Agenda packet — Beaumont City Council, June 17, 2025 (part 14 of 21)

the explanatory variable dwelling units, while all other land uses are expressed in acres of use.

4. Trip Distribution
The trip distribution process employed in the Beaumont Traffic Model employs a gravity model formulation. The Beaumont Traffic Model uses the three purposes described previously.

The friction factors for the non -work trip purpose in the Beaumont Traffic Model have been developed by adding the friction factors for the three purposes. The resulting friction factors were then divided by a constant to provide the same proportional attractiveness by trip length, but using values within the range that the modeling software (TRANPLAN) allows.

5. Trip Table Development
The trip table development process converts the production and attraction format trip table which is output from the Beaumont Traffic Model trip distribution process into an origin and destination format trip table by time of day. The end result is a trip table which can be assigned to the roadway network by time of day.

The Beaumont Traffic Model has been developed with the goal of providing AM and PM peak hour forecasts, along with daily traffic volume forecasts.

The Beaumont Traffic Model daily assignment is obtained by adding an additional off-peak assignment together with the previously mentioned AM and PM peak period assignments. The factors used by the Beaumont Traffic Model in the trip table development process are summarized in Table 4-4.
4-10

Page 1767 of 2775 ends

TABLE 4-4

BEAUMONT TRAFFIC MODEL TRIP TABLE DEVELOPMENT FACTORS

PURPOSE
_

HOME -WORK
OTHER -WORK _

NON -WORK

FACTORS
P. ==>A A==>P
P==>A
A==>P
P==>P A==>P
AM Peak _

0.3403

0.0152

0.1492

0.0166

0.0939

0.0210
PM Peak

0.0196

0.3215

0.0343

0.3089

0.1309

0.1962
Off -Peak

0.173

0.1304

0.2455

0.2455
_

0.2680

0.2900

SUM BY PURPOSE

0.5329

0.4671 0.42.90

0.5710 _ 0.4928

0.5072
TOTAL
_ 0.9342

1.142

1.0144
F:\UcJobs\00021 \excel\[00021-0019-01.xIs]T4-4

Page 1 ends

6. Traffic Assignment
The traffic assignment process for the Beaumont Traffic Model has also been adapted from the equilibrium assignment procedure available in the TRANPLAN modeling software package. It is used for all three assignment periods (AM, PM, and off-peak) included in the Beaumont Traffic Model.

The detailed Beaumont Traffic Model zone structure "spreads" traffic more evenly, and the use of the equilibrium assignment procedure also allows for more flexibility in performing specialized model analyses.

A select zone assignment for the project site has been completed utilizing the Beaumont Traffic Model. The generalized trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 4-C.

C. Total Traffic, Buildout
The Buildout traffic volumes without the project have been derived from the subregional travel demand model currently being used for long range planning in the City of Beaumont. All Buildout ADT forecasts have been developed from the Beaumont Traffic Model by Urban Crossroads, Inc..

Exhibit 4-D shows the ADT's which can be expected for Buildout traffic conditions without the project. Exhibit 4-E shows the ADT's which can be expected for Buildout traffic conditions with the project.
4-12

Page 1769 of 2775 ends

EXHIBIT 4-C

GENERALIZED PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
CHERRY 14
6 NANCY AVE
10 BROOK*C AYC.

SITE
16 WAY.
2 J
14TH ST.
1 1
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
t
m
NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California -00021:12 12TH ST.
10TH ST.
ir2Y
URBAN

Page 174 ends

EXHIBIT 4-D

BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
NANCY AVE.

LEGEND:

63.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.

33.0 BROOKSIDE AVE.

SITE
O
as
0 tO

25.0 COUGAR WAY.
z
OO
m 14TH ST.

33.0 m
12TH ST.
10TH ST.
8TH ST.
6TH ST.
3 1-10 FWY.

NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California -002 -rage 1771 Of 775 �
RHEA,

EXHIBIT 4-E

BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.

W
Z
LEGEND:

63.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)

34.0 BROOKSIDE AVE.

SITE
2 25.0
N
N
COUGAR
WAY.
2 J
d
W
a
Z
O
2 z
a
W
co

27.0 0
m
m
14TH ST.

