Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10- Public Works crry"*OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION File No. 1 . 7013 From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Approval of Plans & Authorization to Advertise for Bids - Rehabili- tation of Pavement on Tippecanoe Dept: Public Works Avenue, from Route I-10 to O ` Date: 10-24-96 Hospitality Lane , per Plan No. iUUUU� 9459 Synopsis of Previous Council action: June, 1995 - Allocation of $195 , 000 , in SB 300 Fund 1995/96 approved. June, 1996 - Supplemental funds in the amount of $60 , 000 allocated in SB 300 Fund, 1996/97 Budget. June, 1996 - Allocation of $195 , 000 in 1996/97 Storm Drain Con- struction Fund Budget approved. June, 1996 - Allocation of $1507500 in 1996/97 Traffic Systems Fee Construction Fund, for Modifying traffic signals to provide protected/permissive left turn movements, approved. June, 1996 -- Allocation of $100 , 000 in A.D. #994 , 1996/97 Budget for installation of additional street lights, approved. Recommended motion: That the plans for rehabilitation of pavement and installation of street inprovements on Tippecanoe Avenue, from Route I-10 to Hospitality Lane, in accordance with Plan No. 9459 , be approved; and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer be authorized to advertise for bids. cc: Shauna Clark Barbara Pachon Jim Penman Signature Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave Phone: 5025 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 & 3 (SB 300 , Storm Drain Const. , Traffic FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $610 , 000 Systen Const. & Street Lighting Funds) 126-360-5504-7057 , 131-372-5504-7013 , 248-368--5504-7013 , Source: (Acct. No.) 250--370-5504--7076 & 257-601-5704 Acct. Description) Pavement- Reha litatio - ^i ecanoe Avenue, Route I-10 to Hospitality Lane Finance Council Notes: .,. Continued to " 4 75-0262 ., Agenda Item No. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Plans for rehabilitation of the pavement, and installation of street improvements, on Tippecanoe Avenue, from Route I-10 to Hospitality Lane, have been completed, and the project is ready to be advertised for bids. The project consists , in general , of rehabilitating the pavement, installing a curbed median with landscaping and irrigation facilities, street lights and a City monument sign. Parking will be prohibited, in order to allow 3 traffic lanes to be provided in each direction. A section of the curbed median north and south of Laurelwood Drive, will not be installed by this project so that left turn access 'can be retained for 3 major businesses. Below is an estimate of the total project cost: Construction Contract $ 536 , 168 Engineering & Inspection (W.O. #7013) 15 , 000 Water Meter Fees (1-inch) 5 ,985 Sub-Total $ 557 , 153 Contingencies (10%) ± 52 , 847 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 610 , 000 Funds have been allocated, as set forth below, to finance the costs that will be incurred for this project. Account No. 126-360-5504-7057 1996/97 Budget $ 75, 000 Account No. 131-372-5504-7013 1995/96 Budget $ 195 , 000 1996/97 Budget 60 ;000 Account No. 248-368-5504--7013 1996/97 $ 195 , 000 Account No. 250-370-5504-7076 1996/97 $ 40 , 000 Account No. 257-601-5704 1996/97 $ 45 , 000 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - $ 610 , 000 We recommend that the plans be approved and authorization granted to advertise for bids. 10-24-96 75-0264 11!14/1'3 5 13: 3a 310-869-9739 THRIFTY OIL CO PAGE 02 THRIFTY OIL CO. Van S. Tamer,Senior Vice-President Retail November 14, 1996 Ms. Rachel G. Clark Citv Clerk City of San Bernardino 300 North"D"Street San Bernardino,California 97-418 Fax: (909) 384-5158 RE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996 C"1'TY COUNCIL I1EETING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 410 Dear Ms. Clark: Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil 4345 official request to remove the aforementioned item from the council consent calendar and allow public comment to be heard on said item. I have attached a letter detailing our concern %vith this project. We have not received proper notification of prior tneetings. If I can be of amv further assistance please contact inyself or David Rose, Best regards, dG-! an am er Senior Vice President VST/ns it/0 E q& 10000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90240•(310)923-9876•(714) 522.3244•Fax: (310)869-9739 1'396 13: 311+ 31?-369-9'x'3 THRIFT"r OIL �0 P i;E X73 THRIFTY OIL CO. 174-t Facsimile and U. S. :.fail October 11, 1996 Michael W. Grubbs Senior Civil Engineer City of San Bernardino City Hall 300 North '`D" Street San Bernardino, CA 921418-0001 RE PtiBLIC. WORKS PROJECT NO. 96-01 MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE AVENUE THRIFTY OIL NO. 345 1945 TIPPECANOE AVENUE, SAN BERNARD.LNO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Grubbs: Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil Co.'s unequivocal objection to the above-referenced Public Works median project in the City of San Bernardino, California. Thrifty Oil Co. operates an ,Vco service station and Sunshine Food Store at the above-referenced address. Our preliminary estimates indicate the proposed median project will quite literally cut our business and revenue in half, more specifically, Thrifty would sutler a loss of revenue between $75,000. and 5100,000.00 per month. Without a doubt, this would necessitate Thrifty Qil to terminate and abandon our operas. )n at this site in the City of San Bernardino, Thrifty is supportive of the City's efforts to provide aesthetic improvements along the City's thoroughfares. However, when said improvements jeopardize the economic well-being of the City's businesses, then there needs to be a serious re-examination of the proposed improvements. Thrifty would be more than happy to sit down with the City's staff to discuss various alternatives to the proposed improvements. Please reserve a time for us to speak at the October 17, 1996 Environmental Review Committee hearing. Furthermore, we reserve the right to provide additional testimony in both verbal and written form. 10,000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90240• (310) 923-9876 • Fax: (310) 869-9739 11;'14:'199~ 13: 34 31 3'1-9 THRIFTY tlTL CO PAGE 04 If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact myself or David Rose at (3 10) 923- 9s76. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Best regards, THRIFTY OIL CO. an Tarver Senior Vice-President cc: Tom Minor, Mayor Betty Dean-Anderson, Councilmember Rita Arias, Councilmember Fred Curlin, Councilmember Jerry Devlin, Councilmember vorine Miller, Councilmember Edward`'egrete, Councilmember David Oberhelman, Councilmember Shauna Clark, City Administrator Roger Hardgrave, Public Works/Engineering Director Mike Hays, Planning and Building Services Director Gus Romo, Assistant Planner Vince Le Pore, III, Esq. David Rose Law Office of Cyntiia n Entered into Record at P.O. Box 409 Co�un_ciI1CmyDevCms Mtg' �I /g 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite#203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 by 909-885-6820 re Agenda Item FAX 909-885-6976 City ClerkICDC Secy City of SWQWfW&018 , 1996 City of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Edward Negrete, Councilman Rita Arias, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino F.J. Curlin, Councilman Jerry Devlin, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino David Oberhelman, Councilman Betty Anderson, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Norine Miller, Councilwoman Tom Minor, Mayor 300 N. "D" Street 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re : Public Works Project No. 96-01 Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent In-N-Out Burge-, opposes the above- project, and which asks that this letter be made part of the administrative record of this project . I apologize for the fact that this letter is delivered to you on the day of your meeting; however, this project was last considered by the City' s Traffic Safety Committee and Environmental Review Committee late last week, leaving little time to prepare and deliver this explanation of the reasons my client opposes the installation of a street median on Tippecanoe Avenue . My client learned of this project in August, 1996, and made several efforts to explain and set forth its objections to the project itself and to the means and method of notifying those property owners and businesses most directly affected. Ladies & Gentlemen November 18, 1996 Page Two Until last Wednesday, we understood this project was coming before the Common Council for project approval and an environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Indeed, it appeared before the ERC as a staff recommendation for a negative declaration. However, last Wednesday the staff position apparently changed, as members of the public and the Traffic Safety Committee were told that the Common Council had already approved this project and that it was only as a matter of "courtesy" that it was being brought before the Traffic Safety Committee and the ERC. (We assume that this new staff position is the reason this item was scheduled for the consent calendar on your agenda and does not mention the environmental approval or review of the proposed negative declaration. ) When pressed, the public works staff said that this project had been approved by the Common Council as part of the Tri City Corporate Center Area Plan. However, a review of that Area Plan shows that its physical boundary only extends as far east as the Gage Canal and it does not include Tippecanoe Avenue . Staff then shifted focus and said that the project was approved as part of the 1991 Traffic Study for the Tri City Corporate Center Area Plan and that it is a mitigation measure . At the ERC meeting, my client pointed out that the City Council approved the Area Plan, not the Traffic Study, and that the Traffic Study was simply one of several informational documents presented as the Area Plan was being considered. When the chairwoman of the ERC insisted that the median strip was a mitigation measure under the Tri City Area Plan, several members of public asked to be directed t--- the i approved roved mitigation measure and mitigation monitoring plan which incorporated the median strip as a mitigation measure . At that point the chairwoman, a member of the planning department staff, admitted that this was not a "written" mitigation measure,but that staff intended the median strip to serve as mitigation for traffic congestion at the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection. The fact is, the Common Council has never approved this project and why public works and planning staff are insisting that they did is a mystery. If they truly believed the project had been approved in 1991 or 1993 , there would have been no reason for staff to have prepared an Initial Study under CEQA in September, 1996 . Ladies & Gentlemen November 18 , 1996 Page Three My client has reviewed that Initial Study and has presented substantial evidence to the Traffic Safety Committee and ERC to demonstrate that the Initial Study is flawed and neither it nor the proposed Negative Declaration satisfy the requirements of CEQA. The Initial Study consists of nothing more than a checklist . There is not a single reference to supporting data or facts for the conclusions made in the checklist/Initial Study. Courts have long held that a "mere checklist" does not satisfy CEQA requirements for an Initial Study and that the lead agency must present facts and data to support its conclusions . Throughout this matter public works and planning staff have refused to supply any such facts or data. In Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal .App. 3rd 151, the court held that, while use of a checklist is permissible, an initial study must also disclose the date or evidence upon which the study relied. See also CEQA Guideline § 15063 and Appendix I to the Guidelines . Furthermore, as several persons testifying at the ERC pointed out, despite the fact that the Initial Study makes a finding that this project will impact and alter present patterns of circulation, it suggests no mitigation for that impact and fails to recommend either a mitigated negative declaration or focused EIR to address that impact . Although the Initial Study gives no information to support its conclusions, staff presentations at the various Committee hearings indicate that staff is relying solely on the 1991 Traffic Study done for the Tri City Corporate Center. Under CEQA, the may nct— rcil, pon a seven-year-old study, particularly where, as here, there has been a significant change in circumstances since that study was completed. My client' s traffic engineer pointed out several of the changes and now-outdated assumptions made in the Tri City Traffic Study. First, that study did not assume or consider that Tippecanoe Avenue would be extended through the former Norton Air Force Base . It assumes, and the entire study is based upon, Tippecanoe Avenue ending, as it previously did, at Mill Street . Ladies & Gentlemen November 18, 1996 Page Four Second, the Tri City Traffic Study assumed 28, 000 square feet of retail space in the Tri City Corporate Center. As our traffic engineer pointed out, that amount has already been exceeded, just with what has been developed to date. Thus, the conclusions of the Tri City Traffic Study are based on outdated data and assumptions . Yet, city staff has refused to conduct further traffic investigations or reconsider its conclusions . My client' s traffic engineer also presented traffic data demonstrating that this project will not only impact circulation (i .e. , by eliminating left turns onto or off of Rosewood Avenue) , but also that it will impact other intersections, particularly those at Tippecanoe and Hospitality Lane, Tippecanoe and Laurelwood, and Tippecanoe and Redlands Boulevard. These intersections will not only absorb left turns for those attempting to head west off of Tippecanoe, but also for those attempting to leave the Tri City area and head north on Tippecanoe and for those who attempt U-turns in order to access either Rosewood Avenue or the many existing businesses on Tippecanoe . The Initial Study also ignores cumulative impacts of this and other proposed or likely future projects in the area. The City has refused to provide a list of other proposed or likely future projects . However, even during the course of last week' s "courtesy" hearings, public works staff admitted that the freeway off-ramps and on-ramps at Tippecanoe are likely to be reconfigured in the future and admitted that within approximately three years Rosewood would be vacated and all of its traffic re-routed to Laurelwood. Several of the businesses affected by this project expressed concerns over these proposed projects, and others, including development at the former air force base, and the possible cumulative impacts with the proposed median strip. In addition to the physical, environmental impacts, both my client and Shell oil pointed out that the median is likely to de- value their properties and that both of these properties are likely to be taken for reconfigured freeway ramps and the proposed development between the Gage Canal and Tippecanoe which would result in demolition of the houses along Rosewood and vacation of that street . Yet, City staff refused to consider, either in the Initial Study, or at the ERC hearing last week, these possible cumulative impacts . Ladies & Gentlemen November 18, 1996 Page Five In addition, because there are identified impacts of this project--particularly traffic and circulation impacts--the City must consider possible alternatives to the project and, at the very least, a mitigated negative declaration. Both my client and owners of the other properties along Tippecanoe suggested alternatives, including a traffic signal and left turn pockets . Each time they did so, the chairwoman of the ERC stopped them and reminded them that "we are not here to discuss a traffic signal [or left turn pockets] . We are here to discuss a median strip. " This is contrary to the letter and spirit of CEQA. Once impacts are shown, alternatives and mitigation must be considered by the lead agency. City staff also asserted that the median strip is necessary for development of Norton. As I pointed out at the Traffic Safety and ERC meetings, none of the traffic or congestion management plans for Norton require or impose as mitigation, a median strip on Tippecanoe Avenue . All of these plans show Tippecanoe to be widened, and my client has no objection to a street widening plan. However, none of the Norton plans require a median strip and they all acknowledge that Tippecanoe alone is insufficient access for the proposed airport and that the freeway ramps at Mountain View will have to be expanded and that street widened and connected to Del Rosa in order to provide sufficient service to the base airport . The City has failed and refused to consider or analyze the obvious circulation and traffic impacts, as well as cumulative impacts of this project . As my client has repeatedly said, it has presented sufficient data to show that such impacts do exist . Under CEQA, the City cannot ignore these impacts and refuse to consider them. At the very least, it must consider a mitigated negative declaration, if not a focuses] ETR; and it must consider a full range of alternative mitigation measures or alternatives to the project . The City has failed to present any data or facts to support its conclusions, and, thus, has not complied with CEQA. This is not, as staff said at the ERC, a mere "disagreement among experts" . The City experts/staff have presented not a single supporting fact for their conclusions that there are no impacts (other than on circulation patterns) and that there is no need for consideration of alternatives or mitigation. The Initial Study admits that there are impacts on traffic circulation, yet does nothing to address these impacts and neither quantifies or describes them, as required by CEQA. Ladies & Gentlemen November 18, 1996 Page Six On October 31, planning and public works staff agreed to "investigate the feasibility of a traffic signal at Rosewood and Tippecanoe and report the results of that investigation back to the Traffic Safety Committee and ERC on November 13 and 14" . However, no such investigation was done; the report was a one-page summary of the unsupported opinions of public works staff that a traffic signal would not work. This is simply in keeping with the Initial Study and other staff work on this project--no data, no supporting facts for their opinions, and a refusal to consider or comply with CEQA. My client has expressed its concerns that a project such as this median strip, which has significant circulation impacts and which impacts the City' s General Plan Circulation Element, has not been presented to the Planning Commission. It is not even clear what is being presented to the Common Council, given the staff shifts on whether or not this project was previously approved or not . While my client admittedly has concerns about the impact of this project on its business, and it is not ashamed to discuss those concerns, it also has spent significant time and money to obtain traffic studies and engineering studies to demonstrate that there are physical, environmental impacts of this project . It does not believe the City should proceed with this project ignoring those impacts and the requirements of CEQA. This action, requested by the public works department, is a project, as defined under CEQA, for which no appropriate environmental determination has been approved. Therefore, we urge the Common Council to reject this project and to direct that an appropriate analysis under CEQA be completed. We believe that such an analysis will demonstrate that a median strip is neither necessary nor desirable at this location. If you choose to act upon this proposal as it is currently before you, you will leave my client no alternative but to consider litigation. However, my client has consistently offered to work with city staff to find affordable, workable, mutually acceptable solutions to traffic concerns at Rosewood and Tippecanoe . My client remains willing to so work with your staff . Ladies & Gentlemen November 18, 1996 Page Seven Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN CYN HIA LUDVIGSEN v CL/tr cc : Fred Encinas Don Bollinger City Clerk Law Office of Cynthia I a"pen P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite#203 RECEIVED--CITY CLERK San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 ,% MW 14 '152 FAX 909-885-6976 Entered into Record at Hand Delivered CI10i .111(:r:)VDeVCMS MtQ: November 14, City of San Bernardino Attn: Rachel Clark, City Clerk 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Guy ClerkICDC Secy City of San Bernardino Re : Public Works Project 96-01 Agenda Item No. 10, November 18, 1996 II Dear Ms . Clark: I represent In-n-Out Burger, which has appeared before the City' s Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and Environmental Review Committee regarding the above project . My client plans to appear at the November 18, 1996, Common Council meeting to address its concerns related to the above i project . I have enclosed with this letter copies of my client' s civil and traffic engineer reports related to the above projects, as well it as copies of the various letters we have sent to the Committees and to staff related to this project, and, in particular, the median strip proposed as part of the project . I ask that the enclosed materials be distributed to the members of the Common Council and to the Mayor and that they be made part of the official record related to this matter. