 80 68 45 20 8 68 74 85 45 40 20 20 100 100
11:00 a.m. 100 100 87 7J 30 10'/57. - 59 71 85 35 35 30 30 100 100
12:00 Noon 90 100 97 85 SO/OD?; 30 IIXi'; 30% 60 11 85 30 30 50 30 100 100 .
1:00 p.m. 90 80 100 95 . 701A;f7# 4Slcll~ 70 59 ,0 85 30 30 70 45 100 100 I
- 2:00 p.m. 97 60 97 100 60 45 ,0 60 11 85 35 35 60 45 100 100 !
3:00 p.m. 93 40 95 100 60 45 70 61 7J 85 35 40 55 45 100 100 .
4:00 p.m. 77 40 87 90 50 45 70 66 75 87 45 50 50 45 100 100 '
-5:00 p.m. 47 20 79 75 70 60 70 77 81 90 60 60 70 60 100 100 :
6:00 p.m. 23 20 82 65 90 90 80 85 85 92 70 70 90 90 100 100
7:00 p.m. , 20 89 60 100 95 90 94 87 94 75 80 100 95 100 100
8:00 p.m. , 20 87 55 100 100 100 96 92 96 90 90 100 100 100 100
9:00 p.m. 3 61 40 100 100 100 98 95 98 95 95 100 100 100 100 I
10:00 p.m. 3 32 38 90 95 100 99 96 99 100 100 90 95 50 50
11:00 p.m. B B 70 85 80 100 98 100 100 100 70 85
12:00 Mid. 50 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 50 70
night
:
involving office, regional retail, and resident{al facili-
ties (see exhibit 28). Nonroom.related hotel activities
and entertainment uses varied significantly, however.
If site-specific data are not available for these two land
uses, survey results could be used.
Accumulation curves are then estimated for each
land use, based on the selected hourly values de-
scribed in terms of the percent of maximum design-day
parking demand expected at every hour during the day.
The parking demand factor (step 2) multiplied by
quantity of land use (step 1) produces an est"imate of
peak parking demand. This value multiplied by each
hourly percentage produces an estimate of parking
demand for every land use component by hour of day.
STEP 4: ESTIMATE OF SHARED PARKING
The hourly parking demand for each land use is
merged to estimate overall shared parking demand for
a proposed project. This step is simply the hour-by-
hour addition of parking demand for each use to esti-
mate'the aggregate accumulation. As noted previously,
the method described above should be used for week-
day and Saturday conditions to test for the controlli'ng
value.
c
SAMPLE USE OF THE METHODOLOGY
The following sample situation has been devised to
demonstrate the use of the recommended
methodology.
1. Objective: Th estimate the peak parking require-
ments for a proposed mixed-use development.
2. Plan: The proposed development has the following
components:
. Office = 400,000 square feet GLA
. Retail = 300,000 square feet GLA
. Hotel = 500 rooms plus 5,000 square feet of
restaurant and conference facilities with 200-seat
capacity.
3. Location: The project will be located in the down-
town of a medium-size urban community whose
regional population is approximately 1.5 million.
4. Mode split:17 Based on surveys conducted at exist-
ing developments in the downtown, it is estimated
that 75 percent of employees and patrons and 50
percent of hotel guests will use autos. The number
of persons per auto is assumed to be typical (1.2 for
employees, 1.8 for patrons, 1.4 for hotel guests).
17"Mode split" refers to the percentage of people at a site who use a
particular mode of tran5portation, with Ihe total of all modes
equaling 100 percent.
Q
47
"
I "
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
463 N, SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
TEL (909) 884-9700 . FAX (909) 889-8050
~..
--
'~~
L., '_
MEMORANDUM
Apri123, 1997
From: Tom Dodson
To: Mike Finn, City of San Bernardino
Subj: Responses to comments and recommendations for the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center CEQA environmental determination
The 30-day comment period on the proposed Negative Declaration for the San Bernardino
Entertainment Center (SBEC) project ended on Monday, April 21, 1997. We received two
comment letters on the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration. These letters were
from:
1. San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department
2. Dr. James L. Mulvihill
I have prepared responses to these comments relying upon input from the project traffic engineer
and your office. The responses are attached for distribution to and consideration by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) at the April 24, 1997 ERC meeting.
Based on the input received, it is my recommendation to the ERC that the proposed SBEC
project still warrants a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures as the appropriate
environmental determination in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). I will be at the ERC meeting to present my recommendations and to address any
questions or comments that arise at the meeting.
~g~
Tom Dodson
Attachment
~)itt'6\"{' '3 , .-\1\-1-~ C:r
71/17
-Ii. L/ 9
LETTER /11
"~'h~[""Vn ll'll lVl'UrL.UUU \;V1'41 H.UL
DEPARmMENT-SU~R
I APR 1 1 1997
'~._38i_"
au (tOll) 38:r46f>7
", '.;~~: .' -:~... ~..." .
COUIlJYOF~~~~'QoK
l'U8I.IO Sl!l..IIC$ ClROUP..
.' "_~-'~'~"",..~",,....:."
. aas
'GHA.Uii';l€lt.~..\ .