34.0 0
A
12TH ST.
10TH ST.
8TH ST.
6TH ST.

VI F'WY.
m
NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California - 00021:14

Page 17 ends

MORATI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4-16

Page 1773 of 2775 ends

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
A. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, Buildout

1. Level of Service at Buildout Without Project
Buildout intersection levels of service for the existing network without the proposed project are shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Table 5-1 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections without improvements. HCM calculations with improvements are shown in Table 5-

2. Buildout without project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "C". Buildout AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-A and 5-B without the project, respectively.

2. Level of Service at Buildout With Project and Roadway Improvements Buildout intersection levels of service for the existing network with the proposed project are shown in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. Table 5-3 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections without improvements. HCM calculations with improvements are shown in Table 5-

4. Buildout with the project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "D". Buildout AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the project are shown on Exhibits 5-C and 5-D, respectively.
5-1

Page 1774 of 2775 ends

TABLE 5-1

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT

WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTION
Beaumont Ave. (NS) at:
• Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW)
• 14th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. WB Ramps - 5th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. EB Ramps - 4th St. (EW)

TRAFFIC

CONTROLS
TS
TS
TS
TS
2 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES
NORTH-
BOUND
SOUTH-
BOUND
EAST-
BOUND
WEST-
BOUND
L
T
R
L
T R L
T
R
L
T
R
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 1.
0 1
1 0
1 2
0 1
2 0
1 2
0 1
1 1
1 2
0 1
2 0
0 1
0 1
0 1
1 2
0 1
2 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
DELAY2
(SECS.)
AM
4 PM

LEVEL OF

SERVICE
AM
F
F
F
F
PM
F
F
F
F
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manaul, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

S TS = Traffic Signal
4 - = Delay High Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F".

U:\UcJobs\00021\excel\(00021-0019-01.xis]T 5-1

Page 1775 of 2775 ends

TABLE 5-2

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT

WITH IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES

INTERSECTION
Beaumont Ave. (NS) at:
• Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW)
• 14th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. WB Ramps - 5th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. EB Ramps - 4th St. (EW)

TRAFFIC

CONTROL'
TS
TS
TS
TS
NORTH-
BOUND
L T R
1 2 0
2 2 1
0 2 1»
0 3 1
SOUTH-
BOUND
L T R
2 2 1
2 2 1
0 2 1
2 2 0
EAST-
BOUND
L T R
1 2 1
1 2 1
0 0 0
2 0 1»
WEST-
BOUND
L T R
1 2 0
2 2 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
DELAY2
(SECS.)
AM

42.6 44.1

16.8 22.7
PM

51.5 47.7

33.8 12.8

LEVEL OF

SERVICE
AM
D
D
B
PM
D
D
D
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; » = Free Right Turn; 2 = Lane Improvement Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manaul, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
'' TS = Traffic Signal
U:\UcJobs\00021 \exce l\[00021-0019-01.xIs)T5-2
5-3

Page 1776 of 2775 ends

EXHIBIT 5-A

BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT

AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES

NANCY AVE
to
n
JIL
x-29
-11
r11
1Ir
1/1,0
N, 1n
Ol
,-657
S RA
so' RA Mips
(FC:toN
IL
4TH S1•
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.

BROOKSIDE AVE.

SITE
COUGAR WAY.
14TH ST.
12TH ST.
10TH ST.
8TH ST.
6TH ST.

NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California - 00021:15 1777 of 2775
-rage 5-4
1-10 FWY.
118
496-
331�
1-154\
—1086
x273
G
HENAII

EXHIBIT 5-B

BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT

PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.
11—.J
12-
34—,
aa3
mto
ON
TT
L-114-
03 `914
r1118
B RAM
lgRAarp
208-_i
1070-
312—,
NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California - 00021:16

Page 17 ends

HOME

TABLE 5-3

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT

WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'

INTERSECTION
Beaumont Ave. (NS) at:
• Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW)
• 14th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. WB Ramps - 5th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. EB Ramps -4th St. (EW)

TRAFFIC
NORTH-
BOUND
SOUTH-
BOUND
EAST-
BOUND
WEST-
BOUND
DELAY2
(SECS.)