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN -� CL/tr C HIA LUDVIGSEN ` Encl . i cc : Henry Empeno Refer/Hurger.2 W * 4 WPA Traffic Engineerin nc. A E ® IVED-r TRAFFIC & TRANSPORrAVibN ENGINEERING Nov 14 P2:23 November 13, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ISSUES - TIPPECAIVOE/ROSEWOOD Dear Mr. Encinas: This letter report has been prepared as an addendum to our October 16, 1996 and October 30, 1996 correspondence regarding the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue. This median project, planned by the City of San Bernardino, would eliminate left turn access to and from Rosewood Drive. Our analyses of this project and potential alternatives include review of various documents, such as the"Staff Report" for the November 13, 1996 Traffic Safety Committee meeting, City responses to written and verbal comments on Project 96-01 (the raised median), the Tri-City traffic study, and other information pertinent to this project. The following are a summary of pertinent traffic issues related to the proposed median project and justification for extended consideration of alternatives. Many of these issues have been identified in our past letters. These are important traffic factors that warrant a more thorough evaluation prior to continuing with the proposed median project. "Traffic Impact Study for Tri-City Corporate Centre Master Plan"; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; Revised October, 1991. -2- A summary of some of the pertinent traffic issues is listed below. ♦ The potential for the installation of a traffic signal at Tippecanoe/Rosewood should not be discounted without full detailed analyses. Our evaluation shows the signal to be a viable option with acceptable operations. (SEE PAST AND PRESENT ANALYSES.) O This arrangement has worked at other locations. (SEE EXAMPLES ATTACHED.) O The intersection meets Caltrans traffic signal warrants. (SEE ATTACHED SHEETS.) O The signalization is shown to mitigate the LOS F conditions described by Staff and referenced in the Tri-City traffic study. (SEE TABLE 1.) O The raised median does not mitigate the actual observed problem of the high southbound through volumes combined with the high eastbound right turn. O Schematic figures show how the signal can be coordinated with the adjacent ramp signal to mitigate some of the existing problems. (SEE FIGURES lA- 1D.) f The traffic signal is a viable option which could create a "win-win" type situation for both the City of San Bernardino and the existing businesses. O Existing accesses are maintained for the existing businesses at the corners and also accommodates the existing retail uses at and near Tri-City (i.e. Best Buy, Sportsmart, etc.). WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Summary of Traffic Issues Job#961220.add Tippecanoe/Rosewood-City of San Bernardino -3- O By maintaining access at Tippecanoe/Rosewood, the future development options for the vacant parcels surrounding In-N-Out Burger are increased. MORE THAN ONE ACCESS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT RETAIL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA. O Mitigates some of the existing traffic problems. ♦ The City proposed raised median has the potential to create added impacts at other locations. O Concentrates more traffic at the In-N-Out Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway, creating potential back-ups and impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue. O Potential added traffic and impacts to the residential neighborhood of Laurelwood Drive. O A significant amount of Tri-City related traffic appears to be impacted by the raised median. These customers would need to find alternative routes to what is presently their preferred drive. O Does not solve the existing problem of eastbound queues and southbound queues. ♦ A long-range study is needed to examine the real future needs and options that are available if this interchange is to serve both the Norton redevelopment and development in the immediate area. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Summary of Traffic Issues Job #961220.add Tippecanoe/Rosewood-City of San Bernardino -4- O The Tri-City traffic study examined only short-term conditions and is outdated. Existing conditions have changed significantly, the related projects being considered now are significantly different, and due to the short-term type of analyses, the proposed recommendations may not support the potential development planned and/or desired by the City. O The I-10 interchange at Tippecanoe Avenue may need to be reconfigured to provide the desired access and to support the potential level of development. O The raised median is not a long-term solution. It even has interim / short-term impacts. OVERALL, THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL APPEARS TO BE THE BETTER "INTERIM" SOLUTION FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE. 1) The redistribution of existing traffic is less severe, which results in less potential traffic impacts than the raised median proposal. 2) The traffic signal is a viable option, which can be designed to work satisfactorily. 3) Maintains more options when examining the future development options of the Norton Air Base and the vacant parcels near Tippecanoe/Rosewood. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Summary of Traffic Issues Job#961220.add Tippecanoe/Rosewood-City of San Bernardino -5- We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, "A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C 16828 & TR565 WSP:SSS:cc 4961220.add WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Summary of Traffic Issues Job#961220-add Tippecanoe/Rosewood-City of San Bernardino EXAMPLES OF CLOSELY SPACED TRAFFIC SIGNALS A T FREE WA Y RAMPS ♦ I-10/APACHE TRAIL - CARAZON Seminole Drive is located approximately 100 feet from the Westbound Ramps intersection with Apache Trail. Concept plan to signalize both intersections approved by Caltrans. Construction plans being prepared. ♦ S R 60/PIGEON PASS - MORENO VALLEY Westbound Ramps and Hemlock intersections approximately 200 feet apart along Pigeon Pass. Both intersections were signalized and operated until ramps were relocated. ♦ S R 2 (GLENDALE FREEWAY)/MOUNTAIN STREET - GLENDALE Concept plan for signalized intersection approximately 160 feet from Southbound Ramps intersection approved by Caltrans. f rI-10/INDIAN HILL - CLAREMONT Commercial driveway approximately 250 feet from Eastbound Ramps on Indian Hill signalized in 1986. ♦ S R S7(ORANGE FREE WA Y) /CHAPMAN A VENUE FULLER ERTON Intersection of Chapman and Placentia Avenues is approximately 200 feet from Northbound Ramps. The Placentia intersection has left turn phasing on all approaches and has been in operation for over 25 years. /Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS T/P�GA�oE. �/e�SEc%o p (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN . RURAL Minimum Requirements ............ ............................. EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Satisfied (/ Not Satisfied Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach direction only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1...................................... 1 ...... .............................. 8,000 5,600 2,400 1.680 2 or more ,v Zl,coo.... 1 ......5,.:5 -..�c ........ 6,720 2 4 2 or more 1,680 ........................ 2 or more ......................... 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interuption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied Not Satisfied major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach direction only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1...................................... 1 ...................................... 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or more ........................ 1 ...................................... 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 ..................................... 2 or more 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 ......................... 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied J 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more ......... 1 2 NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. T,c Ptfft� Vow,-i& /L �t�✓��� f 1i- C-ir,( o f- _,jq4 A6Ad+z o,,4 o . �,�/� ✓• � i4 f�C Pk5 S�o �S Sri�'l q 7�5 Pvt 7o L.a c,4?io 4 A,ro%.c. o�- 4.0d,llf S 4/f/cf, do-r q0jAq /1 >o 4alolz / Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 Figure 9-8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 600 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 500 OR 1 LANE MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) U Uj p 400 CC y a cr W 300 o 200 > 100 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH J. * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. J TABLE I EXISTING INTERSECTION MITIGATION TIPPECANOE /ROSEWOOD EXISTING CONDITIONS - LOS F City Staff'indicated LOS F operations for existing conditions. Based upon our field observations,we assume a primary impact is the eastbound right turn back-up and the southbound through queuing. RAISED MEDIAN - NO SPECIFICANALYSES PERFORMED Although restricted left turns were identified in the Tri-City traffic study,that was for different conditions than what is being created by the proposed raised median project. In addition, one figure included in Appendix A of the Tri-City Land Use study shows Rosewood Drive as"TO BE VACATED IN THE FUTURE". (SEE ATTACHED.) The actual traffic benefits of the raised median were not analyzed for the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection and it is difficult to determine the actual roadway conditions assumed. TRAFFICSIGNAL ALTERNATIVE - LOS C The intersection improves to LOS C with the traffic signal for the Midday and PM peak hour conditions. This mitigates the City stated LOS F existing conditions. 3nIHG I 3ONVJ3dd11 tj #' I I I :Tl� �, U, o n, r\t tv i LO LO It i U) i 1111 L-n I ca J r, tv WI o 1 Mill O I` I I ry ca — - - - - I�x cr R, 3 U, OI _ ca o o U) • La o Lo m o $ \ ry �� r7 I o Ut j LD � \ o `�t - III L' III r�j Lf IiI LU o o ~ cry J ' ---- Q-Oi ----- -- --� :--��. -\ - - -- V z I of? ------- of � �., J.I 0 m o7 �I° 't '� I ►� c3 -jI 0 O fl Oki Co i.. I 7,n1nI P( NI 0]l r7rn .79 Ol, --- W ct A/M I A/M = Vf .dr j .tc a HIV o t = ` fJ a BCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4di II-I2-I996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) ROSEWOOD DR. (0-S\ ��II,I"ECAN{�}] AVE. Analyst: HN File Name: RO&TIP.BC9 Area Type: Other 11-12-96 MIDDAY Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. Lanes � I � z^ I � l 3 *� l 3 *c Volumes 23 ] 287 39 4 27 380 570 21 lD 516 38 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 .0 BT{JR \/ola D O O O Lost Time 13 . 00 3.OO 3 .UO | 3 .OO 3 . 00 ] .OO | 3 . OO 3 . 00 3.0O | ] . 0O 3.00 3.O0 _______________________________________________________________________ Signal Operations I'baoe Combination l 3 3 4 5 6 7 0 EB Left NB Left * Tbzo Thzo * Right Right � I`edo Peclo WB Left * SB Left � Thro * Tbru � Right * Right � I^edo Pedo 0B Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 32 .OI' Green 23 .OP 46. OI` Yellow/AR 3 .0 Yellow/AR 3 .0 3.O Cycle Length: lIO secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 _______________________________________________________________________ Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Ad ' Sat V/o g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ___- _______ ----- ----- _____ -__ ----- ___ EB I,TR 412 14I7 0 .798 O.29l 34 . 6 D 34 . 6 D WB I,T}{ 261 897 0. 280 0.291 33 .0 C 23. 0 C ]0B I. 370 1770 0 .797 O.2U9 39.3 D 23. 1 [: TB 2325 5559 0 .394 0.418 16.2 C SB L 370 1770 0 .030 0.209 36. 3 D 16.2 C TB 2313 5531 0 .277 0 .418 I8 . 0 C Intersection Delay = 22 .8 sec/veb Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, I' = 9 .0 aec Critical v'/c(x) = 0 .568 _______________________________________________________________________ BCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY \/ecolc»o 2 .4d 1I-I2-I996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ========= ================================================= Streets: (I]-VV) ROSEWOOD DR. �YJ-S\ ��IPPECANOE AVE. An��I]/ot: H0 'iIe' Name: RO&TZPP.BC9 Area Type: Other I1-12-96 PM f'K Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS ======================================================================= Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T Il ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 0o. Lanes :p I < :^ l � l 3 °c I 3 � Volumes 13 3 379 15 3 29 229 619 28 15 844 31 Lane VV (ft) 12. 0 12 .0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 .0 12 .0 RTO]R \/olo O O D O Lost Time | 3 . 00 3.0O 3 . 00 . 3.00 3. OO 3 .00 . 3 .00 ]. OO 3 .UU | 3.DO 3. 00 3. OO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal o Phase Combination l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 }]B Left * Left * Thru * Tbco � Right Right * I'eds f"eds WB Left * Left * Tbro Tbro * Right Right * Peclo Pecle 0B Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 32 .DP Green 23 -OP 46 .OP Yellow/AR 3 .0 Yellow/AR 3 .0 3.0 Cycle Length: llO secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #G _______________________________________________________________________ Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Ad ' Sat v/o g/C Approach: Mnmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delal, LOG _____ ____ _______ _____ _____ _____ ___ _____ ___ EB LT]R 415 1427 0.747 0.291 3I. 8 D 31 . 8 D VVB I,Tfl 347 1194 0. 144 0.291 21.9 C 21.9 C 0B I, 370 1770 0. 651 0.309 33. 1 D 20.4 C TIl 2322 5553 0.323 0.418 16.4 C SB I^ 370 1770 0 .043 O.3O9 26.4 D 17 .5 C TB 2324 5558 0.436 0.4I8 17 .4 C Intersection Delay = 20.7 oec/\/eb Intersection LOS = C Loot Time/Cycle, I, = 9. 0 oeo Critical v/o(x) = 0 .583 _______________________________________________________________________ LAURELWOOD DR. No Scale a fl:� `o PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROSEWOOD / TIPPECANOE SCHEMATIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION IN—N—OUT BURGER ROSEWOOD DR PROPOSED : TRAFFIC LIJ fl SIGNAL > o 0 'o z WIDENING FOR RIGHT Lli TURN ONLY LANE a- 14J 1-10 W/B OFF RAMP 1-10 W/B ON RAMP EXIST. SIGNALIZED fl: INTERSECTION 1%1220 LAURELW08D DR' ;jaNo Scale PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SCHEMATIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION |N BURGER ROSEWOOD R PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL WIDENING FOR RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE w CL |-10 W/B OFF RAMP |-1U W/B — ON RAMP H ------� — FT u U / u [x|sr. 5|CwAUZ[D |wr[eS[cTIOw '! ! Q R IM 0P LAURELWO0D DR. No Scale PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SCHEMATIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION | BURGER ROSEWOOD R PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL > vwocw|wG FOR / LLI TURN ONLY LANE :F1 IL |-1O W/8 OFF RAMP |-1O W/B — ON RAMP SIGNAL111 ED INTERS TI N A ' |u U\ F|G(1RF � r LAURELWOOD DR. No Scale PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROSEWOOD / TIPPECANOE SCHEMATIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION o� �� of ; u IN—N—OUT BURGER as - I AL ROSEWOOD DR PROPOSED T RAFFIC SIGNAL 00 W,�;� � 0 Z < WIDENING FOR RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE w CL 41 GLI it 1-10 W/B QOFF RAMP 1-10 W/B ON RAMP TT EXIST. 000 SIGNAL IZED INTERSECTION #"12,0 FIGURE 1 D F W1 * A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC 8c GINEERING '96 NOv 14 P2 :23 November 13, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 SUBJECT.- RESPONSES TO CITY STAFF REPORT, "TIPPECANOE AVENUE FROMI- 10 TO MISSION CREEK(AGENDA ITEM#S)"1 FOR THE NOVEMBER 13, 1996 MEETING Dear Mr. Encinas: The following are brief responses to the City Staff report. The numbers relate to the paragraph numbers and the Staff report is attached for reference. 1) It is presumed that these complaints/concerns relate to the eastbound Rosewood Drive back- up and the southbound Tippecanoe Avenue queuing. The raised median will not mitigate these impacts. 2) The Tri-City traffic study is outdated and does not examine long-range potential impacts and needed mitigations. 3) This is an example of how conditions have changed significantly and the Tri-City traffic study cannot be utilized to satisfy environmental requirements. �td71 Sn,i►h Dnin�n 11 o a G.;ro 10n a I u:ti, re n >c�� . , , " ,C- . _ _ . _ -2- 4) So noted. 5) Potential traffic impacts caused by the raised median proposal (both alternatives) were also detailed in our comments. The potential traffic impacts (i.e. at the In-N-Out Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway) have not been addressed by the City. 6) The business aspect of their contention is one concern, but not-the only one. A valid traffic concern is that the option of the signalization of Tippecanoe / Rosewood has not been thoroughly examined as a viable alternative. In addition, concerns regarding traffic impacts generated by the raised median have also been detailed. 7) The Tri-City traffic study is not an appropriate document to reference for current conditions. Our analyses and past experience show that the traffic signal can better mitigate potential traffic impacts than the raised median. The situation between the I-10 Ramps and Redlands Boulevard is a very different condition, including, but not limited to, the different volumes and traffic patterns on Redlands Boulevard. Although problems may have been experienced at other locations, the volumes, geometrics, conditions, etc., at the study location need to be reviewed and analyzed. 7a) Given the amount of data and analyses presented, it does not appear reasonable that A & 7b) TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPTION is not even brought forward for the Committee to consider. 8) Collision Diagram - Although not discussed in the Staff report, the information indicates that there is not a significant existing accident problem that requires mitigation. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Response to City Staff Report for 11113196 Meeting Job#961220.add Tippecanoe/Rosewood-City of San Bernardino -3— We trust that these comments will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 444-17 - Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C 16828 & TR565 WSP:SSS:cc 4961220.add WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Response to City Staff Report for 11113196 Meeting Job 0961220.add Tippecanoe/Rosewood-City of San Bernardino NOV-06-'01 WED 17:14 ID: TEL N0:1909-384-5155 4132 P02 staff Report Tippecanoe Ivenus fro& 1-10 to xission Creek (Agen" item # f) TOver the past several years, many complaints/concerns have been raised regarding traffic congestion along Tippecanoe Avenue, specially at its intersection with Rosewood Drive. A traffic impact study for the Tri-City development cited C2_ problems and made recommendations to alleviate them. The study recommended left-turn restrictions along Tippecanoe, and realignment of Rosewood Drive. The opening of Tippecanoe for through traffic, across the former NAFB, along with recent growth within the Tri-City area has resulted in a substantial increase of traffic volume than 27, 000 vehicles per day) , up from 18, 000 on 1995. Reducing congestion, delay and increasing capacity for this roadway have been considered key factors to the success of the B.B. Inter- national Airport and Trade Canter. The Traffic Safety Coaaittee, at last June's meeting, recomm- ended the installation of a raised median on Tippecanoe Avenue 0 from the I-10 westbound ramps to Mission Creak, which is located just south of victoria Avenue. This action was prompted by a City initiated project for pavement rehabilit- ation, widening and traffic signal interconnection on Tippecanoe Avenue. During the design phase of this project, four businesses protested the proposed left-turn restrictions, at their driveways or at Rosewood Drive, claiming severe impacts to their business. These businesses are In-N-out Burger, Harlow's l� Kitchen concepts, shell Gas Station, and Thrifty Gas Station. Consequently, the City proposed the temporary removal of portions of the median, north and south of Laurelwood, in order to accommodate their conoorns. Three of the four businesses still have concerns about the revise version of the median. Their contention is that the raised median would hurt their business. Staff does not support the installation of a traffic signal at Rosewood for many reasons. Adding a signal would not be consistent with the recommendations of the approved Tri-City traffic study (raised median and the realignment of Rosewood) . Also, the signal would create more problems than it solves, due to its close proximity to the freeway ramps. In this case, Rosewood is only 200 feet from the ramps. This close spacing creates queuing, delays, weaving and unsafe move-ants. Because this spacing does not meet Caltrans standards, no median cuts " NOV-06`01 WED 17:15 ID: TEL PU:1909-384-5155 #132 P03 have bean permitted between the freeway and Redlands Boulevard (median out was requested by Baker's Restaurant, but denied by two cities and Caltraru) 0 The city has had unsuccessful experience with signals o�erration at similar locations (Del Rosa at Rte 30, and pprevious w/b ramps at Waterman) , where intersections spacing is similar. Two options for the committee to considerl these are: a) Recommend the current version of the median, as Modified by the city, with temporary openings 1 b b) Recommand the original version of the median, as originally approved by the committee, with no openings -2- NOV-06-'01 WED 17:15 ID: TEL NO:19@�-384- #132_ PO4 "'�-+ �Nti1� AMLAO �".pMGTA+t++M MOf�rM! *%b.bw vwGAGO"N' NY i1N COLLISION DIAGRAM —we Two �' Am*"or pm M MINK 'W"v" ma KIM "slamIr OWN" A640"T r p 1M"f I OAlm"OIIL>r — f'FP �/ Mtwal ntAt�1 •IOt iNIK MlAOfK't Lb N4 ► 0 ACCIDENT MMAR YtAA To OANYIt OlAii tLt1t;MT! DAY DAAK COUNK of V9419"ll MQ oIK11i01ri FATAL S&AN" itlLL�p M�RtO i `3 p D Z, Z v Z D Office of Cpidiia lm&igsen P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite#203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 RECEIVED-CITY CLERK 909-885-6820 � FAX 909-885-6976 NOV 14 P 2 :23 November 13 , 1996 I Traffic Safety Committee City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 I Environmental Review Committee i City of San Bernardino !