.~
crrv O~ SAN 8SliWllllo
llEP'AlmAENr 01' I'I.ANNIIG a.
lllJlU)ING 8IAVICliS
File: yet oslF;'tk Stnel
Apri/9,I997
O"lYOFSANB.ElWARl>JNo
~~Sc.~s[)qlt.~~
3(J().N'orl1a "D'" Sind
~&...-.&.v,CA 92II8
.AnN; Mr<::fL\a.R. FINN
Dtar Mr. Fitm:
The TrajJic DWisfotr ;~i-d the Th!8ic Stwiy p..",...-e4 "by Unsct>tt lAD &- Qee,.."..., j1r tire San
&rruztrliM E<..lIai.....mt Ctnftr. ~ httot: !lOW frtJm &JrIblf 8, "'P.M. PrI2i HJru Proj<<;t TnifJU;
V~~ that tlrtn is s(gt~d fmJIic ~ mst on Eotafh ttniJ. l=ifth Strerf. li\i- ~ fhtIt tire
ttff<<Id. rmzjur i..te.~ 1l1rlkr Corozty ~ ~ on Formft tlIld Fifth Sfrtds from
Waletmmr Alle.. to Tll1peorJ1<<Aw.lElZllIIfy.II!lftlSUldI. .
If you. ~1rlJY ~~, p1east amlact Gary 1Jl1rlm=.1It (909)387-2833.
1-1
~tl e:J
Q~1J Y. BABICQ,?.E.
~ Trrifji(; Dir:>isilm
IY8:LB:Ic
cc: KAM,a.L-&llding File
. '"0 i$.; .....;...~.=:-:.
::'. ~..:: ,!.':".:. .'i:'.~::'lt :::: :~.
":J:~;' s.':=-D'~..~:;n . .
~!.7"".\t"...~':';'I$.........o. .0.. ~_"'l'.:.::<t.:......:.: =e~~"!::';..~1;!:<,.t!;.: .0...... fII.... ,':.
'0 . .",. _ _ ... _0 '0..
...c:;:.:l:U::"S ...........-...... $.L..~~~;:,:...::=": ._'.;r~t!~!.'E... ":0. ...... .~.-. .,1' ""
:!~1.'.' !J.'!/s..'!; ....."o...t ...... .r!~ ~$;'-.:~
7:~: :t:~:.\
~.~f\;l.::':. ::0;:::,"., :'f;..,:!_I:J-::~ .~..
- -
I '
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER NO.1
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT
1-1 Please refer to the attached response prepared by the project traffic engineer which indicates
that no significant traffic impacts will effect the intersections or streets east of the "E"
Street/Fifth Street intersection.
-
IINSCOTT
LA\N &
CREENSPA"i
...
..
1o)~@~DW~f[)\
In} APR 2 3 1997 10
,
ENGINEERS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
BUILOING SERVICES
, ENGINEERS & PlANNERS . lRAfFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING
1580 Corporate Drive. Suite 122 . Costa Mesa. California 92626
Phone: 714 641.1587 . fax: 714 641-0139
April 21, 1997
Mr. Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Planning and Building Services Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
VIA FAX: (909) 384-5080
Subject:
RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STAFF COMMENTS
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
San Bernardino, California
Dear Mr. Finn:
The following is a response letter prepared to address the comments received on the Traffic
Impact Analysis Report for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center, dated March 3, 1997,
from the County of San Bernardino TransportationlF1ood Control Department-Surveyor. The
County comment letter is dated April 9, 1997.
County Comment:
The Traffic Division reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan
for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center. We have noted from Exhibit 8, "P.M.
Peak Hour Project Traffic Volume," that there is significant traffic proceeding east on
Fourth and Fifth Street. We require that the affected major intersections under County
jurisdiction, specifically on Fourth and Fifth Streets, from Watennan to Tippecanoe be
analyzed as -.vell.
LLG Response:
Based on the existing street network in the project study area and anticipated project
traffic distribution pattern, traffic generated by the proposed San Bernardino
Entertainment Center will not significantly impact traffic conditions on 4th Street and 5th
Street, east of "0" Street, in the County of San Bernardino. As stated in the report, the
project traffic distribution pattern presented in Exhibit 7 of the report was developed
based on the assumption that parking for the movie theatre will be provided at the
Caltrans Parking Structure. The majority of project traffic, as illustrated in Exhibit 8,
utilizes 4th and 5th Street to access the Caltrans Parking Structure.
Philip M. UnS<Qll, P .E. (ReI.) ..
J..ck M. Greenspan, P .E.
willi..m A.law, P.E. (Ret.l
P..ul W. Wilkinson. P.E.
John P. Keating. P.E.
David S. Sheoder, P.E.
Pasadena. 818 796-2322 . San Diego - 619 299-3090 . Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 . An LG2WB Company
LINSCOTT
L/\W &.
GREE,'\;SP/\,'.J
Mr. Michael R. Finn
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Apri12l, 1997
Page 2
ENGINEERS
Project generated traffic is not expected to utilize 4th Street, east of "0" Street, given this
downtown roadway terminates at Arrowhead Avenue. Thus, project traffic will not impact
major intersections under County jurisdiction on 4th Street, between Waterman Avenue and
Tippecanoe. The project volumes utilizing 4th Street total 157 trips (66 inbound, 91
outbound) and originate from the south and west, via "E" Street and 4th street (none from the
east).