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T
AM
PM
AM
PM
TS
TS
TS
TS
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 1 1
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 0 1
0 1 0
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
2 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manaul, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
s TS = Traffic Signal
° - = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F".

U:\UcJobs\00021 \ excel \[00021-0019-01. xls]T5-3
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F

Page 17 ends

TABLE 5-4

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT

WITH IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTION

TRAFFIC

CONTROLS

INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
DELAY2
(SECS.)

LEVEL OF

SERVICE
NORTH-
BOUND
SOUTH-
BOUND
EAST-
BOUND
'
WEST-
_BOUND
L
T R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
L
T
R_
AM
PM
AM
PM
Beaumont Ave. (NS) at:
• Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW)
• 14th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. WB Ramps - 5th St. (EW)
• 1-10 Fwy. EB Ramps - 4th St. (EW)
TS
TS
TS
TS
1 2
0 0
2 2
2 3
0 1
11>>
1 2
2 0
2 2
2 2
2 1
1 1
0 1
1 0
2 2.
2 0
0 1
1 0
1?>
1 2
1 0
2 2
1 0
0 1
1 0

44.0 45.0

16.4 24.1

54.2 50.8,

34.1 13.5
D
D
B
C
D
D
C
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; » = Free Right Turn; 2 = Lane Improvement 2 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manaul, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

S TS = Traffic Signal
U:\UcJobs\00021 \excel\[00021-0019-01.xls]T5-4

Page 1780 of 2775 ends

EXHIBIT 5-C

BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT

AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
9j H S
0 ITT
504—i
1786—,
N
lD
ITT
29--+
11—
aL
Ncry
m
I-
1-746
x-606
it
loin
N�
' 46
r1
r
m
m
4TH St •
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.

BROOKSIDE AVE.

SITE
COUGAR
WAY.
a.

BEAUMONT AVE
14TH ST.
12TH ST.
10TH ST.
8TH ST.
6TH ST.
1-10 FWY.

NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California - 0o02age 17851_$f 2775 lane
woo
TIL
'-166'1
—1085
r281
123—i
494-
342—,
moat
oar.
_TIT
—1215
—,383
138-i
197
Oor
NOON,

EXHIBIT 5-D

BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT

PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
:ALF
mow-
i-893
r-1115
N
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.

NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California - 00021:18

Page 1782 of 2775 ends

URBAN

3. Level of Service at Buildout With Additional Improvements For Buildout traffic conditions with the project, study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the following off -site improvements:

Beaumont Avenue (NS) at:
• Cherry Valley Boulevard (EW)
Construct a second through lane for all
approaches
Provide an additional southbound left turn Zane
Provide an eastbound right turn lane
• 14th Street (EW)
Construct a second through westbound through
Zane
Provide a second left turn lane for the
northbound, southbound and westbound
approaches
Provide a right turn lane for the northbound,
southbound, and eastbound approaches
• I-10 Freeway WB Ramps (EW)
Restrict 5th Street access to/from Beaumont
Avenue
Construct a loop ramp in the northeast quadrant
to provide westbound access onto the I-10
Freeway. This improvement will eliminate the
northbound left turn lane at this location
Provide a southbound right turn lane
Provide a shared westbound lane for left and
right turns
5-10

Page 1783 of 2775 ends

• I-10 Freeway EB Ramps (EW)
Restrict 4th Street access to/from Beaumont
Avenue at this location
Construct an additional northbound through and
right Zane
Construct a second southbound and eastbound
left turn lane
Provide an eastbound free right turn Zane
It should also be noted that I-10 Freeway/Beaumont Avenue interchange improvements were previously recommended in the original traffic study prepared for Noble Creek. Access to the frontage roads at 4th Street and 5th Street should be restricted to accommodate improvements at the Beaumont Avenue/I-10 Ramps.