� 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re : Public Works Project 96-01 .j Ladies & Gentlemen: l !I When the Environmental Review Committee referred this matter !i back to the Traffic Safety Committee on October 31, 1996 , my client i and I understood that the Traffic Safety Committee was specifically directed to look at and consider other options for the !j Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection, including signalization. ii ` However, the staff report prepared for that meeting flatly I rejects and refuses to consider any such options . The only options i� presented are an uninterrupted median now, or a median with a left �I turn pocket as a temporary measure, presumably meaning that at some point the uninterrupted median will be installed. ,E While City staff has insisted that In-n-Out Burger' s objections to this median are solely economic in nature, we it disagree . My client has presented traffic data prepared by a �i registered traffic engineer demonstrating potential circulation and it traffic impacts as a result of this proposed project . This data constitutes evidence supporting a fair argument that environmental impacts will result from this project and those impacts have been ignored in the initial study and the proposed negative declaration. r Thus, as we have said before, a focused environmental impact !� report or mitigated negative declaration is required to consider and address those impacts . I� Mike Finn November 6, 1996 Page Two contention, I will point out that the public works department asserted, as its justification for proceeding with this project under an accelerated time schedule, economic justifications--that this project will encourage business development at the former air base . I do not believe the City can have it both ways--relying upon economic reasons for accelerating this project without full consideration of all impacts and ramifications and yet dismissing the concerns of existing businesses as "mere economic concerns" . In addition, I note that the California Department of Transportation was not on your notice list, even though this proposed project is close to a freeway on-ramp and may well impact that on-ramp. I trust that City staff will address these concerns and the concerns of the various business owners, as well as all possible mitigation measures for this project . As I have previously said, my client has .presented evidence of a fair argument that adverse environmental impacts may result from this project . Thus, either a mitigated negative declaration or a focused environmental impact report is required. My client has suggested possible mitigation and has offered to meet with public works staff to discuss this mitigation, but that staff has refused to even consider anything other than its original project . Please contact me as soon as the tapes are ready for me to pick up. I also would like copies of the City' s circulation plan and of everything in the City' s file related to this project which was not in the file at the time I picked up my earlier set of copies on October 29, 1996 . I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN C HI LUDVIGSEN CL/tr cc : Fred Encinas Don Bollinger Refer/Inout1tr.1 Ladies & Gentlemen November 13 , 1996 Page Three I wish also to point out that the City is relying upon the Tri-City Area Plan, which is several years old and which has not been updated, reviewed or changed, despite significant changes in circumstances since its adoption. The "temporary" divided median, combined with proposals by developers to vacate Rosewood and eliminate access from that street by turning it into a parking lot for a large-scale commercial development, presents even greater potential for traffic and circulation impacts, none of which have been considered in the review of this project . (In addition, these combined measures will result in a taking of my client' s property by eliminating virtually all access, as well as the drive-through lanes, of its business . ) While City staff has insisted that there is no application on file for the commercial project described above, the law does not require that only projects for which there are applications on file be considered in the environmental review .process or in other analyses of this project . The fact is that several departments of the City are aware of this potential project, regardless of whether or not actual applications have been filed. It is a possible, potential future project and must be considered. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN ,f c C HIA LUDVIGSEN CL/tr Refer/Inout.1tr Law Office of ( ' -- Cynthia Indvigsen P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite#203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 HAND DELIVERED November 6, 1996 City of San Bernardino Attn: Mike Finn 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 II 'i Re : Public Works Project No. 96-01 Dear Mr. Finn: Please provide me with a set of copies of the audio tapes of the Environmental Review Committee meeting held on October 31, �I 1996 . I would also like to reiterate my understanding that City Staff is sending this matter back to the Traffic Safety Committee meeting on November 13 , 1996 , with the understanding that the Traffic Safety Committee will consider other options for the above project , including signalization of the intersection. ii Ij At the October 31 meeting you said that the public comment period for the initial study had concluded before my comments, and some of those of my client and other parties present at the ERC hearing. My client had understood, at the October 17, 1996, ERC l hearing, that the public comment period remained open in light of the various notice problems which the business owners raised. In addition, the project which came before the ERC was a different project than that which was considered by the Traffic ji Safety Committee and different than that described in the initial study. j i� At some point in the process, the design for the project 'i changed from an undivided median to a median with a left turn pocket . Neither this alternative nor the proposed signalization alternative were considered in the initial study. Thus, the City must re-open the public comment period. !; Furthermore, I noted during the meeting and in reviewing the responses to comments, that several staff members, and particularly those from the public works department, dismissed the comments of my client and other business owners as addressing economic, not �� environmental impacts . While I disagree vigorously with that s i.aw Office of Cynthia n P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite 11203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 City of San Bernardino I Attn : Environmental Review Committee 300 N. "D" Street I San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 I, Re : Median Island Construction Ti � Construction/Tippecanoe Avenue j� Public Works Project No. 96 -01 II Ladies & Gentlemen: I� I represent In-N-Out Burger Corporation, owner and operator of ii the In-N-Out restaurant located on the northwest corner of I Tippecanoe and Rosewood. My client objects to the proposed median on Tippecanoe Avenue and to the proposed negative declaration for that project . The Initial Study which is before you and' upon which the proposed II negative declaration is based is flawed and fails to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , Public Resources Code §§21000 , et sear. . i In particular, the Initial Study ignores potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts of this proposed project and relies upon a traffic study from 1991 , which does not take into account changes since that time . i The potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts are of a level of significance which require, at the very least , a �i focused environmental impact report on these issues . ji My client retained MSL Engineering, Inc . and WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc . to review this proposed project . Their reports are necessarily limited, due to the delays in providing notice to (, my client of this project and the various city committee reviews of I{ the project . However, their reports do present substantial evidence that the impacts on transportation/circulation are significant enough to require further review under CEQA and mitigation. Those reports are enclosed, along with the substantiating materials, which include City traffic count figures and additional IIcounts initiated by WPA. Mike Finn November 6, 1996 Page Two contention, I will point out that the public works department asserted, as its justification for proceeding with this project under an accelerated time schedule, economic justifications--that this project will encourage business development at the former air base . I do not believe the City can have it both ways--relying upon economic reasons for accelerating this project without full consideration of all impacts and ramifications and yet dismissing the concerns of existing businesses as "mere economic concerns" . In addition, I note that the California Department of Transportation was not on your notice list, even though this proposed project is close to a freeway on-ramp and may well impact that on-ramp. I trust that City staff will address these concerns and the concerns of the various business owners, as well as all possible mitigation measures for this project . As I have previously said, my client has .presented evidence of a fair argument that adverse environmental impacts may result from this project . Thus, either a mitigated negative declaration or a focused environmental impact report is required. My client has suggested possible mitigation and has offered to meet with public works staff to discuss this mitigation, but that staff has refused to even consider anything other than its original project . Please contact me as soon as the tapes are ready for me to pick up. I also would like copies of the City' s circulation plan and of everything in the City' s file related to this project which was not in the file at the time I picked up my earlier set of copies on October 29, 1996 . I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN C)j,�bftih7I UDVIGSEN CL/tr cc : Fred Encinas Don Bollinger Refer/Inout1tr.1 y L.w Office of Cynthia lmdvigsen P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite #203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 City of San Bernardino I Attn: Environmental Review Committee 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 I! Re : Median Island Construction Ti / ppecanoe Avenue Public Works Project No . 96 -01 If Ladies & Gentlemen: !I I represent In-N-Out Burger Corporation, owner and operator of j the In-N-Out restaurant located on the northwest corner of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. �I My client objects to the proposed median on Tippecanoe Avenue �. and to the proposed negative declaration for that project . The Initial Study which is before you and' upon which the proposed negative declaration is based is flawed and fails to meet the II requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , Public Resources Code §§21000 , et sea. . i In particular, the Initial Study ignores potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts of this proposed project and relies upon a traffic study from 1991 , which does not take into account changes since that time . The potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts !I are of a level of significance which require, at the very least, a ! focused environmental impact report on these issues . ji My client retained MSL Engineering, Inc . and WPA Traffic li Engineering, Inc. to review this proposed project . Their reports are necessarily limited, due to the delays in providing notice to my client of this project and the various city committee reviews of the project . However, their reports do present substantial evidence that the impacts on transportation/circulation are significant I! enough to require further review under CEQA and mitigation. !� Those reports are enclosed, along with the substantiating materials, which include City traffic count figures and additional counts initiated by WPA. Environmental Review Committee October 30, 1996 Page Two The reports indicate that the project impacts existing circulation plans which can result in traffic queuing on Tippecanoe around the proposed median. The proposed project also impacts and may eliminate the drive through lane access at my client ' s business and, thus, increase access through the Rosewood driveway and alter circulation plans in and out of this intersection. As the report notes, it may also increase the already high traffic volumes at Rosewood and Harriman. The information presented in the enclosed materials clearly indicates a potentially significant impact on traffic and transportation/circulation, as well as the potential for increasing traffic accidents as a result of queuing and attempted U-turns . The City' s Initial Study was based upon the 1991 Tri-City Corporate Center Master Plan traffic study and does not appear to take into account changes since 1991 and appears to focus on text of that study which analyzed the potential elimination of left turns at Rosewood. However, the Initial Study ignores the fact that the Tri-City Master Plan conclusions assumes left turns at Rosewood and that its final conclusions are based upon that assumption. MSL and WPA have included excerpts from that Plan which discussed the elimination of left turns and the diagrams and other excerpts which show that the Plan assumes the left turns at Rosewood and Tippecanoe remain in place . Thus, the Initial Study (and, as we understand, the City' s Traffic Safety Committee) relied upon an incorrect interpretation of this Plan, the Initial Study and, ultimately the Committee or other decisions based upon it , are flawed. Furthermore, my client has confirmed that neither City staff nor the Traffic Safety Committee (nor the 1991 Tri-City Master Plan) ever considered signalization of the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection, nor did they consider other alternatives to this proposed median which would mitigate its significant impacts . The enclosed engineering data is substantial evidence constituting a fair argument that significant impacts on the environment can result from this project . Under Public Resources Code §§21080 (e) , 21082 . 2 (c) and (d) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code §§15063 (b) (1) , 15064 (g) 'and 15384 , such evidence of potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts require that an EIR be prepared. Furthermore, Appendix G to CEQA, which lists impacts which are deemed significant states, at subsection (u) that a project which disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an established community is deemed to have significant environmental impacts . Environmental Review Committee October 30, 1996 Page Three We also wish to point out that the Initial Study ignores possible future projects which could cumulatively impact this project and the surrounding environment . In particular, my client is aware that various City departments have reviewed a preliminary development scheme for the surrounding area which would expand the commercial centers at Harriman and Rosewood and which vacates Rosewood Avenue and turns it into a parking lot . This would eliminate my client' s access to and from Rosewood (as well as that of other businesses at the intersection) and significantly impact the Rosewood/Tippecanoe intersection and surrounding properties . Thus, the only access to a public street will be the limited right- turn access to and from Tippecanoe Avenue . My client cannot ignore this potential future action on the part of the City, nor, do we believe, can the City. (This potential not only poses further potentially significant environmental impacts, but also would result in a partial taking of my client ' s property and right of access . ) The Initial Study does not include sufficient data to support its conclusions . The enclosed data presents substantial evidence to constitute a fair argument that environmental impacts of this project are significant . Thus, the City must prepare an EIR or return this matter to staff and the traffic Safety Committee for consideration of mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance . The consideration of mitigation measures must involve the surrounding residents and business owners who are most impacted by this project . Please include this letter and the enclosed materials as part of the record of the City' s review and consideration of the proposed negative $eclaration and of the project itself . In addition, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, please include me on the list of people who are to receive notices related to this project and to receive a copy of the City' s Notice of Determination under CEQA. My client and I look forward to addressing your Committee at its meeting tomorrow. Environmental Review Committee October 30, 1996 Page Four Thank you for your time and attention. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN CYN IA LUDVIGSE CL/tr cc : Fred Encinas (In-N-Out Burger) Mary Coppola (In-N-Out Burger) Donald E. Bollinger Mark Lamoreaux Michael Finn (w/ encl . ) Roger Hardgrave (w/ encl . ) Mike Grubbs (w/ encl . ) Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Steven S . Sasaki, P . E. Refer/Inout.1 >fth- W � c G A-P A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 30, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas Director of Real Estate In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 Dear Mr. Encinas: This letter summarizes our review of the environmental traffic impacts related to the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue. The review is based upon contact with City Staff, materials provided by City Staff related to this project, field reviews conducted by our staff, and standard reference materials. Our preliminary analyses included visits to the project site, conducting traffic counts, contact with City Staff, and review of the proposed raised median plans. We obtained a copy of the Tri-City traffic study', utilized in the environmental assessment of the raised median project, late Friday (10/25/96). In addition, we met with City Staff on Tuesday (10/29/96) and received written responses to comments letters regarding this project. We also received Appendix A from City Staff at this Tuesday meeting. It should be noted that the time frame to prepare these comments was very Iimited; therefore, it should not be assumed that the comments in this letter are"all inclusive". ' Trarric Impact Studv for Tri-Cib Corporate Centre Master Plan; Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.; Revised October, 1991. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills. CA 92653 • (71 41 460.01 10 . FAY- (7141 dFn n i T� -2- BACKGROUND ♦ Traffic counts were conducted at the Tippecanoe Avenue / Rosewood Drive intersection during the Midday and PM peak hours and the results are summarized on Figure 1. ♦ Field visits to the study area were made by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., by our Firm Principal, Mr. Weston S Pringle, and our Senior Engineer, Mr. Steven S. Sasaki. ♦ The traffic studies utilized in the environmental assessment of traffic impacts of the raised median were obtained. SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC COMMENT /DUESTIONS ♦ The Tri-City traffic study does not contain evaluation of the conditions created by the proposed raised median project. Are there any other documents that contain analyses of the specific traffic conditions that result from the proposed median project? For example, the Tri- City study assumed realignment of Harriman and signalization of Tippecanoe/Harriman. ♦ Figure 1 shows 280 and 229 (Midday and PM peak hours, respectively) northbound left turns that will be redirected as a result of the raised median. This is a significant number of peak hour left turns. Where will they be redirected to and what are the impacts? ♦ The Tri-City traffic study analyses were for significantly different traffic conditions. For example, during the PM peak hour at Tippecanoe/Rosewood: O The southbound through volume was 1,382 in the Tri-City study and is now 844. O The eastbound right turn volume was 182 and is now 279. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job#961220a Tippecanoe Avenue-City of San Bernardino NOTES: • THE S/B BACK—UP ON TIPPECANOE EXTENDED PAST ROSEWOOD AND WAS SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE DURING PM PEAK. • THE E/B MOVEMENTS WERE DIFFICULT DURING THE MIDDAY AND WORSE FOR THE PM PEAK, DUE TO TRAFFIC ON TIPPECANOE. 25/13 • PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES WERE RELATIVELY LOW BUT DID HAVE DIFFICULTY CROSSING TIPPECANOE. ' No Scale 4/9 19/52 25/21 11.J D��nn ��nn nn nn Q UV°UV°�U� W O MG°�GCL Q U W 0_ B_ v o � rn _ co Ln � M N M Ln ° 27/29 ROSEWOOD DR. 39/15 NA 10/21 -_�� 24/10 23/13 3/2 rn rn ao 287/279 �( N N N c \ N O O N LEGEND 00 N to 27/29 = MIDDAY/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 10/21 -.--1 = IN—N—OUT BURGER RELATED VOLUMES EXISTING MIDDAY AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES rA30W SPA TR�IC ENGINEERING, INC. FIGURE 1 -3- O The northbound left turn volume was 128 and is now 229. O The WPA recent counts are verified by the recent City of San Bernardino 24-hour machine counts. ♦ The Tri-City traffic study indicated (Page 11, "Future Study Area Developments") that only 15 percent of the maximum buildout potential of cumulative projects was considered in the analyses and only through Year 2002. The raised median analyses should consider a long- range buildout condition, as it is assumed to be a permanent fixture. FULL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MUST BE ANALYZED. ♦ The Tri-City traffic study assumes that "Planning Area 3" (the areas surrounding the M-N- Out Burger site) will have 29,250 square feet (SF) of retail development. O However, it has been indicated to us that the existing retail development in this "Planning Area 3" exceeds the 29,250 SF and there is potential for over 500,000 SF of retail type use on just a portion of"Planning Area 3". Cl This potential would generate significantly different traffic volumes, patterns, and potential impacts, than considered in the Tri-City traffic study. ♦ There are traffic operational concerns specific to the raised median project that need to be addressed. O For example, the intensification of demand for the In-N-Out Burger driveway at Tippecanoe Avenue due to the median. This is expected to increase queuing at this location, resulting in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job#961220a Tippecanoe Avenue-City of San Bernardino -4- O How existing left turns from Rosewood Drive (both eastbound and westbound) will be redirected and their potential impacts to adjacent intersections. O How will southbound left turns at Tippecanoe/Rosewood access the properties on the east side of the street? What impacts will this create? *** Installation of a traffic signal at the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection appears to mitigate many of the outstanding environmental traffic issues and appears to provide a better traffic solution. O It serves to better accommodate the existing turning movements at this intersection and reduce the potential impacts of"redirected' traffic. O It serves to assign right-of-way at this intersection, which appears to be an existing need. O It can be coordinated with the Caltrans ramp signal to provide the best possible operations and may serve to "meter" traffic to the critical ramps and Redlands Boulevard locations. O Rather than all of the northbound left turn stacking being provided at Laurelwood, it can be divided between the Rosewood Drive and Laurelwood intersections. Therefore, adequate stacking can be provided via two locations, rather than just one. WPA Traffic Engineering,Ina Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job#961110a Tippecanoe Avenue-City of San Bernardino -5— INITIAL STUDYRESPONS TO COMM NTc Responses to In-1V Out Burger Letter DI through D9 DL The In-N-Out Burger comment raises concern regarding potential traffic impacts at this access due to the median project, which also results in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue. Have these potential traffic impacts been evaluated? If so, the analyses and data should be presented. This is a potential significant traffic impact. D2 The In-N-Out Burger comment raises a real traffic operational concern that should be analyzed, not just acknowledged. There are significant traffic impacts that could result if the turn pocket is inadequate to serve the projected traffic. Again, if this issue has been analyzed, the data should be provided. It can be noted that the Tri-City study did not address this condition. (i.e. In the Tri-City study, the realignment of Harriman was assumed to be in place and Tippecanoe/Laurelwood was assumed to be signalized. - It was Level of Service F without signalization.) D3 Does City Staff have a projection of traffic volumes making the northbound left turn at this referenced location? The knowledge of the volume of traffic making this left turn would be critical to determining if the design is adequate or not adequate. The analysis procedure used by the City to determine that it does not agree should be documented. Again, the potential added traffic demand at the I17-N-Out Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway should be addressed in detail. Our observations indicated existing vehicle queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue and added ingress demand at this location could directly impact Tippecanoe Avenue. WPA Traffic Engineering,Ina Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job#961220a Tippecanoe Avenue-City of San Bernardino -6- It is indicated in the response that traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue"has increased dramatically in the past 10 years..." and it also references analyses in the Tri-City traffic study. As shown earlier in this letter, however, southbound traffic volumes on Tippecanoe Avenue, south of Rosewood Drive, have actually decreased from the time of the Tri-City traffic study. It appears that the analyses of this intersection and the overall median project need to be updated based on current traffic conditions and projections. In addition, the effects on Level of Service by signalizing the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection should also be fully evaluated as an alternative mitigation. D5 The identification of"... 3=19 feet desirable and 230 feet minimum" appears to be referenced from the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. letter from Mr. Andrd Groe17 hoff to Mr. Elliot Shaw, Integra Engineering Incorporated, dated February 19, 1992. This recommendation is actually for the "Harriman Place Realigned and Tippecanoe Avenue" intersection, not Tippecanoe/Rosewood. It can be noted that if left turn storage is provided at both Tippecanoe/Rosewood and Tippecanoe/ Laurelwood, the cumulative left turn storage will meet the recommendation. Regarding the third paragraph of the response where weaving from the I-10 Westbound Off-Ramp to a potential left turn pocket at Rosewood Drive is identified as a"serious safety problem", it should be remembered that the I-10 Westbound Off-Ramp at Tippecanoe Avenue is signalized; so as traffic exits the off-ramp (turning right), it is protected by the signal control and does not need to conflict with traffic as it makes this movement. D6 Response noted. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job#961220a Tippecanoe Avenue-City of San Bernardino -7— D7 Significant traffic issues and potential impacts are still outstanding with regard to the proposed raised median project. City Staff has indicated that a traffic signal at Tippecanoe/Rosewood is not feasible, but data and analyses related to this determination should be more clearly outlined and documented. We trust that this review will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, "A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC Jr� '4 .�Ji Steven S. Sasaki, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C52768 & TR1462 ---1_ �OQROFES;r _ Q�OFESS/p S. C-13 CID CC No. C 2763 C Exp.rz _ No. T 14 2 SSS:cc * * Exp.12- 1 � X C/VIA : 4961220a gTFCF CAUF� q� TRAFFIC FOF CAL* WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job#961220a Tippecanoe Avenue-City of San Bernardino COUNTS UNLIMITED CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code : 00328528 MIS: TIPPECANOE AVENUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/15/96 E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : SBTIROMD WEATHER: SUNNY Page 1 TOTAL VOLUME -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date10/15/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Volute 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 Percent 2% 92% 6% 46% 4% 51% 31% 66% 3% 6% 0% 93% Pk total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 12:45 12:45 Volute 3 205 8 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 18 244 94 PHF .78 .79 .89 .84 TIPPECANOE AVENUE 2 39 - 627 • 12 20 571 29 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0 2 39 627 12 620 0 L--- 678 ----J � ' ROSEWOOD DRIVE 1,298 29 29 273 TOTAL VOLUME 2 314 2 39 57 2 • 20 20 26 630 96 26 • 1 1 316 Intersection Total 12 1,921 39 1 295 1 26 295 1,818 ROSEWOOD DRIVE r---- -� 870 --� 0 26 • 273 - 571 26 • 0 627 295 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 948 273 571 2 0 TIPPECANOE AVENUE COUNTS UNLIMITED CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code : 00328528 N/S: TIPPECANOE AVENUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/15/96 E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : SBTIROMD WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date10/15/96 --------------------------------- ---- ----------------------------------- ----- ------------------------------ 11:30 9 154 12 12 1 1 67 103 2 3 1 77 442 11:45 3 179 4 5 0 6 70 133 1 4 1 65 471 12:00 3 205 8 3 1 5 86 134 4 7 1 65 522 12:15 0 139 8 4 0 9 58 127 12 2 0 75 434 Hr Total 15 677 32 24 2 21 281 497 19 16 3 282 1869 12:30 2 144 11 9 1 7 57 144 4 5 0 67 451 12:45 7 139 12 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 514 13:00 1 112 12 12 3 6 75 137 5 5 2 58 428 13:15 0 121 3 8 0 6 76 123 6 7 1 74 425 Hr Total 10 516 38 39 4 27 280 570 21 23 3 287 1818 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *TOTAL* 25 1193 70 I 63 6 48 1 561 1067 40 1 39 6 569 1 3687 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 11:30 12:30 12:30 12:00 Volute 15 677 32 39 4 27 280 570 21 20 1 295 Percent 2% 94% 4% 56% 6% 39% 32% 65% 2% 61 0% 93% Pk total 724 70 871 316 Highest 12:00 13:00 12:45 12:45 Volume 3 205 8 12 3 6 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 21 244 94 PHF .84 .83 .89 .84 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Volume 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 Percent 2% 92% 6% 46% 4% 51% 31% 66% 3% 61 0% 93% Pk total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 12:45 12:45 Volume 3 205 8 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 18 244 94 PHF .78 .79 .89 .84 COUNTS UNLIMITED CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code : 00328528 MIS: TIPPECAXE AVENUE NORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/15/96 E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. SBTIR0Pl1 WEATHER: SUNNY Page 1 TOTAL VOLUME ------------------- ------------------------------------------ -- --- ----------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date10/15/96 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---- ____ Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Volume 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2% 95% 3% 32% 6% 62% 26% 71% 3% 4% 1% 95% Pk total 890 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 Volume 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHF .87 .65 .81 .60 TIPPECANOE AVENUE 8 31 - 844 • 15 13 619 29 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1 8 31 844 15 661 1 �---- 890 ' � ' ROSEWOOD DRIVE 1,551 29 29 229 TOTAL VOLUME 3 263 3 31 47 3 - 13 13 15 557 92 15 2 2 294 Intersection Total 15 2,107 45 2 279 28 279 ROSEWOOD DRIVE r---- 2,014 —� �■� r-- 876 ----� �� • 0 0 15 • 229 • 619 - 2 - 0 844 279 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1,138 229 619 2 0 TIPPECANOE AVENUE COUNTS UNLIMITED CITY OF SAN OE AVENUE A 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code : 00328528 N/S: TIPPECANOE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 Start Date: 10 E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 /15/96 WEATHER: SUNNY File I.D. : SBTIROPM TOTAL VOLUME Page : 1 ----------------------- --------- -- ----------------------------------------------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/15/96 ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- 16:00 2 175 13 3 1 5 47 146 2 2 0 65 461 16:15 4 189 11 3 1 3 53 166 0 0 1 65 496 16:30 1 236 7 2 0 3 44 153 0 3 1 75 525 16:45 6 225 3 7 1 4 39 149 9 2 0 35 480 Hr Total 13 825 34 15 3 15 183 614 11 7 2 240 1962 17:00 6 244 5 3 1 14 42 155 2 2 0 65 539 17:15 1 199 4 1 0 5 41 155 9 3 0 43 461 17:30 4 235 6 5 1 5 53 145 4 4 0 55 517 17:45 4 166 16 6 1 5 93 164 13 4 2- 116 59 Hr Total 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 2107 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- *TOTAL* 28 1669 65 1 30 6 44 1 412 1233 39 1 20 4 519 1 4069 - ------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 16:45 17:00 17:00 17:00 Volume 17 903 18 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2% 96% 2% 32% 6% 62% 26% 71% 3% 4$ 1% 95% Pk total 938 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 Volume 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHF .92 .65 1 .81 .60 -------------------------------------------- ------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Volume 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2% 95% 3% 32% 6% 62% 26% 71% 3% 4% 11 95% Pk total 890 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 Volume 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHF .87 .65 .81 .60 Wn j 04000 O � 4 Q� 0 to cf � J p� O � � I I� O J , S S J 0 . J J Nc o � 0000 C) Q) TI 010,70411, DF 1 J J N � J 0 J S o S � s r Volume Count Report Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Mitron Systems Corporation Location . . . . . . . . . . TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR Location Code . . . . . 533 County . . . . . . . . . . . . SB Recorder Set . . . . . . 10/22/96 09:22 Recording Start . . . 10/22/96 10: 00 Recording End . . . . . 10/28/96 11: 15 Sample Time . . . . . . . 15 Minutes Operator Number . . . 4 Machine Number . . . . 9 Channel . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Divide By . . . . . . . . . 2 Summation . . . . . . . . . No Two-Way . . . . . . . . . . . yes Tuesday 10/22/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals S 6PM 847 962 1112 1045 1048 1144 1194 1025 924 634 446 299 225 179 100 62 64 81 91 328 564 1060 936 804 15174 206 241 287 288 269 286 301 249 247 163 118 87 64 47 18 27 7 22 10 39 92 192 295 206 211 229 271 254 262 267 291 290 228 176 123 81 53 45 20 7 14 34 5 46 112 258 230 203 195 227 280 255 244 298 311 247 215 159 95 66 51 51 35 15 18 10 27 86 124 289 188 190 235 265 274 248 273 293 291 239 234 136 110 65 57 36 27 13 25 15 49 157 236 321 223 205 AM Peak Hour 07: 15 to 08 : 15 (1163 vehicles) )AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90. 6% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:45 to 16: 45 (1196 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96. 1% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals S-(,P-j 836 929 1143 1118 1043 1093 1103 1083 851 567 480 310 234 185 119 85 80 119 88 320 518 1056 836 740 14936 227 224 301 290 262 262 294 289 224 169 132 86 67 49 25 26 14 33 13 32 80 185 271 186 197 210 249 295 256 255 275 288 213 170 117 79 48 48 32 19 25 45 20 44 80 283 194 1?4 204 235 314 276 232 286 267 258 235 124 100 64 60 38 31 20 20 18 19 89 141 249 197 167 208 260 279 257 293 290 267 248 179 104 131 81 59 50 31 20 21 23 36 155 217 339 174 213 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07: 15 to 08: 15 (1142 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor 84 . 2% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 :30 to 13 :30 (1178 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . 8% Sov2&,ft; 61,1 o4- S. 6 , Volume Report, 'TIPPECANOE AV $/O ROSEWOOD DR' page 2 Thursday 10/24/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 5-16pm 793 838 1006 982 996 996 964 1094 824 572 445 317 245 179 117 66 67 105 103 300 495 985 853 725 14067 188 211 252 271 235 212 250 272 235 155 127 97 68 58 20 23 11 28 14 33 72 192 301 182 201 208 249 244 231 257 235 272 232 169 109 61 72 40 35 13 18 41 14 53 98 237 182 166 186 202 241 216 247 275 243 258 186 143 102 88 56 37 40 13 21 12 32 74 133 268 166 192 218 217 264 251 283 252 236 292 171 105 107 71 49 44 22 17 17 24 43 140 192 288 204 185 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07: 15 to 08 : 15 (1094 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90. 9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17: 00 to 18 : 00 (1094 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 .7% Friday 10/25/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 821 948 1124 1045 1072 1072 1044 931 877 667 465 323 242 212 140 84 66 74 43 113 211 360 415 566 12915 205 222 231 269 268 238 244 240 230 184 144 90 62 45 38 27 22 14 6 13 51 73 87 122 185 244 307 262 243 295 264 235 227 173 138 86 63 51 41 28 21 13 14 20 52 66 97 138 216 272 291 263 262 281 264 205 212 153 98 71 64 61 31 12 9 22 8 21 38 99 120 137 215 210 295 251 299 258 272 251 208 157 85 76 53 55 30 17 14 25 15 59 70 122 111 169 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:45 to 11:45 (953 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87. 6% )PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 :15 to 13 : 15 (1162 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 . 6% - Saturday 10/26/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 718 779 883 832 820 824 725 721 591 483 386 252 244 210 154 125 73 58 41 42 104 172 244 396 9877 166 210 210 212 211 233 199 166 163 128 110 74 76 50 47 27 18 18 13 7 18 37 38 74 159 169 223 200 205 213 185 196 154 120 106 66 61 65 32 30 17 10 8 6 18 38 60 78 186 200 232 221 217 203 166 197 143 98 88 59 52 45 37 33 23 12 9 9 31 33 59 86 207 200 218 199 187 175 175 162 131 137 82 53 55 50 38 35 15 18 11 20 37 64 87 158 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:45 to 11: 45 (786 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . 6% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 : 15 to 13 : 15 (885 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95. 4% J Volume Report. 'TIPPEC KO AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR, 24 e 3 Sunday 10/27/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2 100 2200 Z300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 555 798 903 838 922 817 792 688 654 485 319 256 245 140 142 80 69 91 58 66 315 570 999 902 11704 97 183 206 200 231 194 216 162 158 131 94 59 76 47 26 17 23 24 13 6 31 86 176 278 138 168 229 206 229 228 227 187 169 118 82 72 58 35 36 25 11 30 17 15 50 91 277 206 132 186 231 198 233 220 180 159 168 109 80 62 51 32 39 22 19 11 10 16 83 160 253 202 188 261 237 234 229 175 169 180 159 127 63 63 60 26 41 16 16 26 18 29 151 233 293 216 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08: 15 to 09: 15 (1101 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . 9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 :45 to 14 : 45 (927 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99. 0% Monday 10/28/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0.400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 774 193 967 200 193 182 196 196 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10: 00 to 11: 00 (774 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96. 8% )PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable Volume Count Report Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Mitron Systems Corporation Location . . . . . . . . . . TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR )Location Code . . . . . 533 County . . . . . . . . . . . . SB ( fly � ) Recorder Set . . . . . . 10/22/96 09 : 22 Recording Start . . . 10/22/96 10: 00 Recording End . . . . . 10/28/96 11: 15 Sample Time . . . . . . . 15 Minutes Operator Number . . . 4 Machine Number . . . . 10 Channel . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Divide By . . . . . . . . . 2 Summation . . . . . . . . . No Two-Way . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Tuesday 10/22/96 Channel: 2 Direction: 8 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 667 804 932 806 776 854 918 986 822 660 508 426 262 201 93 87 52 78 139 257 328 434 489 511 12090 160 181 251 215 206 194 220 260 212 188 141 135 75 59 30 31 5 18 22 32 75 101 119 137 151 178 231 229 185 185 207 257 195 154 120 110 61 65 20 14 12 36 25 59 77 94 131 115 185 218 215 200 195 240 225 249 210 160 129 93 68 45 19 20 17 11 36 71 89 122 129 127 171 227 235 162 190 235 266 220 205 158 118 88 58 32 24 22 18 13 56 95 87 117 110 132 AM Peak Hour 11: 00 to 12:00 (804 vehicles) )AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.5% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:45 to 17: 45 (1032 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97. 0% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channel: 2 Direction: S 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 679 838 924 917 893 964 898 983 808 656 512 422 233 178 94 81 44 68 144 211 329 435 485 552 12348 163 188 247 228 225 260 209 253 207 178 133 146 81 54 42 32 17 17 27 47 63 95 104 149 157 188 222 238 216 219 215 250 203 164 114 100 56 58 27 15 5 12 33 49 87 83 138 127 193 223 212 224 246 256 221 263 205 163 154 85 56 37 8 15 14 25 42 60 99 129 122 135 166 239 243 227 206 229 253 217 193 151 111 91 40 29 17 19 8 14 42 55 80 128 121 141 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: 00 to 12:00 (838 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.7% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:45 to 17:45 (1019 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.9% Volume Report, 'TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR@ page 2 Thursday 10/24/96 Channel: 2 Direction: S 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 606 817 773 881 887 895 936 936 779 578 561 403 283 172 94 52 58 62 144 215 342 449 516 596 12035 135 179 192 225 237 236 236 235 217 157 147 117 97 75 36 22 16 11 21 49 58 93 126 138 142 181 201 225 213 229 217 248 169 146 150 99 73 36 22 7 12 7 32 51 84 111 115 162 156 211 214 215 222 213 240 235 210 161 161 95 61 32 23 10 22 25 42 62 110 118 147 135 173 246 166 216 215 217 243 218 183 114 103 92 52 29 13 13 8 19 49 53 90 127 128 161 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: 00 to 12 : 00 (817 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 . 0% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16: 30 to 17 : 30 (966 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 . 4% Friday 10/25/96 Channel: 2 Direction: 8 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0.400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totats 686 895 904 911 962 981 976 945 763 710 548 441 331 186 144 98 51 38 63 77 138 259 341 419 11867 167 195 269 231 230 221 273 265 205 180 149 128 100 44 42 35 19 13 14 14 17 47 65 86 165 203 202 227 263 255 241 243 178 183 143 108 95 46 32 30 13 7 19 16 36 48 77 102 172 235 226 221 248 259 249 273 192 154 148 93 74 56 28 20 9 10 18 28 41 81 90 108 182 262 207 232 221 246 213 214 188 193 108 112 62 40 42 13 10 8 12 19 44 83 109 123 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: 00 to 12 : 00 (895 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. 4% RM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15: 15 to 16: 15 (1033 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 . 6% _ Saturday 10/26/96 Channel: 2 Direction: S 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 572 714 783 777 822 782 773 698 682 545 430 364 234 185 141 75 50 35 36 39 75 133 208 268 9421 131 161 171 197 207 201 212 188 163 155 138 107 61 45 44 23 16 8 10 4 10 30 39 62 147 190 200 191 190 178 195 171 170 146 106 103 56 49 43 16 16 9 14 11 19 34 47 53 141 177 210 191 209 202 190 169 180 137 105 84 61 50 29 22 8 14 8 13 21 35 42 69 153 186 202 198 216 201 176 170 169 107 81 70 56 41 25 14 10 4 4 11 25 34 80 84 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: 00 to 12 : 00 (714 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . 9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 : 00 to 15: 00 (822 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95. 1% Volume Report, ITIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR' page 3 Sunday 10/27/96 Channel: 2 Direction: S 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals J 434 596 507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1537 87 136 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 144 174 0 0 0 0 0 VOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 155 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 161 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: 00 to 12 : 00 (596 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 . 5% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 : 00 to 13 : 00 (507 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . 8% Monday 10/28/96 Channel: 2 Direction: S 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable ;PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable W * P I the WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 30, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas Director of Real Estate In-N-Out Burger 13 502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706.5885 Dear Mr. Encinas: This letter summarizes our review of the environmental traffic impacts related to the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue, The review is based upon contact with City Staff, materials provided by City Staff related to this project, field reviews conducted by our staff, and standard reference materials. Our preliminary analyses included visits to the project site, conducting traffic counts, contact with City Staff, and review of the proposed raised median plans. We obtained a copy of the Tri-City traffic study', utilized in the environmental assessment of the raised median project, late Friday (10/25/96). In addition, we met with City Staff on Tuesday (10129/96) and received written responses to comments letters regarding this project. We also received Appendix A from City Staff at this Tuesday meeting. It should be noted that the time frame to prepare these comments was very limited; therefore, it should nQI be assumed that the comments in this letter are"all inclusive". 1 1'ciloc in?nact Srtidufor Trl-Cj(y Cy&gorafe CetitreMaster Plan; Barron-Aschman Assocfales, Inc.; Revised October, 1991. a60 0110 • FAX f7141 460 01 13 ?_3421 0,mith Pointe Drivo- 9 Slurp 190 • Laguna H111s. CA Q2653 • (714) -2— VACKWR ♦ Traffic counts were conducted at the Tippecanoe Avenue / Rosewood Drive intersection during the Midday and PM peak hours and the results are summarized on Figure 1. ♦ Meld visits to the study area were made by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., by our Firtn Principal, Mr. TVeston S. Pringle, and our Senior Ln�;ineer, .'ifr. Ste1,en S. Sasaki ♦ The. traffic snldies utilized in the environnicnial of traffc irnpacts of the raised median were obtained. ,S1 CN114'I�TR,4 FFI C CS1i��'�1��' '�•�TI Ql�:� ♦ The Tri-Cily, traffic study does not contain evaludtion of the conditions created by the proposed raised median project. Are there any other documents that contain analyses of the specific traffic conditions that result from the proposed median project? For example, the Tri- City study assumed realignment of Harriman and siunalization of Tippecanoe / Harriman ♦ Figure 1 shows 280 and 229 (Midday and PM peak hours, respectI elv) northbound ]eft turns that will be redirected as a result of the raised median This is a significant number of peak hour left turns Where \vIn they be redirected to and what are the impacts? ♦ The 7r•i�-City' traffic study analyses were for significa►ltly different traffic conditions For example, during the Plot peak hour at Tippecanoe / Rosewood O The southbound through volume was 1,382 in the Tri-City study and is now 944 D The eastbound right turn volume was 18�,,, and is now 279 µIPA Trafflc Engineering, lnc. ^11 Trajfle Review-Raised Vedian Project Tippecanoe Avenue- Chv of San Bernardino -3- O The northbound left turn volume was 129 and is now 229 Q The RP,4 recent counts are verified h\ the recent City of San Bernardino 24-hour machine counts. ♦ The 7ri-Cite traffic study indicated (Page 1 1, "FutnrP Studt-Area Developme,rt.c") that only maximum buildout potential of cumulative proiects was considered in the 15 percent of the analyses and only thr011gh Year 2002 The raiSeu median analyses should consider a long range buildout condition, as it is assumed to be a perwartent fixture FULL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MUST BE ANALYZED ♦ The Tri-C'ir} traffic study assumes tl,at "1'1cnrrrirrg ,- i co " (the areas surrounding the Irr-N- Out Burger site) will have 29,250 square feet (Sl:) of retail development Q However, it has been indicated to us that the existing retail development in this "Plontling Area 3" exceeds the 29,250 SF and there is potential for over 500,000 SF of retail type use on just a portion of"Plcrnrring Area 3". Q This potential would generate significantly different traffic volumes, patterns, and potential impacts, than considered in the Tri-Gifu traffic study ♦ There are traffic operational concerns specific to the raised median project that need to be addressed n For example, the intensification of demand for the h,-jti'-Out Burger driveway at Tippecanoe Avenue due to the median This is expected to increase queuing at this location, resulting in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue HTA TraffIc Engineering, Inc. —� - Traffic Revtew-Raised Medan Project r„h uvi 7 7 2 ira Tippecanoe Avenue• C4 of San Bernardino -4- O How existing left turns from Rosewood Drive (both eastbound and westbound) will be redirected and their potential impacts to adjacent intersections O How will southbound left turns at Tippecanoe / Rosewood access the properties on the east side of the street? What impacts will this create' * Installation of a traffic signal at the Tippecanoe i Rosewood intersection appears to mitigate many of the outstanding environnicnt l craflic issu<s and appears to prove abetter traffic solution. O It serves to better accommodate the existing turning movements at this intersection and reduce the potential impacts of"redirected' traffic (� It serves to assign right-of-% ay at this intersection, which appears to be an existing need. O It can be coordinated with the Coliruirs ramp signal to provide the best possible operations and may serve to "ineter" traffic to the critical ramps and Redlands Boulevard locations. O Rather than all of the northbound left turn stacking being provided at Laurelwood, it can be divided between the Rosewood Drive and Laurelwood intersections. Therefore, adequate stacking can be provided via two locations, rather than just one. i+PA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Traffic Review-Raised Median Project Job 09612204, TippeeanoeAvenue-City of San Rernardinu -5— LYITIA1,S LSDYRESPO_ S TD oMA1LM Responses to In-N- d-Byrzer Let( r-V 1Ltmfg_ ,P-2 V1 The lit-N-Oul Barger comment raises concern regarding potential traffic impacts at this access due to the median protect, which also results in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue Have these Potential traffic impacts been evaluated? lfso, the analyscs and data should be presented This is a potential significant traffic impact V2 The M-N-Out Burger comment raises a real traffic operational concern that should be analyzed, not just acknowledged. There are significant traffic impacts that could result if the turn pocket is inadequate to serve the projected traffic Again, if this issue has been analyzed, the data should be provided. It can be noted that the Tri-City study did not address this condition. (i.e. In the Tri-City study, the realignment of Harriman was assumed to be in place and Tippecanoe/ Laurelwood was assumed to be signalized - It was Level of Service F without signalization.) N Does City Staft'have a projection of traffic volumes makintt the northbound left turn at this referenced location? The knowledge of the volume of traffic mak-M8 this left turn would be critical to determining if the design is adequate or not adequate The analysis procedure used by the City to determine that it does not agree should be documented. Again, the potential added traffic demand at the Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway should be addressed in detail. Our observations indicated existing vehicle queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue and added ingress demand at this location could directly impact Tippecanoe Avenue. 1VPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Traffte Review-Raised Median Project HO%1lIfl- 1 i,-f-ecrur,)e A,enrre Citi.of von f?,—(irnl;n„ -6- IZ4 It is indicated in the response that traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue "has Increased dramatically in the past 10 years ..." and it also references analyses in the 7ri-City traffic study As shown earlier in this letter, however, southbound traffic voiumes on Tippecanoe Avenue, south of Rosewood Drive, have actually decreased from the time of the 7ri-C/t}, traffic study. It appears that the analyses of this intersection and the overall median project need to be updated based on current traffic conditlon:: i:c:d projections. In addition, the effects on Level of Service bN signalizing the Tippecanoe / Rosewood intersection should also be fully evaluated as an alternative Mitigation. Di 'The identification of 349 feet d6/rable acrd 230 fuel minitnum" appears to be referenced from the Burton-A.rchman Associates, Inc. letter from Mr. Andre Qroenhoff to Mr. Elliot Shaw, Integra Engineermg ljrcorporated, dated February 19, 1992. This recommendation is actually for the "Harrimcm Place Realig7red aml Tippecanoe Avetwe" intersection, not Tippecanoe/Rosewood. It can be noted that if left turn storage is provided at both Tippecanoe /Rosewood and Tippecanoe / Laurel-wood, the cumulative left turn storage %will meet the recommendation Regarding the third paragraph of the response where weaving from the 1-10 Westbound Off Ramp to a potential left turn pocket at Rosewood Drive is identified as a ".serious safety problem", it should be remembered that the I-10 Westbound QfF-Ramp at Tippecanoe Avenue is signalized, so as traffic exits the off-ramp (turning right), it is protected by the signal control and does not need to conflict with traffic as it makes this movement Response noted. IW4 Traffic Engineering, Inc. �- — Tra fiTr&-view_Raised Median Project Job k961220a Tippecanoe 4venue-rj,�,of San Bernardino -7- pZ Significant traffic issues and potential impacts are still outstanding with regard to the proposed raised median project City Staff has indicated that a traffic signal at Tippecanoe / Rosewood is not feasible, but data and analyses related to this determination should be more clearly outlined and documented. 1AVe trust that this review will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, , WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. J,4, Steven S Sasaki, RE Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C52768 & TR1462 lo SI04�V� k; a No. C 27e; m No. T 14 2 Exp. Z . SSS:cc Exp.it- -4 � 496,122011 cllgT�OF V I A O``'.:; `rfq� TRAFF\� CALtF FOF CA003 11TH Trafflc F.nghteerbig, Inc. - - TraJrc Review-Raised Afedinrr Profecr Lin.,r n.. Tirneranne 4i•enue,- f'irt ,,f v—, COUNTS UNLIMITED CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code : 00328528 N/S: TIPPECANOE AVENUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/15/96 E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 Pile J.D. ; SBTIROKD WEATHER: SUNNY Page 1 TOTAL VOLUME ----- ------------------------------------------------------- - - --------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE (TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound (Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date10/15/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 12:00 I 12:00 12:00 Volute 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 Percent 21 92% 61 461 41 511 f� 311 66% 3% 61 01 93% Pk total 678 57 I 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 i 12:45 12:45 Volute 3 205 8 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 18 244 94 PHF .78 .79 .89 .84 TIPPECANW AVENUE 2 39 627 12 20 571 29 2 39 627 12 620 0 L----- 678 — ROSEWOOD DRIVE 1 ,298 29 29 273 - TOTAL VOLUME -- 2 314 2 39 57 2 20 _ 20 26 630 96 26 • 1 1 316 Intersection Total 12 1 ,921 39 1 295 26 295 ROSEWOOD DRIVE �-- 1 ,818 r - 870 -� 0 26 273 571 26 0 627 295 948 273 571 26 0 TIPPECANOE AVENUE COUNTS UNLTI4ITED Site Code : 00328528 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE , CA 92557 Start Date: 10/15/96 HORENO VALLEY H/S: TIPPECANOE AVENUE 909-247-, CA File I.D. SBTIROND E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE Page 1 WEATHER: SUNNY TOTAL VOLUME ----------------------- ----------------- AVENLE lROSFv'OOD DRIVE trthbound PPECANOE AVENUE (ROSEWOOD DRI E Southbound Westbound Eastbound f T u Right Left Thru Right I Total Lett Thru Fight i.eft Thru Right Left ,hr g Date 10/15j96 -------------------------------------- 11:30 9 154 12 12 1 1 67 103 2 I 3 1 77 142 11:45 3 179 4 i 5 0 6 I 70 133 1 4 1 65 471 12:00 3 205 8 3 1 5 86 134 4 7 1 65 522 12:15 - 4 --9- 4 — -- — Or Total 15 67" 24 2 21 281 497 19 16 3 282 ' 1869 12:30 2 144 11 9 1 7 57 144 4 5 0 67 I 451 12:45 7 139 12 ! 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 i 514 13:00 1 112 12 12 3 6 75 137 5 5 2 58 428 13;1_— 0 121 __?_I___-�— 6 —7 1 14 Or Total 10 516 38 I 39 4 27 280 570 21 { 23 3 287 II 1818 ---------------------------------------------- 'TOTAL* 25 li93 70 1 63 6 48 1 561 1067 40 1 39 6 569 1 3687 ................-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 11;30 I 12:30 12:30 I 11:00 Volute 15 677 32 39 4 27 280 570 21 20 1 295 Percent 21 941 41 56t 61 39% 1 321 651 24 61 02 931 i Pk total 724 I 70 II 871 316 Highest 12:00 13:00 ; 12:45 12:45 Volute 3 205 8 12 3 6 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 I 21 244 94 PHF .84 .83 .89 .84 Peak Hour Analysis-By`Entire-intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 I 12:00 ; 12:00 I 12:00 Volute 12 627 39 ' 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 Percent 21 921 61 461 41 511 31t 661 31 61 01 931 Plc total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 I�I 12:45 12:45 Volute 3 205 8 I 10 0 8 1 72 166 6 6 0 88 111 total 216 18 I 244 94 i PHF .78 .79 89 .84 I COUNTS UNLIMITED :ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code 00328528 i/S: TIPPECANOE AVENUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/15/96 /W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. SBTIROPM 4WHER: SUNNY Page ; l TOTAL VOLUME ---- --------- ----------------- ------- --------------------------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE JROSEIAWD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE 'ROSEWOOD DRIV£ Southbound Westbound Northbound (Eastbound I Left Thru Right I Left Thru Right Left Thru Right i Left Thru Right I Total Date10/15/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Volume 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 ( 13 2 279 Percent 21 951 34 321 63 621 261 713 31 41 11 951 Pk total 890 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:Oi 17:45 17:45 Volume 6 244 5 3 1 14 ' 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 1 122 PSF .87 .65 f .81 + .60 ` TIPPECANOE AVENUE 8 31 844 15 13 619 29 8 31 844 . 15 661 1 �--- 890 ' � ' ROSEWOOD DRIVE 1 ,551 29 29 229 TOTAL VOLUME 3 263 3 31 47 3 13 13 15 557 92 15 2 2 294 Intersection Total 15 2, 107 45 2 279 28 279 ROSEWOOD ORIVE _ 2,014 r---------- 876 — 0 15 229 - 619 2 0 844 279 1 , 138 229 619 2 0 TIPPECA 01 AVENUF COUNTS UNLIMITED :ITY OF SAN BLRNAkDINO 25424 JACLYN AVENUE Site Code : 00328528 HURENO VALLEY CA 92557 Start Date: 10/115/96 a,S: TIPPECANGE AV£NCf , EJW: ROSEWOOD DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. SBTLROPM OEATHER: SUNNY Page 1 TOTAL VOLUME ------------------------V----------------------------------- ':IPPECANOE A'lEK ROSEWOOD DRIVE !TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound (Westbound iNorthbound Eastbound I Left Thru iiiht j Left Thru Right ; Left Thru Right Left Thru Right j Total Date10j15/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16:00 2 175 i3 3 1 5 47 146 2 2 0 65 461 16:15 4 189 11 3 1 3 53 166 0 0 1 65 496 16:30 1 236 7 I 2 0 3 44 153 0 3 1 75 525 7 _1 ._- �_---19 .--149 --3- �___. Q_�� �4 Hr Total 1 34 I 15 3 15 '-°3 614 11 7 2 240 1962 17:00 6 244 5 3 1 14 42 155 2 2 0 6`> 539 17:15 1 199 4 I 1 0 5 41 155 9 3 0 43 'I 461 17:30 4 235 6 5 1 5 53 145 4 4 0 55 1 517 156 16_ . . _ ` ' 29 13 4 Z flr Total 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 2107 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *TOTAL* 28 1669 65 30 6 44 1 412 1233 39 1 20 4 519 1 4069 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Inlividual Approach for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 16:45 17:00 17:00 17"00 Volute 17 903 18 15 3 29 ? 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 21 96% 2% 32t 61 621 i 261 71t 3t 41 18 95% Pk total 938 47 I 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 Volue 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 H1 total 255 18 I 270 122 PHF .92 .65 .81 .60 ................................. ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 17;00 17:00 17:00 ' Volume 15 844 31 I 15 3 29 I 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 21 95a 3i ! 