Project traffic on 5th Street totals 194 trips. The majority of project generated traffic (143
trips) on 5th Street originates from the. north and west of the study area and primarily utilize
5th Street to access the Caltrans Parking Structure. Project generated traffic on 5th, east of
"0" Street, total 51 trips (27 inbound, 24 outbound). The traffic impacts of these project-
related trips are expected to be insignificant and will dissipate as project traffic disperses to
other local roadways prior to Waterman and Tippecano~.
Please note that based on application of the County of San Bernardino CMP impact criteria.
the key signalized intersections on 5th Street, between Waterman and Tippecanoe, will not
require evaluation. Per the CMP impact criteria, the study area must include intersections
where the proposed project will add 80 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions).
Since project traffic originating from the east on 5th street totals only 51 trips, at worse, no
other intersections east of "0" Street were evaluated.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This completes our response package prepared to address comments from County of San Bernardino
staff on the Traffic Study Report for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center. If there are any
further questions, or you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
~Ctl-J,~.~~
Richard E. Barretto
Transportation Engineer III
attachments
cc: Jason Kamm, MDA-San Bernardino Associates, LLC
David Gaulton, Pacific Development Services
Anwar Wagdy, City of San Bernardino
1850RTC2.DOC
~
LETTER /12
~m:~~~~~"
HEMOBANDUI(
~O~A
TO:
Mr. Miehael Finn
Planning Department ~/"I A
City of San Bernardino:f:~~~ ?pr~'
Dr. James L. Mulvihill
California State Unlvers y, San Bernardino
FROM:
SUBJECT: Comments on the Initial Study, San Bernardino
Entertainment Center.
CC: File.
DA.TE:
April 21, 1997
The Initial Study for this project concludes that a
mitigated negative declaration provides sufficient
protection to the public for the anticipated negative
impacts this project ~ill produce. I have several concerns
regarding this conclusion, and request that more complete
environmental analysis be re~uired.
My concerns fall under five topics: parking,
liquefaction, traffic, cumulative impacts and potential for
creatine blight.
1) Parkind: Regarding Initial Study Section A(9)b,
Exhibit 3 of the parking study shows parking Zones
3 and 4 are two blocks from the proposed site. On
page 15, the study concludes that demand on
~typical" ~eekdays and weekends will Ri~ni~i~antlv
exceed shared parking, and these two last zones
will be required.
2-1
Use of theaters assumes adjacent parking, or at
least "line of sight." Assuming that patrons will
walk two blocks is a bad assumption. At Ontario
Mills parking is adjacent to their 52 screens.
Even if you parked at the far end of that complex,
there m&7 be a two block walk, but the large
shopping complex intervenes and provides some
attractive stops along the way.
Associated with this already constrained parking
situation, what are the plans for festivals such
as "Route 66." I saw nothing in the study
regarding this and si~ilar Main Street events,
e.g. farmers markets, etc. Does the theater have
contingency plans for parking during those
periods?
Page Two
Me~orandum: San Bernardino Entertainment Center
April 21, 1997
2) Y.iQ"..t'A.",tinn: Regarding Initial Study Section A(l)h,
hi,h liquefaction potential should not be listed
as ~maybe;" it i. a fact. In my memory, basements
of bUildings in .the vicinity have had to u.e pumps
2-2 to keep water levels down. It is a critical
concern here because the theaters will be built
"below grade." The problem was a major concern in
the twin theaters on Orange Show Road in which the
. first 5-10 rows were frequently flOOded. What does
this mean for their design?
3) Traffic: Re,ardina Initial Study Section A(l)a, the
letter and executive summary dated March 3, 1997,
from Mr. Richard E. Barretto of Lin~cott. Law and
GreenlSpan, concludes that only one of nine
intersections will be negatively impacted by this
development, that at E Street and 5th. Page iii
concludes that at peak hour a LOS F will exist at
this intersection. The mitigations include: re-
striping and eliminating some diagonal parking.
Will these sufficiently correct the LOS
shortcomings generated by the project. What are
the plans for "Route 66," and similar weekends?
2-3
Looking at Initial Study Section A(14)c, ~andatory
findings regarding cumulative impacts. The
Superblock is only at Phase 1 in construction.
Page ii of the Executive Summary of the Linscott,
Law and Greenspan study indicates that cumulative
impacts of Phase 2 is ~ included in. this
analysis (and I couldn't identify if Phase 1 was
completely covered). The Superblook has the
potential of generating aany ancillary activities
related to the State Office building. In fact, the
present report indicates 695,000 SF of additional
space is planned in Phase 2 alonel Now we have the
opportunity to look more closely about how this
project will limit our future planning. If traffic
and parking is tight now, what. must we do to
assure that future decisions won't be limited by
this project?
4) Rl;~ht: If this project fails, it will have severe
blighting impact on its nei,hborhood, and likely
the City as whole. There are other investments, in
neighborhoods that will deteriorate further
without funding, that can be made with the
resources being risked on this project.
By assuming this theater will have a "regional
2-4
l
Page Three
Memorandum: San Bernardino Entertainment Center
April 21, 1997
2-4
cent.
draw," the marketing studT for this project is
greatlT flawed. Right now, there i. a multiplex
being built in Redlands, and there are already 52
screens in Ontario. At best. this project will
draw _inly from the local community. Without a
broader market, this project can't aucceed.
Also, the $7 million HUn Section 108 loan being
u~ed to support over half of this proJect. Uses
future CO.-unit,.. Development Block Grants .s .
collateral. If this project fails, whioh agencies
won't we fund? .