4. Fair Share Contribution
The project's fair share contribution to the study area are presented in Table 5-5. The PM peak hour (typically the period when the traffic volumes are the greatest) has been used for the calculations. As indicated in Table 5-5, the project traffic contributes approximately two percent of the cumulative traffic growth at the Beaumont Avenue/I-10 interchange. 5-11

Page 1784 of 2775 ends

TABLE 5-5

PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS

BUILDOUT
WITH

PROJECT

EXISTING

PROJECT

FAIR SHARE

INTERSECTION

TRAFFIC'

TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC I
GROWTH

PERCENTAGE
Beaumont Ave. (NS) at:
• Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW)
836
5792
265
4956

5.35%
• 14th St. (EW)
1052
6888
320
5836

5.48%
• 1-10 Fwy. WB Ramps - 5th St. (EW)
2181
7080
99 4899

2.02%
• 1-10 Fwy. EB Ramps - 4th St. (EW)
3117
8034
69 4917

1.40%
1 The PM peak hour has been used for determining the project fair share contributions.

U:\UcJobs\00021 \excel\[00021-0019-01.xls]t5-5

Page 178 ends

6.0 SUMMARY
A. Traffic Impacts
The proposed site is projected to generate a total of approximately 10,395 trip - ends per day with 1,091 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,102 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.

B. Need for Improvements Off -Site to Achieve Required Level of Service For Buildout traffic conditions with the project, study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the following off -site improvements:

Page 1786 of 2775 ends

• I-10 Freeway WB Ramps (EW)
Restrict 5th Street access to/from Beaumont
Avenue
Construct a loop ramp in the northeast quadrant
to provide westbound access onto the I-10
Freeway. This improvement will eliminate the
northbound left turn lane at this location
Provide a southbound right turn Zane
- Provide a shared westbound lane for left and
right turns
• I-10 Freeway EB Ramps (EW)
Restrict 4th Street access to/from Beaumont
Avenue at this location
Construct additional northbound through and
right turn lanes
- Construct a second southbound left tum lanes
and a second eastbound left turn Zane
Provide an eastbound free right turn lane
C. Roadway Improvements

1. On -Site
Construct Beaumont Avenue south of Brookside Avenue to the south project boundary at its ultimate half -section width as a Major highway in conjunction with development.

Construct Brookside Avenue from the west project boundary to Beaumont Avenue at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway. 6-2

Page 1787 of 2775 ends

Construct Cougar Way from Beaumont Avenue to 14th Street at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector in conjunction with development.

Construct 14th Street from Cougar Way to the east project boundary at its ultimate half -section width as an Arterial highway in conjunction with development.

Site -specific circulation recommendations are depicted on Exhibit 6-A.

Precise access locations shall be determined at the plot plan or tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the City of Beaumont.

Sight distance at each project entrance should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/City of Beaumont sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

2. Off -Site
Participate in the phased construction of traffic signals through payment of established fees.

The project should contribute towards a citywide roadway improvement program, as a result of infrastructure development fees for the City of Beaumont.

The City of Beaumont should upgrade the classification of Beaumont Avenue from Cherry Valley Boulevard to 6th Street as a Major highway.

This roadway is currently classified as a Secondary highway. These classification changes are required with or without the Noble Creek Specific Plan project.
6-3

Page 1788 of 2775 ends

EXHIBIT 6-A

CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSTRUCT BROOKSIDE AVE. FROM

THE WEST PROJECT BOUNDARY TO
BEAUMONT AVE. AT ITS ULTIMATE

HALF -SECTION WITDTH AS A

SECONDARY HIGHWAY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT.

CONSTRUCT COUGAR WAY.

FROM BEAUMONT AVE. TO
14TH ST AT ITS ULTIMATE

CROSS-SECTION WIDTH AS A

COLLECTOR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH DEVELOPMENT.

BROOKS AVE.
/\ /
/ \ /
/ \ �/
SITE
COUGAR WAY.
14TH ST.
0 1
CONSTRUCT 14TH ST. FROM COUGAR WAY. TO THE

EAST PROJECT BOUNDARY AT ITS ULTIMATE

HALF -SECTION WIDTH AS AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT.

NOBLE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, Beaumont, California - 00013tp 1789 of 2775 CONSTRUCT BEAUMONT AVE.