32% 6t 62% 26% 71t 3% 4% 18 951 Pk total 890 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 { Volute 6 244 5 � 3 1 14 f 93 164 13 4 2 116 1 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHF .87 i 65 .81 .60 Q ► ► ► O V*) O n b V) Q' ' N N fV O4o04 Q0 a � v N w to.9 L: J ► *� 'h h i �—o CO) . ,� p ° t%. n1 w J t � J 1 O 1 Y rl d Q J O E � J I � - I J 1� NMI � N J QQ N M � � v volume Count R_aR2xt Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Huron Systems Corporation Location . . . . . . . . . . TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR Location Code . . . . . 533 County . . . . . . . . . . . . SB Recorder Set . . . . . . 10/22/96 09 : 22 Recording Start . . . 10/22/96 10 : 00 Recording End . . . . . 10/28/96 11: 15 Sample Time . . . . . . . 15 Minutes Operator Number . . . 4 Machine Number 9 Channel. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Divide By . . . . . . . . . 2 Summation . . . . . . . . . No Two-Way . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Tuesday 10/22/96 Channel: 1 Directions N ]1_Q4 1'N 1 coo 1400 ]1 Q4 IA00 17Qo_ ]$Q4 1244 2444 jI4.4 UM 2.144 Z.44 4122 pLO4 9M 94M Q_ U 4_�U EU U22 2M 1QR To at 5-6p", 847 962 1112 1045 1048 1144 1194 1025 924 634 446 299 225 179 100 62 64 81 91 328 564 1060 936 804 15174 206 241 287 288 269 286 301 249 247 163 118 87 64 47 18 27 7 22 10 39 92 192 295 206 211 229 271 254 262 267 291 290 ZZ8 176 123 81 53 45 20 7 14 34 5 46 112 258 230 203 195 227 280 25S 244 298 311 247 215 159 95 66 51 51 35 15 18 10 27 86 124 289 188 190 235 265 274 248 273 293 291 239 234 136 110 65 57 36 27 13 25 15 49 157 236 321 223 205 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 : 15 to 08 : 15 (1163 vehicles) )AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90. 6% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15: 45 to 16 : 45 (1196 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . 96. 1% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channel: 1 Direction; N Lt49 1;94 >�LO 1400 1500 1600 1200 1804 1nO M 2?_Q4 02Q Z}qq 240Q 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0_00 0800 0900 10 0 Tolats S-bM 836 929 1143 1118 1043 1093 1103 1083 851 567 480 310 234 185 119 85 80 119 88 320 518 1056 836 740 14936 227 224 301 290 262 262 294 289 224 169 132 86 67 49 25 26 14 33 13 32 80 185 271 186 197 210 249 295 256 255 275 288 213 170 117 79 48 48 32 19 25 45 20 44 80 283 194 174 204 235 314 276 232 286 267 258 235 124 100 64 60 38 31 20 20 18 19 89 141 249 197 167 208 260 279 257 293 290 267 248 179 104 131 81 59 50 31 20 21 23 36 155 217 339 174 213 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 : 15 to 08 : 15 (1142 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 . 2% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 : 30 to 13 : 30 (1178 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . 8% oz- 1 VOlum- RePQ� -i' PF.CANOE AV /0 R4$Zt441ZH' �- Thursday 10/24/96 Channel : 1 Direction: N 11 1 0 IM L44 1104 � 1344 IW M Loo M X44 Z 2444 4144 4244 424 oaQq Q�QQ 44� o?� 4444 4924 1004 iotela 5-6m 793 838 1006 982 996 996 964 1094 824 577 445 317 245 179 117 66 67 105 103 300 495 985 853 725 14067 188 211 252 271 235 212 250 272 235 155 127 97 68 58 20 23 11 28 14 33 72 192 301 182 201 208 249 244 231 257 235 272 232 169 109 61 72 40 35 13 18 41 14 53 98 237 182 166 186 202 241 216 247 275 243 258 186 143 102 88 56 37 40 13 21 12 32 74 133 268 166 192 218 217 264 251 283 252 236 292 171 105 107 71 49 44 22 17 17 24 43 140 192 288 204 185 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 : 15 to 08 : 15 (1094 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor 90 . 9% PM Peak Hour 17 : 00 to 18 : 00 ( 1o94 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 .7% Friday 10/25/96 Channel : 1 Direction: N a4o4 0544 4444 4244 244 4Y44 ?444 Io alc 144 1Z.44 1 0 1�4 1 Q i¢o ??44 1444 in 2444 2L44 UN N" ZO 4.14.4 4 44 422 ---- 821 948 1124 1045 1072 1072 1044 931 877 667 465 323 242 212 140 84 6.6 74 43 113 211 360 415 566 12915 205 222 231 269 268 238 244 240 230 184 144 90 62 45 38 27 22 14 6 13 51 73 87 122 185 244 307 262 243 295 264 235 227 173 138 86 63 51 41 28 21 13 14 20 52 66 97 138 216 272 291 263 262 281 264 205 212 153 98 71 64 61 31 12 9 22 8 21 38 99 120 137 215 210 295 251 299 258 272 251 208 157 85 76 53 55 30 17 14 ?5 15 59 70 122 111 169 AM Peak Hour 10: 45 to 11: 45 (953 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 . 6% FPM Peak Hour 12 : 15 to 13 : 15 (1162 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 . 6% saturday 10/26/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 1144 m 1144 1594 1f44 1444 1244 144 in L444 24 2244 2144 2444 QIOQ 0?00 0300 0400 0500 2MO 0700 0800 gQQ-Q 14,44 TOIA!sz 718 779 883 832 820 824 725 721 591 483 386 252 244 210 154 125 73 58 41 42 104 172 244 396 9877 166 210 210 212 211 233 199 166 163 128 110 74 76 50 47 27 18 18 13 7 18 37 38 74 159 169 223 200 205 213 185 196 154 120 106 66 61 65 32 30 17 10 8 6 18 38 60 78 186 200 232 221 217 203 166 197 143 96 88 59 52 45 37 33 23 12 9 9 31 33 59 86 207 200 218 199 187 175 175 162 131 137 82 53 55 50 38 35 15 18 11 20 37 64 87 158 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 : 45 to 11 : 45 (786 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . 6% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 : 15 to 13 : 15 (885 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 . 4% �x, PAL91-1 RQP Bunday 10/27/96 Channel: 1 Direotiono o Oc o 444 2¢44 4 44 4$24 4244 1424 lota!s 1122 1 24 JL44 1�i44 12U 1 99 1144 1 44 124 2444 ZL44 2224 Z194 UN 41.4 UN 4149 _Q 555 798 903 838 922 817 792 688 654 485 319 256 245 140 142 80 69 91 58 66 315 570 999 902 11704 97 183 206 200 231 194 216 162 158 131 94 59 76 47 26 17 23 24 13 6 31 86 176 278 138 168 229 206 229 228 227 187 169 118 82 72 58 35 36 25 11 30 17 15 50 91 277 206 132 186 231 198 233 220 180 159 168 109 80 62 51 32 39 22 19 11 10 16 83 160 253 202 188 261 237 234 229 175 169 180 159 127 63 63 60 26 41 16 16 26 18 29 151 233 293 216 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 : 15 to 09 : 15 (1101 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor 93 . 9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 : 45 to 14 : 45 (927 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor 99 . 0% Monday 10/28/96 Channel : 1 Direction: ?I 144 134.4 1300 :coo 1599 t¢94 124 1444 1944 2444 ZL44 ZZ44 X44 2.444 0100 42.44 0304 4444 4Z4 41 4 2494 >000 Totoki 967 774 193 200 193 182 196 196 AM Peak Hour 10: 00 to x.1: 00 (774 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.8% )PM Peak Hour Unavailable PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable not uma Count _H4g4� Generated by MSC3000 Verson 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Mltron Systems Corporation Location . . . . . . . . . . TIPPECANOE AV S/0 ROSEWOOD DR )Location Code . . . . . 533 , County . . . . . . . . . . . . SB - Recorder Set . . . . . . 10/22/96 09 : 22 Recording Start . . . 10/22/96 6 17 :0 Recording End 5 . . . . . Sample Time . . . . . . . 15 Minutes operator Number . . . 4 Machine Number . . . . 10 Channel . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Divide By 2 Summation . . . . . . . . . No Two--Way . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Tuesday 10/22/96 Channel: 2 DireatioonUO 4 osoo 0600 o�o� 2�2 2924 1000 T�qLi IM JJU ]J34Q 14 0 1500 16Q0 1700 1§0 JM � �Q = �� �- 4-- 667 804 932 806 T76 854 918 986 822 660 508 426 262 201 93 87 52 78 139 257 329 434 489 511 12090 160 181 251 215 206 194 220 260 212 188 141 135 7S 59 30 31 5 18 22 32 T5 101 119 137 94 131 115 151 178 231 229 185 185 207 257 195 154 120 110 61 65 Zo 14 17 11 36 59 T1 122 129 127 185 218 215 Zoo 195 240 225 249 210 160 129 93 68 45 19 20 171 227 235 162 190 235 266 220 205 158 118 68 58 32 24 22 18 13 56 95 87 117 110 132 a . AM Peak Hour 11: 00 to 12 : 00 (804 vehicles) ,AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 . 5$ PM Peak Hour 16:45 to 17 : 45 (1032 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor 97 . 0% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channels 2 Di.reotions goo 0300 0<00 osoo 4 Q?QQ 4�4Q 4424 124 lot 1144 ?�4 IM 1S4 1� 1600 1 T >N0 190 X044 �L44 2244 Z 44 ?444 4144 4�._ -- — 679 838 924 917 893 964 898 983 808 656 512 422 233 178 94 81 44 68 144 211 329 435 485 552 12348 163 188 247 228 225 260 209 253 207 178 133 146 81 54 42 32 17 17 27 47 63 95 104 149 157 188 222 238 216 219 21S 2S0 203 164 114 100 56 58 27 15 5 12 35 49 87 83 138 127 193 223 212 224 246 256 221 263 205 163 154 85 56 37 8 15 14 25 42 60 99 129 122 135 166 239 243 227 Z06 ZZ9 253 217 193 151 111 91 40 29 17 19 6 14 42 55 80 128 121 141 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 11: 00 to 12: 00 (838 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 .7% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . 16: 45 to 17 : 45 (1019 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor 96 . 9% l RAM �— Vol LM2 Thursday 10/24/96 channel: 2 Direction: e o 4 so 4144 oaoo 0�4 L rotes 110 1.244 ]..144 1444 M2 16 1L44 1442 1494 2444 21.44 2 24 2144 ?.44 4� 41'_44 -� 881 88T 895 936 936 T79 578 561 403 283 1T2 94 52 58 62 144 215 342 449 516 596 12035 606 817 773 135 1T9 192 225 237 236 236 235 217 157 147 117 97 75 36 22 16 11 21 49 58 93 126 138 142 181 201 225 213 229 217 248 169 146 150 99 T3 36 22 7 12 7 32 51 84 111 115 162 147 135 156 211 214 215 222 213 243 218 183 114 103 92 52 29 13 13 22 8 19 49 53 110 90 127 128 161 1T3 246 166 216 215 217 11: 00 to 12 : 00 (817 vehicles) AM Peak Haur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 0� AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . to 17 : 30 (966 vehicles) PM Peak Hour . . • • • • • • • " " ' " � � • � 97 . 4$ PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . • • Friday 10/25/96 Cbannelt 2 Direotion: 8 1� o rot} ,: 1124 >324 1100 L4 ?�4°_ ?boo 1 44 ]494 1444 2442 1144 2244 2144 2442 0� Rog 4144 0400 0542 2� Q700 4444 4.442 20 --- 686 895 904 911 962 981 976 945 763 T10 548 441 331 186 144 98 51 38 63 77 158 259 341 419 11867 167 195 269 231 230 221 273 265 205 180 149 128 100 44 42 35 15 17 19 16 36 48 T7 102 165 203 202 227 263 255 241 243 178 183 143 108 95 4b 32 30 172 235 226 221 248 259 249 2;3 ;� 195 ;08 112 62 40 42 13 10 10 8 12 19 44 83 109 123 182 262 20T 232 221 246 213 214 to X2 : 00 (895 vehicles) AM Peak Hour 11 11 :: 00 00 AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . • • • • 15.4% to 16: 15 (1033 vehicles) )PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Factor 94 . 6% Saturday 10/26/96 Channelt 2 Di>rectionc ozoo g300 040 os44 Q¢QQ 4244 4444 4442 14QO toc 1194 1144 > 44 1400 12N 1¢4.4 17 M 190 P�444 2144 2144 2144 2_44 444 — 572 714 783 79T 822 782 773 698 682 545 430 364 234 185 141 75 50 35 36 39 75 133 208 268 9421 131 161 171 197 207 201 212 188 163 155 138 107 61 45 44 23 16 8 10 4 10 3o 39 62 147 190 200 19t 190 1T8 195 171 170 146 106 103 56 49 43 16 16 9 14 11 19 34 47 53 141 197 210 191 209 202 190 169 180 137 105 84 61 50 29 22 8 14 8 13 21 35 42 69 153 186 202 198 216 201 176 170 169 107 81 70 56 41 25 14 10 4 4 11 25 34 80 84 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11: 00 to 12: 00 (714 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 .9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 : 00 to 15: 00 (822 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95. 1% So✓a-c f G1-T-1 Ali 1LLI" Roarw � TI yQIUMO e 1 Sunday 10/27/96 Channel: 2 Di eat 4n.f44 84 4 4� o� 4� 4� 4N 4444 0U ]444 Ivtae ]144 ]�44 1144 1442 1m ? N = M = M X144 Z�44 ?�4A 434 596 507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 136 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 144 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 155 141 0 0 0 0 p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 161 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12 : 00 (596 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor • • • • • • • • • • - • • 92 '5% P • • • " " 12 : 00 to 13 : 00 (507 vehicles) M Peak Hour • • • • . • • • • PM Peak Hour Factor 72 . 8 Monday 10/28/96 Channel: 2144 X44 ?e4 Direationi 412 Q244 4}44 ocoo p�44 4424 4224 4 44 4444 L4 Totak6 11Qo = 1 44 1444 1544 1bo IM 1444 1444 1.444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unavailable AM Peak Hour . • • • • . . . • Unavailable AM Peak Hour yactor . . . . . . - )PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • , •: : Unavailable r PM Peak Hour Factor Unavailable 14c POI OCT 16 '9E 17:05 1.1.502 Hamburger lane The Best Enterprise Baldwin Park,California 91'06.5881 i w IS A Free Enterprise (714)509.6200 "C,od Bless America" Nk BURGER OCTOBER 16. 1996 PAGE 1 OF 2 ROGER HARDGRAVE, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGINEER CITY OF SAN BERNAR.DINO 300 NORTH "D" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418-0001 RE: MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE AVENUE FROM THE I-10 FREEWAY TO HOSPITALITY LANE Dear Roger: In-N-Out Burger owns and operates a double drive-thru restaurant at the northwest corner of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive. The address is 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue. This restaurant was constructed in February of 1984 and has been an important fixture in the City business community for the last twelve years. We are in strong opposition to the construction of a proposed raised median in Tippecanoe Avenue in front of Rosewood Drive and our store. About half of our customers utilize Rosewood Drive to enter and leave our store. Most of our customers come from the freeway ramp system at Tippecanoe or they are citizens who live and work south of the freeway. Our driveway off Tippecanoe Avenue is not the desired access point for our site because there is a conflict between the vehicles who want to utilize the driveway for access to and from the site, and the vehicles who want to enter the drive-thru lane to place their order since the drive-thru lane entrance is within 15 feet of the driveway approach at the street. Construction of the proposed raised median through the Rosewood Drive intersection and our store's access driveway would force our customers coming from the south to make a U-turn at Laurelwood Drive. Currently this intersection is not signalized; the proposed single, left turn pocket at this intersection provides a storage for only three cars. We feel that this pocket is too short and would force too many vehicles to make a U-turn thereby reducing the operating capacity of this intersection. Providing a proposed raised median through the Rosewood Drive intersection and stopping it south of our existing driveway off Tippecanoe Avenue as proposed by Michael Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineer for the City, in his October 9' letter to us, is also unacceptable. The existing problem as outlined above, with the vehicle conflicts of those who want to use this driveway as those vehicles who want to enter the drive-thru lane will only worsen to such an extent that our operation will suffer, and the likelihood of accidents will increase significantly. It is very likely that vehicles will end up backing out onto Tippecanoe Avenue. In addition, there is no room for vehicles traveling northbound to transition and wait to turn left into our driveway without blocking the northbound through lanes. Also, the potential addition of the raised median up to Lal-lrelwood Drive still remains with the City as traffic increases in the future. Therefore this second option is only a temporary one at best. The Customer Is Everything To Us 142 P02 OCT 16 '96 17:05 We would propose that nothing be done at this intersection at this time. We recognize and hope that the redevelopment Of the former Norton Air Force Base will occur at some time in the future. However, until a specific project has been approved, with financing and tenants in place, of sufficient size and scope to warrant these improvements, we do not want them to be constricted now. Who knows, it may be 10 or 20 years from now ttndl the proposed development is built and the traffic volume has increased enough to warrant some mitigation at this location. When the traffic volume has increased enough to warrant some mitigation in front of our store and Rosewood Drive, we would recommend that a new traffic signal be installed at this intersection which would allow full turning movements. We recognize the fact that this signal would be within 250 feet of the existing signalized west bound freeway on and off-ramp system. However, we feel that this new signalized intersection at Rosewood Drive could be tied into and coordinated efficiently with the CalTrans westbound freeway ramp signal. The signalized intersections of Tippecanoe Avenue with Redlands Drive and with the eastbound freeway on and off ramp system work efficiently now in a similar situation. These last two mentioned intersections are located approximately 300 feet apart at approximately 950 feet and 650 feet south of Rosewood Drive respectively. Even though it may not be an ideal setup, all four intersections could operate efficiently together so long as they were properly coordinated with CalTrans and each other. We have talked with the other current property owners at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive and they were not aware of the City proposed raised median. They expressed their surprise and also echoed our strong opposition to the proposed raised median across Tippecanoe at Rosewood. The other property owners are as follows: Arco-Tlirifty Oil for their gas station at the northeast corner; Shell Oil for their gas station at the southeast corner., and Rancon Realty in Temcula for their vacant property at the Southwest corner. In summary, we are obviously in favor of providing a safe route for our customers and we feel that based on current traffic conditions one exists now. Once traffic levels have reached a threshold where mitigation is required, or at least the construction of the proposed developments which would create this increase in traffic are imminent. anew tragic signal at the intersection of Rosewood Drive should be installed along with the proposed raised median both north ttnd south of this intersection. Thant: you for this opportunity to address this issue which is so important to our restaurant. Please keep us informed as to any upcoming meetings or change in plans so that we can continue to voice our opinion. Sincerely, L%,* 0 U T RURG£R Rich Boyd Vice; President of Real Estate and Development cc: Donald E. Bollinger, Nichols, Stead, Boileau and Kostoff Mark S. Lamoureux. MSL Engineering Inc. .Mary Coppola, In-N-Out Burger Real Estate Finance Manger Fred Enctnas, In-"k,'-Out Burger Director of Real Estate Raymund VillanUeVa, In-N-Out Burger Manager of Development I V ; C' j � - A WPA Traific- Engineerin TRAFFIC k TRANSPORTATION ENCUV> ilvG October 16, 1996 Mr. Raymund Villanueva MSL ENGINEERING In-N-Out Burger 13502 hamburger Lane OCT 17 lyyb Baldwin Park, CA 9170-595 Received Dear Mr Villanueva This letter contains a traffic engineering evaluatipn of the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue from the I-10 Westbound Ramps to north of Rosewood Drive These analyses are based upon review of the proposed plans, counts provided by City of San Bernardino Staff, additional counts initiated by WPA Traffic Lilgri)eermg, Inc. (WPA), a field visit to the study area, and standard reference materials. BACKGKQVAQ We were provided copies of two letters front, the City of San Bernardino to In-N-Oul Burger dated August 27, 1996 and October 9, 1996 The earlier letter references plans to install a raised median on Tippecanoe Avenue from the I-10 Westbound Ramps to Laurelwood Drive. The more recent (10/9/96) letter describes a new proposal to shorten the median installation to a point about SO feet south of the In-N-cut Burger (Tippecanoe Avenue) driveway It is also noted that in the future, as traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue increases, it may be necessary to extend the median, which would preclude left turns at the It) N-Out Burger driveway. i i 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills. CA 92653 - v�) - <i (714) 460-0110 • FAX: (714) 460.0113 L6FI Siof- -60Ei ' ;)NI 1.)NI2) -IN I `)NI 1SW dZ0 : F-o 9c) - R, I AAIA1_Y.4F_4 In order to address some of the pertinent traffic issues related to the proposed raised median project and potential traffic impacts, various materials were reviewed, including the proposed plans, the In-N- Out Burger site plan, the field conditions of Tippecanoe Avenue / the surrounding area, and new traffic counts (conducted 10/1S/96) It should be noted that the time frame to prepare these comments was very limited, therefore, it should nQ( be assumed that the comments in this letter are "all inclusive". Figure 1 summarizes traffic counts taken on October 1 S, 1996 at the Tippecanoe Avenue /Rosewood Drive intersection and the In-N-Our Burger accesses These peak hour volumes exhibit existing conditions for the Midday and PM peak hours. It can be noted that the full Midday and PM peak periods (11 :30 AM - 1:30 PM and 4 00 IINI - 6 00 Pivf), respectively, were referenced and the appropriate peak hours utilized relative to potential impacts to the In-N-Out Burger restaurant. The following is a list of comments and concerns related to the proposed raised median project A significant number of northbound left turns are occurring at Tippecanoe/Rosewood, which includes some In-N-Out Burger traffic. There are potentially significant impacts that could result from the median proposal. The October 9, 1996 letter from the City ndicates shortening the median project y 8 p 1 (Possibly only temporarily) to a point about 50 feet south of the In-N-Out Burger driveway. This is not expected to be sufficient in length to adequately serve the inbound left turns (includes existing traffic plus rerouted traffic due to the median) to the In-N-Out Burger driveway_ Under the proposed plans, the focus of inbound In-N-Out Burger traffic would be at the Tippecanoe Avenue ace ess This could result in impacts to this driveway, which may involve vehicle queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue. WPA Traffk Engineering, Inc.. Job #961170 Proposed Rained Median Projter In-N-Out Burger- 77ppeean"A varrue )N I ?i I AN I 9 N 3 14:;W 0 ; 0 F3 7 _ Z 0 NOTES= • THE S/B BACK-UP ON TIPPECANOE EXTENDED PAST ROSEWOOD AND WAS SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE DURING I PM PEAK. • THE E/8 MOVEMENTS WERE DIFFICULT DURING THE MIDDAY AND WORSL FOR THE PM FLAK, DUE TO TRAP f-IC ON TIPPECANOE. • PLDESTRIAN VOLUMI S WERE RELATIVELY LOW BUT UIU IIAvE 25/13 DIFFICULTY CROSSING TIPPECANOE. No Scale 4/9 _ 19/52 25/21 ul Q Co in at ' U u� o_ a n v M N ° 27/29 4/3 'r ROSEWOOD DR `� 39/15 ------------------------------------ 10/21 . 