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER #2
DR. JAMES L. MULvmn..L
2-1 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Planning Commission when it
considers this project for a decision. The parking analysis allows the assumptions contained
in the parking study. Visual line of site access to the theaters may be preferable as stated in
your comment, but in terms of identifYing adequate parking resources the study has shown
that adequate parking is available within easy walking distance. Further, although the shops
along "E" Street may not be comparable to those at Ontario Mills, many small shops are
located in the immediate area that provide a variety of shopping options. Regarding parking
during special events, the parking evaluation does not address the "extreme" demand
circumstance any more than traffic studies examine the absolute worst case traffic flow
condition. The threshold for traffic and parking impacts is based on the average peak demand
for circulation and parking resources. Otherwise, infrastructure would be designed for a
condition that would occur only one time per year or less (for example the Rose Bowl on
New Years day) and the remainder of the time such circulation and parking resources would
remain unused. Typically, when too much demand exists for such resources, people will
either abandon their recreation or will find an alternative, such as parking further away from
the area. Given the typical peak use pattern identified in the parking study can be adequately
handled with the available parking resources, but it will require a short hike from the furthest
parking locations. Additional analysis would not result in any other findings, so no additional
analyses are recommended.
~
'\
2
2-2 If you read the data carefully, you would have discovered that the water table at the site is
currently too deep (about 100 feet at this location) to pose any liquefaction hazard. However,
historic evidence indicated that the water table can reach depths below ground level at this
site that may contribute to liquefaction of the site. This same problem existed for the new
state building across the street, and engineering design measures were included in the design
to ensure that liquefaction would not cause significant damage to this 13 storey structure.
Your comment that the buildings will be built "below grade" is confusing since they will be
constructed at grade. The one and two storey structures at the project site will incorporate
engineered designs that can ensure the movie theater will not experience significant damage
at the site if liquefaction occurs in the future. The geotechnical engineering reports for the
state building are available for review at the City Planning and Building Services Department.
2-3 As noted above, the proposed designs for traffic flow deal with the weekday peak hour, i.e.
a typical or average situation. For reasons stated above, circulation systems are not designed
for the absolute maximum traffic flow. We know of no jurisdictions that utilize such extreme
traffic conditions as the basis for assessing the significance of traffic impacts. On weekends
when major events are held downtown the local system will be overloaded, but this is not
considered a significant traffic impact. The City uses a LOS "E" during the weekday peak
hour as the threshold for measuring significant impact to traffic flow. With the proposed
mitigation, traffic impacts can be reduced below a significant level.
Future decisions about the effects of future development of the Superblock will have to be
reevaulated in a subsequent Initial Study and possible a Subsequent EIR. This will be
required because the circumstances at the site will have changed as a result of the movie
theater development, and the next phase of the Superblock development will have to identify
the increased impacts and the measures, for both traffic and parking, that will need to be
implemented to reduce impacts below a significant level. Bottom line, the timing of the
potential demand for the additional commercial space is considered too speculative at this
time to justify including this square footage in the traffic evaluation for this project.
2-4 This comment delves into City development policy, specifically socioeconomic issues, which
is beyond the scope of this Initial Study. It is far too speculative to make a guess about the
potential for this facility to succeed or fail economically, and the CEQA does not require
evaluating either speculative or socioeconomic issues as part of the Initial Study or an EIR.
The concerns identified in this comment will be provided to the decision-makers for this
project for their consideration prior to a decision.
3
"~'_'_6........"~..._,...-.<',;,"_,'_,';';'.~. ..
......
:aa... .
. .
'. .
" .
~tate of QCalifomia
~
(~~.)
'>.ii;",,~
PETE WILSON
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
LEE GRISSOM
DIRECTOR
April 21, 1997
MIKE FINN
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "D" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
Subject: SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER SCH #: 97031048
Dear MIKE FINN:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental
documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process. When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
~4.
ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
OO~A~~~~~~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
BUILDING SERVICES
"
97031048
Hot
N.DIO:SulCac..;
I $#~l"_
seH.
~ E"'Sr:~~~~~21~
e f Completion and Envlronment.1
um.nt Transml<<a' Fonn
.lu.tlTcIlll\SU'tcl. $lImmtIllO-C^ MII.&-91~S-06I]
.. -...t......c.~ ~~ A. I.
2. LalIAIC"Cr '!.. '" IViLr"...",.,:;.
3L s.-A,*", 3 ']51 ..J1'-:r
k. c-: ~. )d. Zip #fl'1
--'R,----
~.64.
-
.. c-,
4. .......... h1ad . .
...c-_
.. .....1lhi;l2....: a.S~H.,.
C,~"lo'
.
4.. C~IC-w:
.&c. Sa:-_ /V/ Y-1I.
!ob.F.Jl1oll''''.~,,"~
... "I.";ICl'V
4""'-":"1
...,.
7. DHumetd Ttpe
GOAl 01. E:"' ez='. =Supplc-'S.~t1It NEP.r.: tot. ,':0;01 OTHI~
en... ''''K'II!'I.-~' 10.;:10:0>51
Cl3. . I Ole ~-:~ 1I...D:ttlllS
01. Dn.''1I11l 0-:. ~:o;oc I~:L\
Oi....:~
.. u..IAc,l.,.. Type
".~CicMra!PkIlC,"",
IXI. ~,..mc-
OS. G$MnI ,.. AINlldlnral
01. MaAa P1M
~.-=:,......