FROM THE NORTH PROJECT

BOUNDARY TO THE SOUTH

PROJECT BOUNDARY AT ITS

ULTIMATE HALF -SECTION WIDTH

AS A MAJOR HIGHWAY IN

CONJUCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT
LEGEND:
= BUS STOP
® = BUS TURNOUT
G
WIMP
6-4

As future transit service expands in this area, bus stops should be provided at the far side of intersections. At the Cougar Way/Beaumont Avenue intersection, a bus turnout is recommended (see Exhibit 6-A). 6-5

Page 1790 of 2775 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6-6

Page 1791 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS

Page 1792 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542 SOUTHLAND
PAGE 02

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET: CHERRY VALLEY
DATE: 3/8/2001
DAY: THURSDAY
CITY: BEAUMONT
PROJECT# 0279001A

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM 18 18 0 4 42 30 1 2 11 1 28 1 156
15 AM 16 20 0 1 49 18 7 2 13 6 13 0 145
30 AM 14 31 0 2 61 27 8 7 9 0 8 0 167
45 AM 29 45 3 4 61 14 1 3 10 0 8 0 178
8:00 AM 22 43 3 4 55 19 10 3 6 1 10 3 179
15 AM 12 43 3 3 54 13 7 3 8 2 5 3 156
30 AM 11 35 1 1 36 17 6 4 12 1 11 4 139
45 AM 13 41 2 2 36 6 6 6 12 3 9 5 141
9:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 135 276 12 21 394 144 46 30 81 14 92 16 1261
AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 77 162 9 13 231 73 26 16 33 3 31 6 680
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1793 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542

SOUTHLAND
PAGE 03
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
E -W STREET: CHERRY VALLEY
DATE: 3/8/2001
DAY: THURSDAY
ZS
CITY: BEAUMONT
PROJECT# 0279001P

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
=ate
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 24 65 6 7 35 9 11 10 11 4 18 4 204
15 PM 8 40 3 2 46 11 18 19 23 3 6 4 183
30 PM 19 53 5 6 48 11 14 12 18 1 14 2 203
45 PM 16 60 3 6 43 9 22 15 20 4 4 2 204
5:00 PM 16 57 7 1 59 16 19 23 12 2 7 1 220
15 PM 16 76 4 4 37 8 18 22 13 3 5 3 209
30 PM 14 47 6 1 36 12 14 18 16 3 8 1 176
45 PM 15 48 7 2 36 10 21 12 16 1 5 1 174
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
=
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET _ ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 128 446 41 29 340 86 137 131 129 21 67 18 1573 ''14 Peak Hr Begins at 430 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 67 246 19 17 187 44 73 72 63 10 30 8 836
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1794 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542

SOUTHLAND
PAGE 04

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT DATE: 3/8/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET: 14TH ST DAY: THURSDAY
PROJECT# 0279002A
LANES:
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
8:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
9:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR
1 2 0
SL
1 ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
7 25 11 3 38 18 7 9 2 9 27 2 158
10 40 13 5 38 25 13 9 6 17 38 7 221
5 68 19 5 62 17 17 16 2 45 30 16 302
7 61 13 6 47 18 29 10 2 41 30 12 276
1 42 10 3 68 4 13 7 3 15 14 11 191
6 33 8 4 70 14 10 5 2 6 6 13 177
9 40 5 6 56 4 5 1 5 8 13 9 161
3 48 6 4 73 6 10 3 3 11 9 10 186

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 48 357 85 36 452 106 104 60 25 152 167 80 1672 AM Peak Hr Begins at 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES x 23 211 55 19 215 64 72 42 13 118 112 46 990
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1795 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542
S0UTHLAND
PAGE 05
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET: 14TH ST
a a a

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
DATE: 3/8/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
DAY: THURSDAY
PROJECT# 0279002P

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
a

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
__•_
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 16 76 19 7 46 12 1 18 12 13 21 12 253
15 PM 18 78 8 11 63 14 2 20 10 4 17 11 256
30 PM 6 57 7 8 58 17 11 25 12 7 22 8 238
45 PM 13 78 8 6 66 12 10 22 17 10 9 ].1 262
5:00 PM 14 85 14 6 57 13 26 16 10 14 20 4 279
15 PM 14 61 13 5 56 14 20 22 18 6 8 10 247
30 PM 5 79 13 4 47 12 18 32 15 14 17 8 264
45 PM 13 65 13 4 60 7 10 30 20 6 16 10 254
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
a
MM -MM