24/10 23/13 3/2 rn vi Co 287/279 N N LEGEND N 00 N to 27/29 = MIDDAY/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IN-N-OUI BURGER RELATED VOLumi-s EXISTING MIDDAY AND PM PEAK HOUR _VOLUMES SPA 701( ENNUI INC. FIGURE 1 90 ' d L 606 )N I 7N 1 LJ 3 IN I `_7N 3 11"W c There is mention of"LT' turns at L.aurelwood Drive to serve as an alternative to the ingress that is being eliminated O Will this location be signalized to allow left turn phasing protection for the "V' turns? O How will the elimination of the eastbound left turns (at Tippecanoe / Rosewood) be mitigated'' This movement is important to M-N-Out Burger customers which are oriented to the north and an acceptable alternate route is not apparent. City daily count information shows 9,870 vehicles per day (VPI)) on Harriman - Rosewood, east of Hospit,t'ity lane This indicates a relatively high utilization of Harriman - Rosewood on a daily basis, which makes access reduction at Tippecanoe Avenue less desirable This also indicates that there may be significant impacts at other locations as tragic is rerouted. The opportunity for In-,V-Out Burger traffic to make the northbound left at Tippecanoe / Rosewood is very desirable from a traffic viewpoint' since these vehicles enter the "dive through" queue internal to the site, which serves to mitigate potential impacts to the In-N Out Burger, Tippecanoe Avenue driveway. It is indicated that three (1) traffic lanes in each direction on Tippecanoe Avenue are needed to accommodate the redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base. It appears that the raised median is a part of the overall redevelopment plan. The potential impacts of the redevelopment plan and/or reduced access opportunities (proposed median) should be thoroughly / clearly identified and mitigated WPA Tragic Engineering, Inc_ Proposed Ralsed Median ProJed Job M961220 In-N-Out Burger- TippecanosAvsnus ! 0 d ! G 1"0 2I 3 AN I 9N3 -1SW d80 : ED 9Ej 8Z - -4 -D0 ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMFN7" An alternative improvement to the proposed raised median (across Rosewood Drive) would be the installation of a traffic signal at the Tippecanoe / Rosewood intersection Some of the pertinent considerations are listed below. ♦ This alternative would maintain full turn movements at this intersection, which would be important to the adjacent businesses(including In-N-Out Burger) In addition, some existing left turn movements (frorn Rosewood Drive) and pedestrian crossings would be improved with the signalization ♦ This traffic signal could be coordinated with the I-10 Westbound Ramp signal to minimize potential impacts related to traffic signal locations in close proximity ♦ The traffic volumes are at a level which would satisfy Caltrans traffic signal warrants. The daily and peak hour signal warrant sheets are attached to this letter. , t ♦ This would serve to mitigate the potential impacts of the Norton Air Force Base redevelopment and maintain the access needs of the existing In-N-Out Burger site. The signal at Tippecanoe / Rosewood would also serve to mitigate potential impacts at the In-N-Out Burger driveway at Tippecanoe Avenue S UALVARY There are potentially significant traffic impacts that are associated with the proposed installation of the raised median These were confirmed through peak period traffic counts that were conducted and evaluation of the rerouting of existing traffic. It appears that the potential impacts of the median project and the Norton Air Force Base redevelopment can be mitigated through the installation of a trafTrc signal at the Tippecanoe / Rosewood intersection. WYA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Proposed Rained Median hojed Job #961110 In-N-Our Banger-Tippecanoe Avenue 80 ' d lff�� `�Of: -606 "�NI `7NI2i33NI7N-3 lSW d8(� � �0 ��Fi-8Z � �C) We trust that this evaluation ,krill be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 'Z� // / - Steven S. Sasaki, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C52768 & TR 1462 0,13FESSlav 9,0FESSrp S�61 <<- Q�� �N S. FS No. C52768 " ' No. TR1462 SSS cc * Exp11�`101 H961220 slgr OF GAO WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Proposed Ratted Median Projed Job #961220 In-N-Out Burger-Tippecanoe A venut JN I ?JA AN I JN-3 ISW d80 = f_O 96 -Pe Z DO •iii �i • I � r ����„'���,��� � � :� � r. .� i� .• � . . � r• / i � I � � / � t, � � ��� / • + �.!_ � � � � �� , � � ., �• t• 1 �, � �: � � � ( �i.wj`�I .\ � _ � 1 �� - +� t � � Q ;i ;� ��- . � ��� � O .v �. I 1 1q� .� � . ., w + � C�� �© . � � ( � � i �� ' � �� � ' � � � o � � � I � � � • f • � � ►O i � i � �� r ���� 1 � t { � � � � � _� 1 1 � , , I �t � i �• � .. » .� � .. � t � � i .. • � O ��+ .': 1 r / ,� i : � � � • i ® � . � ;,. , I � � / �. � s �. ,; • � � �.� .. •, •� , i� � � . , . . � • _ C I T Y 0 r AUG 2 9 1996 5an bernar d ir�io ► Y R 1, 1 0 rl 0 R K f I t 4 a I R / R R 1 M 4 R 0 4 E A 4 . H A R 0 a R A V E . a . c . E . 1996 olaICT0R August 27 , File No. 1 . 7013 13 .fl/ Mary Coppola Real Estate pinance Manager In-N-Out Burger 4199 Campub Drive 9th P.Ioor Irvin., CA 92715 gg: ltekiabilitation of paVftmant - Tippecanoe Avenue, ROut.e I-10 to Mission Creek Your letter of a-16-96 inquired as to the concept that is being developed for the improvement of 'Tippecanoe Avenue. Enclosed, for your reference, is a print 6f the two (2) sheets in addition to of the plane ti being the developed avemapt, for this curbed ➢median .with landscaping rehabilitating p ro act dots not will be installed. The concept for this toproj proximity to include an opening at Rosewood Drive , provided at the freeway ramps. However, an opening will be p Laurelwood Drive , which will allow northbound vehicles to ranks a U-turn. Throe (3) traffic lanes will be provided in each direction, in that will be order to acco=odate the projected traffic of the generated by the redevelopment eCasi<a►rilye be oprohibited�rin Base, on-street parka =q rder to accommodate the additional traffic lanes. We will be subraittinq this project for environmental review in the near future .ll be rovided connection proceaainq of this project i P We regret that you were unable to attend the informal tis- COMMi cussion of traffic meanuree at the Traffic SafetY and meeting. Letters ware sent to all abutting Leer►ent with only one person attended. This parson was in aq the concept of installing a- median. MSL ENGINEEs 0 0 w O R T M 1 0 l t a l a t Ji A M R i A N A R O I M O . p 2 619E GALI , 11411 • 0001 (S • 111g4 - fttt >t64 -1I11 - to 1s 161 .1111 :7N 1 21 33N 1 `_)N 3 1SW d60 : V0 MARY COPPOLA ImprovemAnt of Tippecanoe Avenue August 17 , 1996 please advise if you have Any questions or would like any additional infornation. we will k©ep you advised of the progress of this project. Very truly yours, '�q ROGER G. $ARpGRAVE Director of public Works/City Engineer Enc. cc, Donald S. Bollinger, Nichols, 8toad, Doileaul4 Koataff w/Attach MSL ENGINEERING SEP ?6 1yyd Re efve c :)NI 9NI2jjANI:7N4 lSW CmE : F-0 96-£37 ZI ' d zC)v ,C).. -606 c 1 T r O P n bernar % eta a ► tf • � It w � f ttalaM • ( at 8 0 0 4 A 0 . M A A D a R A V E , R . C . E • 1 � � 8 T • >t MSL ENGINEERING actQbac 91 19% ttl. Bo. 1. 013 OCT 11 1996 ?gM br uW t rA fleceived bail&U pIXt, 1706 At t.a'tt ion t d Mncit� L Larxl C> rt •t i cn in Ti PWArm:+ AVV'MA f r� I-10 rr Y to ject: M.alan Pt�l iC ybc'ics pm' oct 4�6�-Ql hospitality tw --- Dear Mr, 9=if"t tt.al by �`7►X ad • � � �''c ats�l s+sltt to LM This l attar Vi ll conf'ra alp trar m i l,occotod an the *oft rnc� or Tip�noa ftnag ac of the l t,*-OLzt &MVOC C"1-t Y o t ttw rxrAd m tac ial is Qflalossd �vszwa aayd no+�+o°d 1►v+"xa.• U to irldicatsd that 44 Mkt diva iA �Dtab in y� phorm CAll ���' you iat �t9 to cut back tht k'� �y• g al,aMd is a bluew p j „m the eatmUdOn Of madisrt to cl"r your drivvj" " allow full aoo•a+• A the futta-v as traffic an the wdiarA to pc�a Uf't turn mss° MY t» cOc�Y Zippscat� �r 1M�MaN- It YOq have &ny Qaastjw& reWding we hops this r W plan ib aoOmptAbl• t10 Y= 0003P"' trILS ■attar, Ply' oont&ct ■t at (909) 3645179. Vety truly ym"f Klt�i►�. tt. 4� 56niim civil W QIAW MIG r pa B+el.oa ir" oc: KOW ri r+n, associate plsrnwe 3 [ • • O • 1 M a , A 111 1 i 1 M A to • [ it II A A p 1 d A L I 6 [ 4 1 5 /a l) 1[ i l ( 1 t • t 1 [ 1 1 [ f a Y, _7NI ?J3�N19N3 lSW rjoI = f O 9Fi-8Z } }� - �-1 H2 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Ca4o� �R°s� �✓°� o (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) RURAL URBAN .......... Minimum Requirements EADT 1 Minimum Vehicular / Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied V Not Satisfied — major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one direction only Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 ........................_.. . 1 . . . . ............................ 8.000 5.600 2,400 1.680 2 or more .^!.. l.i.°..°..�..... 1 ......�', - gIo�J........ 6,720 24 1,680 2 or more ............... 2 or morn ......................... 9.600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 or more ......................... 8.000 5.600 3,200 2.240 2 Interuplion of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on major street (total of highevvotume minor Satisfied Not Satisfied both approaches) street approach (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach — —,- Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1- ......................... i ...................... . 12,000 8.400 1,200 850 2 or more ....................... 1 .. .. ............................... 14,400 10,080 1.200 850 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ... ..................... 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 .. 2 or more .... . . ....... 12.000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more ......... 1 2 NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. C- - U�t✓L�) C4 7 ,( oh1 �'rz.� ro . 7f{f^- ✓'cam f�•�� r put- 70 Z-dLA'r<.--! 2av,�75 c✓LL� to kilo% ? (IMF BOG JN I '-)N I M 13N 1 ')N A Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIUNALS AND L i. .j i I Irvv >t►-14 mom >t-1w Figure 9-8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 600 - 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) OR 1 LANE MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) '. 500 --- --- x U 0 400 CC a r(io cc 300 • 200 - - x 100 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) - 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. c; T ' .i / f5f Z ;0�: fiOEi "-)N I 7N 121 I -IN I 9N-1 1ti6J d I I : FO 96 � n Q a � n G 1�1 CD 9AA P bd Z-ia Via> MSS ENGINEERING OCT 1 =i ly9b Received IA ! 1 " ra L6f'l '_iC)�_ fiOF� JNI :7NI ?13�NI`JN3 1SW i7. i = F"(7 �)fi f=I7- - �3�(7 D Z Q U Q pa ° Fad£-i D / LlD aQ as � a a C3 c OBI - !LAMP �g q D fl a r � IN I `7N J 1`:6J 1� l = R.' 4 d v CL a. �" 00 no ad 0 �t,( VAoop t� Q d �0 a N on r o � D o -2A,-i P a 0 a 6i �i lE�f:T ;0�: - 60C 7NI 7NI2j33NIJN3 1SW 0 d �} � a C CL i a OD as a as Q � � a � �a j a n s x w1 a 0,4- P-AMP a� - lo �l3 � (� oFf - RAMP a a a a ID 0 d l 6f:r - Sim- -60c) 7)N I JN 12i-IAN T JN l CID C)ot M CL Q Z w (D 73 LU 0 (L 01 U) En Ci. g LLJ W 0 C) z 0 LL CD 0, QOL U- 3t cc 0 0 31: 0 Lli W F-- � ! oa �la R o 0 w ! 1 .1 (,q 0 ix MSL ENGINEERING OCT e IYJb R Received DNI ONIZAAANISINA ISW WT . FC) 96 -RZ- ID0 U-�C•V-l'1 1 '• C TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE MASTER PLAN Prepared for RANCON FINANCIAL R MNCON t, r. ru•C1 Prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc, 75 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91109- 1090 TABLE 12 TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE PHASE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR 1996 Phase 3 1995 Mitlgated Geometry Iptersectlon VIC Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS WILCMtn Avenue at: Vanderbilt Way 0.85 49.4 E 0.72 20.1 C 110spItal►ty Lane 0.90 39.8 D Routs 10 Westbound• 0.74 5.2 B Red;ands Boulevard 0.8d 32.5 D Tippecanoe Avenue at: Brier Dnve 0.59 8.5 B t Hospitality Lanc 0.61 9.4 B Harriman Piac.r 0.92 41.7 E 0.73 18.1 C Route 10 Westbound 0.92 34.0, D Rout& 10 Eastbound 0.93 38.2, D Carnegie Drive at: Hospitality Lanc/Route 10 0.80 41.3 E 0.68 25.0 D Vanderbilt way 0.44 15.3 C Brier Drive 0.14 9.3 B Hospitality Lane (Fast) 0,21 6.6 B Hospitality Lane at: Harriman Place Q.47 18.3 C NOTE: LOS Level of Service bued on intersoetion delay. DELAY Average stopped delay per vehicle in sccands. V/C Volume to City ratio as a degroe of uturadon. See discvssion on Page 17. 11J=7"M r,) 47 iaN M �) /_6F 1 �iO4: ()C)() ")N I `-)N I 21 13N I 9N 3 A) R", 4- C-) y �- <' cc ' 1 r i Q , /�, f° 1 ter•( LU d CC Aw hrrh� 1 1 •• S } I�, !� -o r ' �= - —+- -ter ro•r,w,. — 'I 'S° r 1 1 1 w � r u L15 L -iO` - 606 7NI `JNI2137NIJN3 lSW dbL = �O 9F 8� - 1 =?O 1 _: •' 1 11' Wru Fll t( hfwttnji� N., r 1 4-4011/—l) ruC TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE MASTER PLAN Prepared for RANCON FINANCIAL Prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 75 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91109- 109 _) Rovised October 1991 TABLE 1 TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUMMARY ad ui4- pp Plan ArtA S 4t —I e 2 Restaurant Pads 6 2 Restaurant Pads 13,000 sq.ft. 8 Story Office � 19,000 sq.ft. 1 Story Office 165,000 sq ft. OULL 3 65,000 sq.h. 190,2n sq. t. A GStaUr'altt 4 Story Office 4 72,000 S�q.ft. 3 Story Offtce 2 75,000 sq.ft. 2 Story Office 3 2 Story Office 4 0,000 sq.fl. 6 Story Office 3 50,000 sq.ft. 3 Story Office 4 120,000 sq.ft. LOW S 34,800 sq.ft.4. . t A tory killice 4 Story Office 4 8 Story Office 720'00 sq•ft. 2 172,000 sq.ft. Hotel 7 106 rooms Total PHAS 106 rooms tory lce 3 Story Office s t. 4 Story Offce 3 75,000 sq.ft. 6 Story Officc 4 72,004 sq•ft. OLU S 120,004 sq.ft. sq. . Story Qtticc 15/20 Story Office xcaltri Club 4 300,000 sq.ft. To 4 30,000 sq.ft. PHA3L 6­2002 tory pct 8 Scrocn Cinema a i'800 s'UU Told , s9 1,800 seats S i7 t1 ! (>�'7 -C,C) 606 7NI :7NI2AAANIJNA _ISVJ i(; T = f-C) �F� t�7. I.N) I I I I ' - I I I - i OUOCA?IOrI PLAN AREAS I i TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE ASSC iATES 1,C �IpviiE LF 3 6 f:Z 1-70f 60(1 -)NI JN I WI-IN I JN-1 l`i6J ri; 1 = �'0 of TABLE 2 TRI•CITY CORPORATE CENTRE FUTURE STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENTS Year 2002 Dc Dtvciopwent velopineot Dtstributlon Planning 1,199,250 Light Area 4q.rt• Office Retail Industrial Researcb 1 511,875 sq.ft. 90% 10% 0% 10% 2 292,500 sq.A. 10% OAF 10% 2096 3 292,500 sq.ft. 70% 10% 0% 20% 4 73,125 sq.ft. 70% 5% 096 25% 5 29,250 sq.ft. 10% 75% 0% 15% TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2002 Computed Raga Planning Area In ' out Total 1 315 715 1030 2 42 249 291 3 217 484 701 4 64 162 226 5 129 145 274 Total 767 1755 2522 Total wWt TDM 767 1604 2371 Ir%n 13 ,0 F 06 DNI 9NIHAANIJN� 1SW i 1 I I Qr Qr W I Labe Cr 'i !' Lu I N t7 I fl IONA f � I , T-- t� " 1�lI• � � 1 Nrrvrl� � ;�, :i.,f;�-. ,.. < t,,<•. :� --�(-� ; :t,y 0. v; G Y � then evaluated to determine the TX215C impact of the proposed development Mitigation rnc.a;,;;cs were identified which are needed to maintain acccptable peak hour era c oEx,duor,s Level of Service Concept T'hc basis for intersection analysis and level of service determinations is the Operauonal A,;ia►ysis for signalized intersections contained in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Rcporl ?09 by the Transportation Research Bond. This Method involves the calculauon of average vehicle stopper delay, which is then relatod to a level of service. Although not directly related to level Of service values, the degree of satura provided. tion expressed as a volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is a:so 'Level of servict" is a term which defines any of an infinite nur N-f of combinauoni of traffic operating Conditions that may occur on a given lane or roadway when it is subjected to various traffic volumes. Level of sttvice is a qualitative mcasurt; of the effect of a number of which uiclu factors, de spud, trlvel time, traffic ' freedom to maneuver, safety, dnvtn8 comfort, and convenience. There are six (6) levels of service, A through F, which relate to driving conditions from best to worst, resptctively. ne chatractrrtstics of traffic operatior[s for these- levels of service are summanzrd in Table 4. In general, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions with no congestion. Level of Service F, on the othu hand, represents severe congesdon with stop-and-go conditions. Many communities have adopted Level of Service D a.s a critenon for acceptable levels of service when future conditions are be1Ag analyzed. The City of San Bernardino has adopted a goal to maintain Level of Service C. However, peak hour conditions may reach Lcvel of Service D on congested and major roadways. Levcl of Service b may only be exceeded to Level of Service E (capacity) on regionally significant astcrials where the existing peak hour love! of StrvicC is already at E or F. For the purpose of this $Ndy, LOS-D was our goal, and is acceptablc at all study intersections The intersection capacity program utilized in this study is SIGNAL-85, a computchiod version of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual procedure, endorsed by the Federal Highway Administration. This program was selected due to its "ptabtlity to turning movement controlled int,ersoctions• The Tri City CCntre site is situated such that most entry and cut movements must turn on or off Waterm4N Avenue or T'ippecnoc Avenue As a resul(, most access intersections require phase-overlaps and multi-phase operations to handle the demands. SIGNAL-85 is uniq\Jely suited to evaluate such operations, and was one of the methods approved for use by the City staff. Several of the interior Tri-City Centre intersections Arc not signalized. To test the geometric adequacy of these intersections, a signal was ,usumed and a resulting V/C, delay, and Level of mXZ„'AZ" auoi 6,7 l ESf'r S0F -606 7N I `JN I ?j-1 3N I 7N I 1SW <i! t = f 0 ��F 87. 1 )0 PF 10. Tippecanoe Avenue is a main roadway serving Norion Air Force Base to the north. Tippecanoe Avenue has signalized traffic conuol for all major intersecuons in the study area It Is itnucipated that the current inwrs, cnon with Rosewood Dnvc wail t>c closed and I{arTiman Place will be realigned norihcrly to connect with existing Laure:wool Drive Nciihcr of these intersections are currently signaliztd. Hospitality lane---Hospitality Lame is it four-lane roadway (two line,+ in each direcuon) extending cast-west through the study trca and provides direct access to Tri-City parctls Hospitality Isnc provides a raised median throughout most of the Tri-City developrncnt Hospitality Lantz is currently signaliztd at its in LeiNccbon with Waterman Avenuc and Tippecanoe Avenuc. It is expected that the intersection of Hospitality Lane and the ncA frttway interchange at Carriegic Drive will be sigrulized when completed. Addiuonalis. two dnveways adjacent to the approved retail center arc cui,en;ly signaled. Carregit Drive- Carnegie Drive is s horseshoe shaped four-lane roadway (two lance In each direction) serving alit Tri-City uca Existing volumes on Carnegie llii�e ice relatively low. Signalization is expcctcd tit the intersection of Camcgic Hospitality Lane at the new PDute 10 westbound freeway ramps. l Vanderbib Way`--Vanderbilt Way is a short, four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) providing access to the western portion of tsie Tri City development. The imerstc6on of Vanderbilt Way and Waterman Avenue is currently signalizai. Brier Drfvc--Brier Drive is a four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) with a raised median serving the northern side of the Tea-City development. Brier Drive is signalized at its intersection with Tippecanoe Avenue. Nardlm in Place—Harriman Place is a local madwzy that connects with Rosewood Drive, cast of the Tri•City development area. Harriman Place provides the most direct access to Tippecanoe Avcnue and its inicrchangc with Interstate 10. it is expected Nat Harriman Plact will be realigned to connect with Laurtlwood Drive. This will provide greatti separation between the intersection of Harriman Plact and Tippecanoe Avenue and the Intestate 10 interchange which is closely spactd. It is anticipated that this will become to major access point to T'ippecunoe Avcnue for the proposed project. This intersection will also require sigrWization. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing weekday afternoon peAk hour truffle volumes were obtained from field counts conducted in May and June 1989 at the following intersections. I n7mmum"r 22 <- 1 JN I ?i 3 ]N I ID 3 lSW cf L l The PM peak hour capacity analyses detailed in Table 6 identifies that thr6,- tr.tersxtions require mitigation to maintain the adopted lcvcl of service standard. These.m,':ga!,ons arc described as follows: Waterman Avenue and NospitaWy Lune Southbound: Add ra second left turn lane Northbound: Add one (1) exclusive right turn line 71ppeeanot Avenue and Narri=?v Place Txblc 6 indicates that the Intersection of Has-Tinian Pizce at Tippecanoe is operating at LOS F. P-us intrrsation is capable of accommodating the demand volumes at LOS B it relocafcxJ northerly try Leurtlwood Drivc u-,d sign21LCd if this can not be a temporary soluaor with turning rrsmcuons may be required. Delay and queuing observed st this locauon are occurring from the I-10 westbound ramp signa]. T1)c 00r,di,i0n obscrvod is representative of LOS F and warrants miugation. For the purpose of this ana]ysis, the relocabon is a4sumcd to be implemented for future development phases. tlospua,Rty Lant and Carntple Drive-1-10 Ramps I Thr volume projections at Hospitality Lane and Carnegie Drive combtncd un(h the proposed lane arrangements wllt require sign"tion. This signalip6on is pin of the intersection/ramp reconsUucdon project. Signalizatiow cA ur Signal tmnt t try ajar Approaches aor - >i cst Approach T?te rocommcndcd mitigated lane configum6ons for the Exis"g Re4istnbutod condition is depicted in Figure 6. The IFM peak hour traffic volumes are detailed in Figures 7, 8 and 9. 1 "A" 24 Mul W r c ci ! Fif:I - SOF fiOE� ON I `)N I N 1 IN I JN-4 1SW cM I = f:0 96 w �l�• X25 E3P.1£P DR1�'E .5J qtr 7 —a ua c Z v ,oaf �ItR HOSPITALITY I ANF NTS LEGEND xxx 1989 VOLVWES P u PEAP( HDJP `r pox _° k- 1) �! 25 P,OSEWOOD W IF v D J n� 00 L4 r—»a �t INTEPSTA �10 i • iR l� 2'a 1 r 3�6 Q EXISTING REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE a C;O5 PHASE 1—TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE 1991 PM PEAK HOUR Phase 1 of the Tsqu a e feet development will cons)st of retail, restaurant, and office uses tota]I�ng d90,000 square feet. The PM peak hour trips will total 20?3 Table 7 details the Phase I Land Use Program end tnp gcncrauon. T-he PM peak hour eapaciry analysis detailed in Table S identified that four (4) of the study intersections will require mldgabon " follows: 14`attrrnan Avenue and Horpltal. y Lane Northbound. Add a s- and exclusive right turn Jane. Southbound Add a third through lane. Westbound- Add a second left turn lane. Restnpc for one (1) through lane. Rcst.npe for one (1) exclusive right turn lane. NosPUaluy l4nt and Carnegie Drivell•10 Ramps Eastbound: Add a second through lane. Westbound: Add a second 10 turn lane. 7PPecanot Avenue and 1.10 Wesrbourtd Ramps Southbound: Add one (1) exclusive-free right turn lane Northbound: Rcstripe middle !acne for :hared left and through lane T)ppecanoe Avenue and 1-10 Las7bound Ramps Southbound: Restripe middle lane for shared left stnd through lane The rocommended mitigated lane configurations for Phase 1, 1991 arc depicted on Figure 10. No new traffic signal warrants hisod on peak hour volumes are met for Phase Traffic volumes for Phase I Are dcpictej on Figures 11, 12 and 13. 1 conditions. 31 Fc d t;f'7 -q0F 60C) -)NT .0 L_Z rl� v- 15 BRIER DRIVE le- qtr 0 Z d U a a� •L- 7A HOSP)TALITY LANE 42== �11 NTS LEGEND Xkk - PnaSE i TpTAL vOLVuES P 4 PCAK HQIJR A e. ,j '= `17 10 r`26 R0SFW00D 6 6-v aapl ��o �p 17 1_213 Jl :156 �t P�p • �O 1.NTERSTATE 10 N h `d n 1 t, 3�SJ �r PHASE 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1991 r1GL' ' 13 v� Fit:T CiOf fif)f> 7N I .t PHASE 2 - TR1-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE 1993 PM PEAK HOUR Phase- 2 of the Tri-City Corporate Centrc Development will consist of restau!knt and office U 4S totalling 401,800 square feet. A total of 964 PNI peak hour trips will be addod as a result of Phase 2. Table 9 details the Phase 2 land use program and trip generation. Inc PM pt" hour capacity analyses deWled in Table 10 identifies that two intersections require mitigation to maintain the adopttd level of servict. Two additional intersections will require stenali 60n. These mitigations are as follows: Waterm" Avenue and Redlands Boulevard Eutbound Add a second left turn Westbound Add a second left turn TWICanoe Avenue and Harriman place 1 Eastbound: ResU7pe to provide one (1) shared left-through lane, and one (1) exclusive right turn lane. Carnegie Drive and Vanderbilt Way Signalizatjon Peak our igna arrant summary or treat o nDr0a or trees• t� ppr 1101plt4llty Lane, and Harri nan Place Signaliution LZ, arr�ot Summary o t ppr� • ig esi pproge The recommended mitigated lane configuradons for phase 2, 1993 arc deptctcd on Figure 14. Phase 2 PM peak hour traffic volumcs are detained on Figures 15, 16 and 17. �mum.u, 38 �� d Lfif T. SOS - 6(�fi `7NI JNI23AANI9N-A I;W R7 - -I-,)C) PHASE 3 - TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE 1995 PM PEAK HOUR Phase 3 of the Tn-City Corporate Ccncre Development well consist of offices and a hot.ei (OW)Ing 319,000 square feet Of office space in addiction to the hotel. A Tots] of 654 PIS p� hour tnps will be added as a result of Phase 3. Table I1 detai;s the Phase 3 land use Program and trip tentmdon. The PM peak hour capacity analyses detailed in Table 12 identifies that three intersections require mitigation to maintain the adopted level of service. T?Iesc mitigAtions arc as follows- Waterman Avtnut and Vandtrbll! Way Northbound COnvcrt the exclusive right turn lane to a shared right turn-ouough lane Transition north of lnwsection. 7lppecanot Avenue and Harriman Place Northhound Convert the exclusive right-turn I&M to a shared right-through lane Widcn as needed and extend through intersection. Southbound- Add a second through lane. Carnegie Drive and HospkalUy Lane-1-10 Ramp Southbound: Add a second through lane. The recommended Mitigated lane configurations for Phase 3, 1995 are depicted on Figure 18. Phase 3 PM peak hour traffic volumes are detailed on Figures 19, 20 and 21. UUM'NAM arr 45 ")N I _)N `_2 ���► rye BRIER DRIVE ,» sir LJ d •e—ti w 0 Z a U 4., a 'Ili' r 36 HOSPITALITY LANE: 11 1tr H'S LEGENO xrx . 'HAS( 3 TOTAL V01,UN(S P u P(AK HC)UR ROSEWOOD 670'1, + �+ h ,17 v t 796 .Il r'-174 1t INTERSTATE 10 ).e - �r ]7} P ") PHASE 3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1995 - n c. F)GL LJ 2 X70 0f-i )NI 7NI2I3-A NISNA -IS W 1OI. = f O �f-, -RZ 1.DO n ��. ` 2 #*-- BRIER DRIVE W 5� > 36 n 0.n d 4] O z d V oN k6 F )lL X39 HOSPITALITY LANE )tr 170 - o NT$ LEGEND YXX . PHASC 6 TOTAL VOLUMES n P W PEAK HOUR iv t�19 AL Sze ROSEWOOD ,ems - t3'�F'�h��,>✓ � S G �1 cr ' eti • C t_343 dl •—s r" 204 ON INTERSTATE I 1. _p- lL 41OJ ! r Soo 4 R PHASE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2002 FIGt • 3 ib " �i 16F7 -90E -606 DNI JNI ?A33NIONA 1SW dT7 = F0 96 -f37_ - -l�C) N D [ECIEUW[E OCT 17 1996 D THRIFTY OIL CO. CITY OF SAN ER BNARDINO DEPABUILED IN SERVICES & Van S.Tarver, Senior Vice-President Retail G'ia Facsimile and U. S. Mail October 11, 1996 Michael W. Grubbs Senior Civil Engineer City of San Bernardino City Hall 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 96-01 MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE AVENUE THRIFTY OIL NO. 345 1945 TIPPECANOE AVENUE, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Grubbs: Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil Co.'s unequivocal objection to the above-referenced Public Works median project in the City of San Bernardino, California. Thrifty Oil Co. operates an Arco service station and Sunshine Food Store at the above-referenced address. Our preliminary estimates indicate the proposed median project will quite literally cut our business and revenue in half; more specifically, Thrifty would suffer a loss of revenue between $75,000.00 and $100,000.00 per month. Without a doubt this would necessitate Thrifty Oil to terminate and abandon our operation at this site in the City of San Bernardino. Thrifty is supportive of the City's efforts to provide aesthetic improvements along the City's thoroughfares. However, when said improvements jeopardize the economic well-being of the City's businesses, then there needs to be a serious re-examination of the proposed improvements. Thrifty would be more than happy to sit down with the City's staff to discuss various alternatives to the proposed improvements. Please reserve a time for us to speak at the October 17, 1996 Environmental Review Committee hearing. Furthermore, we reserve the right to provide additional testimony in both verbal and written form. 10000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90240•(310)923-9876•(714)522-3244•Fax: (310) 869-9739 If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact myself or David Rose at (3 10) 923- 9876. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Best regards, TH OIL CO an Tarve Senior Vice-President cc: Tom Minor, Mayor Betty Dean-Anderson, Councilmember Rita Arias, Councilmember Fred Curlin, Councilmember Jerry Devlin, Councilmember Norine Muller, Councilmember Edward Negrete, Councilmember David Oberhelman, Councilmember Shauna Clark, City Administrator Roger Hardgrave, Public Works/Engineering Director Mike Hays, Planning and Building Services Director Gus Romo, Assistant Planner Vince Le Pore, III, Esq. David Rose J6 14:52 V909 3836 SHELL LA EAST x!002:002 Shelf Oil Products Company 3200 I-Inland EmpUe EjIA Suim 270 Los Angeles East Retail District onwo,ca 91794 October 10, 1996 Roger G. Hardgrave City of San Bernardino 300 North "D"Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 re: Median island construction on Tippecanoe from 1-10 freeway to Laurelwood Avenue Project No. 95-01 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: This letter is to express our concern with the proposed median island construction project located along Tippecanoe Avenue. Specifically, we are concerned with the closure of the intersection at Tippecanoe and Rosewood. Shell Oil Company has owned and operated a service station at the comer of Tippecanoe and Rosewood for approximately thirty plus years. We have enjoyed doing business at this intersection and we hope to continue our operation for many years to come, The proposed median island will block cross-over traffic at the intersection of Rosewood Avenue which will have a significant detrimental effect on our service station operation. Convenient access to and from a service station operation is essential to the success of our business. The proposed median island will prevent access to the station by all south bound traffic, reducing our potential customer access by approximately 50%. As an alternative to your proposed design, we strongly encourage the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. This traffic light would provide the needed access to the local business. In addition, traffic flow could be easily synchronized with th7 proposed Cal Trans signal at the freeway . In conclusion, we strongly oppose your current plan which will block the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. As an alternative, we encourage your consideration of a traffic signal which will preserve the businesses in the area. Your consideration is a appreciated. Yours ery tru P. M. St�atz Area Real Estat epresentative Los Angeles East District r1 <A-- NICHOLS, STEAD, BOILEAU & KOSTOFF A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DONALD P. NICHOLS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11901-19781 TELE'HONE 19091 7987000 FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BAN.( BUILDING CHARLES R. STEAD FAR 19091 ]98-1000 11901.19681 227 WEST FOOTHILL BOU LErAq O. SECOND FLOOR 'OBE PT S. HICKSON CLAREMONT. CALIFORNIA 91711 11917-19921 October 8. 1996 Roger G. Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of San Bernardino CERTIFIED MAIL 300 North 1'D11 Street San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 Re: In-N-Out Burger location at 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue; Your File No. 13.84 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: You will recall having received a letter from me dated August 21, 1996, and meeting with me and a representative of In-N-Out Burgers, Rich Boyd, to discuss your proposed project which calls for an uninterrupted median at Tippecanoe and Rosewood Drive in San Bernardino and the elimination of on street parking in the area. It is my hope that you will recall that we not only objected to the project as proposed, but also about the absence of appropriate notice of the Traffic Safety Commission meeting which would have given us the opportunity to appear and oppose the project as proposed and to support the alternative concept which would extend the median only to Rosewood Drive, continuing to permit left turns at Rosewood. As advised at our meeting of September 4, 1996, In-N-Out did not receive your offices' letter of May 21 , 1996, until approximately August 15, 1996, and your meeting was conducted on or about June 12, 1996. When we left our meeting of September 4, 1996, with you and Tony Lugo, we were given to understand that the matter was to have been considered by the Environmental Review Committee approximately three (3) weeks to one (1) month hence and that special efforts would be taken to assure that Rich Boyd of In-N-Out Burger and I would receive notice of the meeting. Having heard nothing from your offices, we are now advised by letter dated October 1, 1996, that the meeting was, in fact, conducted on September 19, 1996, without notice to either Rich Boyd or me and that the committee proposed that the project receive a negative declaration. We would like to take this occasion to again request that you personally take steps to see that the internal communication procedures that are denying us the opportunity to appear -%W NICHOLS. STEAD. BOILEAU a OSTOFF i A -O�CSSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Roger G. Hardgrave October 8, 1996 Page 2 and be heard at the appropriate meetings concerning this project are immediately corrected. In-N-Out Burger does wish to have input concerning alternative designs for this project including, but not limited to, the possibility of signalization at the intersection of Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe. Please consider this letter as In-N-Out Burgers' comment in response to Mr. Michael Grubbs' letter of October 1, 1996, and our request for the opportunity to appear and be heard at the October 17, 1996 meeting of the Environmental Review Committee. Very t ly yours, NICHOLS, TEAD, BOILEAU & KOSTOFF A Prof ssio I Corporation By Donald E. Bollinger —_ DEB:gf cc: Fred Encinas Rich Boyd Michael Grubbs Antonio A. Lugo Q�Kh A k!I�^ C I T v O F 996 AU G an ernardino P U 8 l I C W 0 R K S / E N G I N E E R I N G R O G E R G H A R D G R A V E , R C E D I R E C T O R August 27 , 1996 File No. 1 . 7013 13 . 84 Mary Coppola Real Estate Finance Manager In-N-Out Burger 4199 Campus Drive - 9th Floor Irvine , CA 92715 RE: Rehabilitation of Pavement - Tippecanoe Avenue, Route I-10 to Mission Creek Your letter of 8-16-96 inquired as to the concept that is being developed for the improvement of Tippecanoe Avenue. Enclosed, for your reference, is a print of the two (2) sheets of the plans being developed for this project. In addition to rehabilitating the pavement, a curbed median with landscaping will be installed. The concept for this project does not include an opening at Rosewood Drive , due to its proximity to the freeway ramps . However, an opening will be provided at Laurelwood Drive, which will allow northbound vehicles to make a U-turn. Three (3) traffic lanes will be provided in each direction, in order to accommodate the projected traffic that will be generated by the redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base. On-street parking will necessarily be prohibited, in order to accommodate the additional traffic lanes . We will be submitting this project for environmental review in the near future. Notices in connection with the processing of this project will be provided as required by law. We regret that you were unable to attend the informal dis- cussion of traffic measures at the Traffic Safety Committee meeting . Letters were sent to all abutting businesses , and only one person attended. This person was in agreement with the concept of installing a median. 3 0 0 N O R 1 H D - S 1 R E C 1 S A N 8 E R N A R D I N 0 CALIF 9 i < 18 - 0001 (808) 384 . S111 • 394 - 5112 • FAX: 384 . 5155 MARY COPPOLA Improvement of Tippecanoe Avenue August 27 , 1996 Please advise if you have any questions or would like any additional information. We will keep you advised of the progress of this project. Very truly yours, ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Director of Public Works/City Engineer Enc. cc : Donald E. Bollinger, Nichols, Stead, Boileau & Kostoff w/Attach NICHOLS, STEAD, BOILEAU & K❑ST❑FF A PROFESS1ONAI COQ=ORATION DONALD P. NICN OLl: ATTORNE`S AT _A%% 11901.19781 TI It"..-uNE 19n91 398 'lo00 TODTNILL INDE PE A;ENT BA••S SJILDING t-NARLES R STE AU r4v 190 I1 . 9u 1o00 11901196131 22? WEST EDOTNILL ©C-,EVAP- _-=UND FLOOR ROBERT S. NII:K i0N CLAREMONT. C-\LIFORNIA 31711 11917-1192, August 21 . 1996 Roger G. Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer AL)G 2 City of San Bernardino 300 North °D° Street San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 Re: In-N-Out Burger location at 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue; Your File No. 13.84 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: On behalf of In-N-Out Burger. I would like to request a meeting with you at our earliest possible mutual convenience to discuss the above-referenced project. In-N-Out advises that it learned after-the- fact of a City Traffic Safety Committee meeting concerning "rehabilitation of pavement-Tippecanoe Avenue, from 1-10 Freeway to Mission Creek" at which action was taken that may result in an uninterrupted median on Tippecanoe Avenue at Rosewood and a loss of parking to our In-N-Out location. We are very much concerned about the manner in which this project was "Noticed" and the manner in which it will affect our business at the above location. We are very much in hopes that the matter has not reached a point where our input to the design will not be given appropriate consideration. Once again, we would very much appreciate a meeting with you and we will anticipate a telephone call to arrange such a meeting in the near future. Very truly yours, NICH S, STEAD, BOILE U & KOSTOFF A Profe sional Corporation By Donald E. Bollinger DEB:gf cc: Fred Encinas Rich Boyd Df L► it I I vL. rrlal+a>wn/r 1 � 1 ),ONI■,{■S.■ y�l I RAI{tp{OrOt, I I c ,�,i°�iYl+I.orl.Y 1 v5)rY#f eo u•u ru, I �i i .0► ! .19 �1; I.a•.110.01NJt A:+UAiYC-9fO1tIR,.W;�•it .0 I I i I TvL)a do llow",YI1071,9f 1 II INIQ,r=m VV tr I IIWIIMIYI,O aft 00'tf•W IU •Ir10)IT 0}t'rY:•.ol a'bwVa IO s17 OI{►•,I ►lt II t t I I.0�•LL I r7T0✓.1•.f aIM)4Yf.7N o,g]►w►L ),I s I � i.0f•M 7;S00VnV-,CyM7AIyC jNIy11R)1 OG 61 II-r i; f II j Q)tITY r VI OvI llav rYYl O 1110"1".10"711 0 C))Vf 1 If VIA! 1 IyQI tlNa t91•✓+49yuvj,!•'VAI�-Yl1'iN ICI ]It "7.I Z 1 II I I - c, !091 .I► All !l Pl. .Of..j 47TOM.tl9 a.•+lniVO rnlsu),It"•OI el+CL Il� I CL F- • — � I , , a 2niU0 cooAnow O �� pq — -J •-•8 )=pq--ir40•of rig -- 7AI1f0 OooM33011 X 1� Ilrlast OlNrY!v Yd1I va (. l (! A owt{tota oats•. vLt \\� r� r 1111 r, •+ �J LJ 1 _ J i .Ob If 19a• �4�l�Ytldt•fMl\'N(':NIITIYT! . ! •. , V �• I .1• J: Jli w .o• •w..�1 I r"� II 1 1 .9r .,► � G� rrlaw a1nIY it 7,OJ I c } _—t �, l�)�����• f,llll{ MD I al .I•.11x11 trptt f01{QroY / • } 1 <^) - ,// ,I,,r,` �,yM33y �s . . 1 f It, + •.. r• (uuwwur\ , "� 6iYH/hfsl POWI Hill 11 H � m i � "� � � i ;-•{�}}}}� ! !;) 'ID+r+++N+NNi+NNNIND nl ', m � • (HfHNtHND FItIf+HNNfiNN�+N++O ONH+uNN;i+�f++4+� �_ I 1 m nmTTm5!j.J Ole^IIIIIITTA Ht 1 ` - PM llllll (1111Jw" � o+klcl++NaHrHI� � t, � I 1 OtrHtt�itl) � � a++NNNHISJI!iifiD [� — i 1 innn. umail `•�^ UTITTUITTTIy •' �� 1V i';!�i!ull� �. Y QT�+++H+'><T1+mU � , I � Y ' a}+}}}}}XWM �� '}+HN++I+++}+fNJ `� , ''+`�' �' GTNNI{II!HHIIIIIHMIIR+NN+HO � ►� 1 � I,� 1 n O�y \\ VHHIN� �'; 1p• I1���...` ��� IIII`(Iljjl li1t111111i1�i 1!111 t1n _.. I - 4THiN�4NfNfI�HNNf�� - -- • - ��� '� ' 1will iuuuuwrllm •E �� � 9'� �\� � � OIiIN IN+N+NINN4ili4+NN+tfd / 'q =� ° 11 O. 't• ' `( 1t��,}�����YUT,1N{j� 1 X11 '''f I�I�'n ; �In ' �\{�1"" ,IfT,11T'T •� • I I I �+TiTTINNNNN RTiTfiN H+IIIIfIIIiINII❑IpUI❑❑IIII�IDpp `• I 1 NNIfR+TTN TMITrTTTmnII ' . . ,�1 t I SAN EF_RNAPOINO T030 ENTEQS•AI-15 -AN SiaOPf>ING CENTER le1ele6n.1o9e Sow WONARONO. CALPOG.NA PLEY i r"EAf7�MAN-pE•VELCt'[4 �lo�s�o-Oeol