O&_S~",I"IM
:: t: ~:;;;;..~
"':~JlUMW
Jo. : LalIt DimiollrSlIWhi..-
~I!ol.... TMlMq.ac.)
II.F"":=R
.. De""""""t Type
",~~ l'~_At....,_ .,..._ O1.;MiIlltI.: NiIw-.l
0:. ICIt: .\f.~ ,~,_ k,':"HlAI&I Ol. .,""-a: T'!1'I
CD. jgr. ',<: __.i.J:S4~rn_~HI_ tt.!-:..._. T_III:T'!1t
OI.~ $f.lt_~_l~ftI_ 1G..oall'lIIad
05. W_helIlDel: j..'G!1 Il.~o-..-::
06. TrIIlIpIlNUC&: 7:r1f
;;~~~;----31~---------~~:~~~:~~---~dn----
w_
...fitl._.DI..C....M1nO"C:-~
01. "iIuII (l5.- oclSci,ll:it I~.~.S.
~ . IftnJI.Mod 10. 'till'Utift,l~a..~:r 11_ loa
03. "r. 1!.t:~1 It.
Gl. . ~"flCal'H"Icn:a1 1.- ;r-t~...P: ~~,~::.
!J. ~.c . I,~.,_ .n',' ic:" _
-. .. ""'" ::;~-~
ai. l! ,,"'LS~1I111 :~-r~i~
(1(. . ~,r 16. ~r:c'a?Kn: :., J.\IoO":511;';'l~
~~~~~~~~:;~--~----~~~---Ar~-~~;--------
~.;:::'~,;~:: :;-:;":.- - ci. =.t --;;,; - -/- - - - -- - -:- /--
~.-;,:;=.;.::.;;;:.:-- -:?,O --I!;~;;:;:;;-~>>E~-~~~,;;?7..::y
witt, ...104''''- d-J1,O~ ~.~ dr reh:/ ~"'i?l~'''!
:~'B\\"c~
~ 'Ilo"ildlil,
:~., CirC*'IIlll'lluria,
:i,~1N'~,*l..u6\.\w
:t.l"'~r.MIlr.ML'f_
~.::0I.'lc1
State Clearinchouse Contact:
Project Sent to the following State Agencies
State Review Began:
Mr. Chris Belsky
(916)44'.0613
..1.1LJ2
~.J1
'I. I(
~_Ir
StatrlColUumer Svc:s
Genei'll! Services
CallEPA
ARB
-.l5. CA W.... Mpn. 8d
SWRCB: Grants
SWRCB: Delta
7<.. SWRCB: W" QuaJ;ty
_SWRCB: WtrRights
-1L R.g. WQCB' .k
DTSClCTC
-1L Rnourcts
_ Boating
Coastal Comm
Coasl.lll Consv
ColOl"ldo Rvr Bd
== ConscrVltion r-
-L Fish & Game #~
_ Delta Protection
_Forestry
-,IL Puks '" RcclOHP
_ Reclamation
BCDC
-::x. DWR
OES
Bus Transp HOlIs
Aeronautics
::::x CHP
---A- Caltnns " L
_ Trans Planning
_ Housing I: Dc:vel
Haith &: Welfare
_Drinking H2O
Medical Waste
Depl. Review 10 Agency
^acncy Rev to SCH
SCH COMPLIANCE
Please nol~ SCH Numbu on all Comments
97031048
Pase rorward late comments dir<<tly 10 Ihe
Lead Alenc:y
YthlAdl1 Cornctloas
COITCCtions
Independent COlIJm
_Energy Corom
NAHC
PUC
_ Santa Mn Mtns
-1L SIa" Laads Comm
_ Toh.. Jl&1 Plan
Other:
AQMD/APCD..l1 (RctOu,,,,,-...J.,lb
.~ .
..;:
f~.
.::
..'....
1-, ":'
i:'~.f::
-;'.;:9 '
~:..\{\
.;~zt..
.",'r'o. .
'.. ,.
"':-,,'.
",,'..~
r.\', .
",r;~
i . . .~.
1-....,-,:..
;,,;:.:-
.~..~, ,.
,:~t"L '-...
.,!~~1S
[ts",
.~)~.
'}~'~o
.'.
"".'.
:....,-
'.,":.,'
:~::.
.:~
t....~. .
,,'....
i.:~t:
.':t.
r':'.'
I, .,,\~_
,.
:..;....:.
~;..:
<::'.:'
.1:
,-,-
",-'.
"'i'
,.,:;.
.~,'
._-..
.....;:..
?:~, .
',~-r:'
'.~.~
'::'~:..
~<:. .
,..',';
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING & BUll.DING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ODD
o
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL FORM
SCH#
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
Proiect Title: SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER (CONDmONAL USE PERMIT #97-01)
City of San Bernardino, Planning and Building Services Department Contact Person: Mike Finn
300 North "D" Street Phone: (909) 384-5057
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 County: San Bernardino
Proiect Location:
County: San Bernardino City: San Bernardino
Cross Streets: 4TH Street & "E" Street Total Acres: 5.19 ""....