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 99 579 95 51 453 101 98 185 114 74 130 74 2053 PM Peak Hr Begins at 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 46 303 48 21 226 51 74 92 60 44 54 33 1052
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1796 of 2775 ends

03/21/2001 10:42 714-997-2542
SOUTHLAND PAGE 03
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET:

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
DATE: 3/20/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
5TH ST DAY: TUESDAY
PROJECT 0331002A

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 AM
15 AM
:30 AM
45 AM
7:OO AM 5 49 8 4 93 2 4 8 4 2 1 6 186
15 AM 6 59 10 2 88 3 5 7 6 3 2 8 199
30 AM 7 60 9 6 105 5 3 6 3 2 3 10 219
45 AM 5 66 8 6 95 4 6 5 6 4 2 6 213
8:00 AM 6 7O 7 7 95 2 5 4 4 2 2 7 211
15 AM 7 73 6 5 100 3 7 3 3 3 4 6 220
30 AM 5 59 8 3 94 2 5 2 2 1 2 9 192
45 AM 6 65 11 5 93 1 6 1 2 2 3 8 203
9:00 AM
• 15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 47 501 67 38 763 22 41 36 30 19 19 60 1643
AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 25 269 30 24 395 14 21 18 16 11 11 29 863
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1797 of 2775 ends

03/21/2001 10:42 714-997-2542

SOUTHLAND
PAGE 04
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET: 5TH ST

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
DATE: 3/20/2001
DAY: TUESDAY
CITY: BEAUMONT
PROJECT# 0331002P

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 11 118 5 2 90 3 3 2 10 5 1 3 253
15 PM 9 112 3 0 62 2 2 1 8 6 0 1 206
30 PM 7 132 4 1 74 4 2 2 7 8 3 2 246
45 PM 12 109 5 2 70 5 3 3 11 6 2 4 232
5:00 PM 9 117 2 1 90 3 4 4 10 3 3 3 249
15 PM 7 112 3 0 76 4 2 3 6 5 4 1 223
30 PM 10 112 2 2 67 5 2 2 5 6 3 3 219
45 PM 8 106 1 1 52 3 2 1 7 5 1 2 189
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 73 918 25 9 581 29 20 18 64 44 17 19 1817
PM Peak Hr Begins at 430 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 35 470 14 4 310 16 11 12 34 22 12 10 950
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1798 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542

SOUTHLAND
PAGE 01

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET: I-10 WB RAMPS
a a aaa
DATE: 3/8/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
DAY: THURSDAY
PROJECT# 0279003A

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET .ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 2 0 0 1 0
=
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM 122 28
15 AM 121 34
30 AM 126 30
45 AM 70 37
8:00 AM 102 35
15 AM 86 36
30 AM 85 37
45 AM 82 46
9:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
60 20
59 14
72 19
69 14
67 13
78 21
66 21
62 20
38 0 17 285
64 0 25 317
69 0 23 339
61 0 34 285
56 0 44 317
53 0 35 309
69 0 25 303
70 0 35 315

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 794 283 0 0 533 142 0 0 0 480 0 238 2470
414 Peak Hr Begins at 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 419 136 0 0 267 60 0 0 0 250 0 126 1258
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED

Page 1799 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51
^r r
714-997-2542

SOUTHLAND
PAGE 06

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BfiAUMON'r
DATE: 3/8/2001 CITY: BSAUMONT
E -W STREET: I-10 WE RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY pROJECT# 0279003P =
a.