Assessor's Parcel Nos: 134-131-01,02,06,15,16,18; 134-121-12,17,19, & 20
Section: N/A Township: 1 SOUTH Range: 4 WEST Base: SAN BERNARDINO
Within 2 Miles of: State Hwy #: 1-215 Schools: San Bernardino High School
Watenvays: NONE
Airports: SB Int'l Railways: AT&SF
Document Tvoe:
CEQA: 0 NOP
o Early Cons
. Neg Dec
o Draft EIR NEPA:
o Supplement/Subsequent
o EIR (prior SCH #)
Local Action Tvoe:
o General Plan Update
o General Plan Amendment
o General Plan Element
o Community Plan
o Specific Plan
o Master Plan
o Planned Unit Development
o Development Permit
Develooment Tvoe:
o Residential:
o Office:
. Commercial
o Industrial:
o Educational
o Recreational
Unils_
Sq. ft._ Employees
Sq. ft. 135.000 +/- Emp1oyees220+/-
Sq. ft._ Employees_
Proiect Issues DisclL'<~ in Document:
o AestheticNisual 0 Flood PlainlFlooding
o Agricultural Land 0 Forest LandlFire Hazard
. Air Quality . Geologic/Seismic(1iquefaction)
o Water Quality 0 Minerals
o Coastal Zone . Noise
o Drainage/Absorption 0 PopulationIHousing Balance
o Economic/Jobs 0 Public ServiceslFacilities
o Fiscal 0 RecreationlParks
o NO!
oEA
o Draft EIS
o FONSI
Other: 0 Joint Document
o Final Document
o Rezone 0 Annexation
o Prezone 0 Redevelopment
. CUP 0 Other
. Land Division
Type_MGD_
Type_
Mineral_
Type_Walls_
Type_
Type_
. ArchaeologicallHistorical
o Water Supply/Groundwater
o WetlandfRiparian
o Wildlife
o Growth Inducing
o Land Use
o Cumulative Effects
o Other_
Present General Plan Desil!nation/ZoniI1l!fLand Use: CR-2 Commercial Regional
Proiect Descriotion: A proposed 20 screen 115,000 square foot theater and three related retail commercial structures
totaling 20,000 square feet. The movie theaters and buildings will be located around a central landscaped plaza. A
subdivision of the 5.19 acres is included to accommodate the theater and retail buildings. The site is located at the
northwest comer of 4th Street and 'E' Street in the CR-2. Commercial Regioual land use district.
o Water Facilities:
o Transportation:
o Mining:
o Power:
o Waste Treatment:
o Hazardous Waste:
o SchoolslUniversities
o Septic Systems
o Sewer Capacity
o Soil Erosion/Grading
o Solid Waste
o ToxiclHazardous
. Traffic/Circulation
o Vegetation
"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM"
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
463 North Sierra Way
San Bernardino, California 92410
-,'-...."
'^--
----~
May 8, 1997
&",1 tr ~, IctT "'"
7~~7 $ /9
"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
SAN BERNARDINO ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
A. INTRODUCTION
This mitigation monitoring program has been prepared for use by the City of San Bernardino as it
implements identified mitigation measures for the San Bernardino Entertainment Center project. This
program has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the State and City CEQA Guidelines.
Section 21081.6 of the CEQA requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those
measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment.
The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed to ensure compliance
during project implementation.
This monitoring program contains the following elements:
1. All mitigation measures are recorded. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists the
mitigation measures contained within the Initial Study. The MMRP establishes the actions and procedures necessary
to ensure compliance for all mitigation measures as outlined below.
2. A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each mitigation measure. In the attached MMRP
sheets, the flfst section identifies the ,cGeneral Impact." The second section lists the "Mitigation Measure." Next,
the "Specific Process" for monitoring is listed. It is followed in the MMRP sheet by identification of the "Mitigation
Milestone" for the mitigation measure and the uResponsible Monitoring Party." Any "Prerequisite Action For" the
measure is identified and a signature block is provided for "Verification" that the measure has been implemented.
3. The program contains a separate mitigation monitoring record for each mitigation measure in the format outlined
above. Copies of the MMRP and supporting data records will be retained by the City of San Bernardino (City) as
part of its project files.
4. The MMRP has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be
necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for implementing the Program. The total Program,
including any modifications, will be retained by the City as part of the project files.
The individual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are
numbered in the same sequence as present in the Initial Study.
PD-0401MMRP Page 1
,.
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. MmGATION MEASURES IDEN.l....I~~D IN THE INITIAL STUDY
General Impact
Development subject to landslides, mudslides, subsidence, or similar hazards.
Mitigation Measure
l.g.1 Pw-suant to and in compliance with the City's Liquefaction Ordinance (MC.{i76), the applicant shall have a qualified
geotechnical professional (Engineering Geologist or Professional Engineer) prepare a geotechnical sfudy of the project
site prior to completing the final design of the strnctures. As part of this geotechnical study. the potential for
grOlUldshaking, subsidence and liquefaction impacts shall be investigated for this site and, if required. measures to
mitigate potential groundshaking and liquefaction hazards shall be identified. This investigation shall include an
evaluation oflllstoric water table levels and the role that a rising water table could play in potential for liquefaction.
The applicant shall implement those measures required to protect the structures from significant groundshaking,
subsidence, and liquefaction hazards. For this project, reduced below a significant impact shall be based on.a design
that protects life and minimizes damage to the strnctures.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the geotechnical study, engineering drawings, or construction plans by the
City's Building and Engineering departments.
Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
Copies of the approved geotechnical study and construction drawings shall be kept in the project file.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Engineering and Building departments
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submitted to the City with engineering/construction drawings.
City verification by:
PD.040!l.ll\ImP
Page 2
".
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Pollutant emissions associated with the project.
Mitigation Measure
2.a.1 The theater operators shall work with Omnitrans to develop employee and attendance package(s) that provide some
benefit to attendees that use public transit to travel to the site. Such packages could include reduced ticket prices,
free goods, extended transfer hours for bus tickets, or free bus tickets.
Specific Process
A copy of the agreement between the developer and Omnitrans or notification that the terms of this
measure have been met shall be submitted to the City of San Bernardino Planning and Building
Department prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the agreement between the developer and Omnitrans or written notification that the terms
of this measure have been met shall be provided by the City Planning and Building Department prior
to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Department.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
City verification by:
PD-040IMMRP
Page 3
I'"
San Bernardino Entertairunent Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Increase in noise generation.
Mitigation Measure
S.b.1 Exterior construction activities involving noise producing equipment shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., except in the event of an emergency.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections. Inspection
reports shall either state the contractor is in compliance or identifY the time of violation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
The City Public Works and/or Building departments shall keep copies of the contracts and inspection
reports in the project file, as well as, records of violations and the actions taken to remediate the
violations.
Prerequisite Action( s) For
Approval of construction plans and execution of contracts.
City verification by:
PD.().lOIMMRP
Page 4
"
San B";""rdino Enlertairunent Center
Miti~tion Monilorinp; and Reportinp; Prop;ram
General Impact
Increase in noise generation.
Mitig:ation Measure
5.b.2 The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment
(muffiiers or silencers).
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections. Inspection
reports shall either state the contractor is in compliance or identifiy the time of violation. The
inspection report shall also verify that remediation measures were successfully implemented.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works and/or Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Approval of construction plans and execution of contracts.
City verification by:
PD-04()/f\.l!\;tRP
Page 5
,"
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
MitiKation MonitorinK and ReportinK Prowam
General Impact
Increase in noise generation.
Mitigation Measure
5.b.3 Ifnoise compliants are received from residents, the applicant sball install portable noise reduction walls or barriers
to attenuate sound levels to less than 3 dBA greater than background sound level.
Specific Process"
This requirement shaH be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shaH be considered a violation ofthe contract.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shaH be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract shall be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shaH be made by City inspectors during site inspections after
complaints are received. The inspection report shaH verify that the remediation measures were
successfuHy implemented to attenuate noise levels to less than 3 dBA greater than background sound
levels.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works and/or Building departments.
Prerequisite Actiones) For
Approval of construction plans and execution of contracts.
City verification by:
PD.040IMMRP
Page 6
".'
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitil\lltion Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Release of hazardous substances.
Mitigation Measure
7.b.1 The applicant shall require all contractors to control spills of petroleum products and, if such spills occur, the
contaminated soil or other material shall be collceled and/or treated and disposed of at a facility licensed for
contaminated soil. Records of spills and clean"up efforts shall be retained by the developer or contractor and made
available to the City upon request.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be made a condition of all construction contracts for the project. Non-
compliance shall be considered a violation of the contract.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City Public Works and/or Building
departments prior to issuance of construction permits. A copy of the executed contract sh;i11 be kept
in the project file.
Verification of implementation shall be made by City inspectors during site inspections. Inspection
reports shall either state the contractor is in compliance or identifiy the time of violation. A record
of the spill and cleanup efforts shall be provided to the inspector immediately after the incident. This
record shall be placed in the project file.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works and/or Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Execution of construction contracts.
City verification by:
PD-040Jl\.~
Page 7
San B';""rdino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
A significantincrease in traffic volumes.
Mitig:ation Measure
9.a.1 Restripe the north and south legs of"E" Street to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and a shared through-right lane.
To acconunodate this improvement, some of the existing on-street angled parking and along the east and west side
of "E" Street will need to be eliminated or converted to parallel parking spaces.
Specific Process
Review and approval of street improvement plans.
Mitig:ation Milestone
Prior to issuance of road construction permits. Prior to release of street improvement bonds.
Responsible Monitoring: Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and City inspectors.
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submittal of street improvement plans.
City verification by:
PD.0401lvu..m.p
Page 8
','
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Miti!;8tion Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Road construction impacts.
Mitigation Measure
9.f.1 The constroction contractor or applicant shall provide adequate traffic control resources (signing, protective devices,
crossing devices, detours, flagpersons, ele.) to maintain safe traffic flows on all streets affected by construction
activities. If construction beneath a road is not completed by the end of the days work, the contractor or applicant
shall ensure that an adequate traffic access route exists to all areas where access exists at the time of construction.
Specific Process
The City Public Works Department shall review and approve a plan to manage traffic during
construction prior to issuance ofroad construction pennits.
. Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issuance of road construction pennits.
Implementation shall be verified by City insepctors. The City inspectors shall maintain a record of
non-compliance and remediation measures implemented.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and City inspectors.
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submittal of street improvement plans.
City verification by:
PD-0401MMRP
Page 9
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Road construction impacts.
Mitigation Measure
9.f.2 Traffic hazards that may affect vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians shall be identified and controlled by the contractor
or applicant prior to construction and resources made available to prevent or minimize these hazards during
construction.
Specific Process
The City Public Works Department shall review and approve a plan to manage traffic during
construction prior to issuance of road construction permits.
Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issuance of road construction permits.
Implementation shall be verified by City insepctors. The City inspectors shall maintain a -record of
non-compliance and remediation measures implemented.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and City inspectors.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of street improvement plans.
City verification by:
PD-0401MMRP
Page 10
",
San Bernardino Entertaimnent Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Impacts to fire service.
Miti!i!ation Measure
10.a.1 Require that the project construction meet the standards referenced above related to type of construction, materials
and installation of sprink1ers during the review of planning, building, and construction drawings.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments shall review and approve all building and
construction plans prior to assuance of building or construction permits.
Mitigation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits, Verification of compliance
will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of building and construction plans.
City verification by:
PD-040IMMRP
Page 11
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Adequate water supply for firefighting.
Mitigation Measure
lO.a.2. The applicant shall ensure that adequate infrastructure and water supply are available onsile and per City standards
to meet peak flow requirements and that theywill be in place and operational prior to occupancy of the new facilities.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water and Building departments shall review and approve all
building and construction plans prior to issuance of building permits.
Mitigation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Verification of compliance
will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water and Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submittal of building and construction plans.
City verification by:
PD-Q401M,MRP
Page 12
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Miti!\8tion MonitorinK and ReportinK Pro=
General Impact
Adequate fire access.
Mitigation Measure
lO.a.3 The Developer shall be responsible for the installation, maintenance, and enforcement of adequate access to all
facilities for fire equipment within structures and on the adjacent roadways.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments shall review and approve all building and
site development plans prior to issuance of building or construction permits.
Mitigation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Verification of compliance
will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Building and Fire departments.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of building and site development plans.
City verification by:
PD.O~OIMMR.P
Page 13
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Public safety.
Mitigation Measure
lO.b.1 The applicant shall confer with the City Police Department and jointly develop a set of recommendations for
enhancing public safety within the structures and in courtyard areas. These recommendations should address both
physical installation of crime prevention deterrents, as well as recommendations for pstrolling schedulres and the
recommendations shall be implemented by the applicant prior to finalizing building plans.
Specific Process
The City of San Bemaridno Police and Building departments shall review and approve building and
site development plans prior to issuance of site development and building permits.
The City Building Department shall obtain written clearance from the Police Department regarding
compliance with this mitigation measure prior to issuance of the building and site development
permits.
Mitigation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building and site development permits..
Verification of compliance will be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to
issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
The City of San Bernardino Police and Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submittal of building and site development plans.
City verification by:
PD.O.JO/M}v1RP
Page 14
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure
IO.f.! The applicant/operators shall work with the City Public Services Department to integrate its waste management
efforts with a program of recycling activities by the theaters consistent with City's adopted Source Reduction and
Recycling Element. This program shall include the identification of methods to reduce wastes at the source and
increase the voluroe of recyclable materials that can be delivered to markets for reuse. Specific types of programs
inclne waste segregation (cardboard, plastic, metals, etc.), delivety of waste to the City's proposed Materials Recovery
Facility, and delivery of compostable materials to the City's proposed composling facility.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Planning Department shall obtain a copy of a written agreement between
the developer and the City's Public Services Department which identifies the programs that will be
implemented to achieve waste reduction, segregation, and recycling.
Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Public Services and Planning departments.
Prerequisite Action(1l) For
City verification by:
PD-040/MMRP
Page 15
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitip;ation Monitorinp; and Reporting Prop;ram
General Impact
Energy resources.
Mitigation Measure
II.a.l The developer shall confer with the City Municipal Water Department regarding the ability to utilize local geothermal
resources for space heating and cooling. If judged feasible by the City and developer, the geothermal resource shall
be developed and used at the site as an energy source.
Specific Process
The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department shall review the building plans for the
project and provide written verification to the City Building Department that its recommendations
regarding the use of the available geothermal resources have been implemented.
Mitigation Milestone
Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building pennits. Verification of compliance
shall be provided by City inspectors during inspections and prior to issuing certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water and Building departments.
Prerequisite Action(&) For
Submittal of building plans.
City verification by:
PO-Q40iMNlRP
Page 16
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monilorinl\ and Reportinl\ ProKmn
General Impact
Cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure
13.a.1 The applicant shall retain a qualified arcbaeologic/historian who shall be onsile when any subsurface disturbance
activities are undertaken.
Specific Process
A signed contract with a qualified archaeologistlhistorian to monitor subsurface disturbance activities
shall be provided the City Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of grading and building
permits.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the signed contract shall be provided the City Building Department prior to issuance of
grading or building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Department.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of grading plans.
City verification by:
PD.Q.tO/M.\UtP
Page 17
San Bernardino Entertainment Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
General Impact
Cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure
13.b.2 If any resources are encountered in an undisturbed condition as determined by Ute arcbaeologistlhistorian,
construction in Utat area sball be baIted until test pits can be installed. Any cultural resources encountered as a result
of Ute test pits sball be properly mitigated furough testing, collection, documentation, and curation.
Specific Process
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the developer shall submit a report to the City Building
Department from the archaeologistlhistorian detailing the results of the monitoring activities includnig
the disposition of any resources recovered.
Mitigation Milestone
The archaeologistlhistorians reports shall be submitted prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Department.
Prerequisite Action(s} For
Issuance of grading and site development permits.
City verification by:
J>D-040!M.\1lU)
Page 18