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 2 0 0 1 0
====.23
_
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 86 59 74 29
15 PM 75 61 60 14
30 PM 67 66 57 18
45 PM 77 53 62 20
5:00 PM 56 49 79 22
15 PM 67 51 61 23
30 PM 76 63 55 28
45 PM 57 56 38 28
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
= = =2-3

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR
VOLUMES = 561 458 0 0 486 182
PM Peak Hr Begins at 445 PM
214 0 47 509
183 0 46 439
171 0 53 432
187 0 51 450
182 0 55 443
245 1 57 505
199 0 42 463
194 0 50 423
PEAK
VOLUMES =

EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
0 0 0 1575 1 401 3664
276 216 0 0 257 93 0 0 0 813 1 205 1861
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1800 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542

SOUTHLAND
PAGE 07

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT DATE: 3/8/2001
E -W STREET: I-10 EB RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY
. -
CITY: BEAUMONT
PROJECT# 0279004A

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 2 1 1 2 1 0 1
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM 143 108 29 82 18 3 46 429
15 AM 1.31 151 28 121 21 3 91 546
30 AM 167 211 34 129 15 3 109 668
45 AM 71 110 34 79 18 2 82 396
8:00 AM 109 134 36 100 25 0 83 487
15 AM 108 122 29 103 18 0 58 438
30 AM 113 98 50 88 22 0 58 429
45 AM 126 71 53 82 25 0 40 397
9:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
TOTAL
VOLUMES =

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
0 968 1005 293 784 0 162 11 567 0 0 0 3790
AM Peak Hr Begins at 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 0 478 606 132 429 0 79 8 365 0 0 0 2097
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1801 of 2775 ends

03/09/2001 13:51 714-997-2542
SOUTHLAND PAGE 08

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT DATE: 3/8/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET: I-10 BB RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY
PROJECT# 0279004P
LANES:
a
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
5:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
======
==

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
2 1 1 2 1 0 1
a a
113 107 42 155 19 0 109
121 112 30 232 34 0 128
116 103 32 200 25 1 153
94 121 41 243 23 3 114
73 83 47 245 19 2 143
108 113 33 282 25 1 156
97 76 42 195 19 1 153
106 88 16 220 20 1 156
545
657
630
639
612
718
583
607
_=

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 0 828 803 283 1772 0 184 9 1112 0 0 0 4991
PM Peak Hr Begins at 430 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 0 391 420 153 970 0 92 7 566 0 0 0 2599
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1802 of 2775 ends

03/21/2001 10:42 714-997-2542
SOUTHLAND PAGE 05
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET:

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
DATE: 3/20/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
4TH ST DAY: TUESDAY
PROJECT# 0331001A
5 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM 0 226 2 9 140 6 5 0 2 0 0 12 402
15 AM 1 255 4 10 170 4 7 1 3 0 1 11 467
30 AM 2 275 3 8 175 3 8 0 2 1 0 10 487
45 AM 3 236 2 7 160 4 9 0 4 0 0 13 438
8:00 AM 0 183 1 9 150 5 10 0 5 0 0 12 375
15 AM 2 190 2 8 155 2 11 2 6 1 0 11 390.
30 AM 1 191 3 7 140 4 12 1 3 2 0 10 374
45 AM 2 175 2 4 131 3 12 0 6 0 1 9 345
9:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM

TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 11 17.31 19 62 1221 31 74 4 31 4 2 88 3278
AM Peak Hr Begins at 700 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 6 992 11 34 645 17 29 1 11 1 1 46 1794
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1803 of 2775 ends

03/21/2001 10:42 714-997-2542
SOUTHLAND PAGE 06
N -S STREET: BEAUMONT
E -W STREET:

SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS

VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
DATE: 3/20/2001 CITY: BEAUMONT
4TH ST DAY: TUESDAY
PROJECT# 0331001P

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 2 178 0 7 341 1 7 0 0 3 0 11 550
15 PM 3 176 2 7 335 0 8 0 5 3 0 13 552
30 PM 2 193 1 8 360 0 9 1 6 2 1 12 595
45 PM 1 195 2 6 331 1 10 0 7 3 1 11 568
5:00 PM 4 178 0 8 344 0 11 0 8 5 0 10 568
15 PM 3 174 1 10 360 1 9 2 6 4 1 9 580
30 PM 2 184 0 9 334 2 9 1 6 3 0 8 558
45 PM 1 158 2 8 341 0 8 0 7 2 0 7 534
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET .ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 18 1436 8 63 2746 5 71 4 45 25 3 81 4505
'4 Peak Hr Begins at 430 PM
BEAK
VOLUMES = 10 740 4 32 1395 2 39 3 27 14 3 42 2311
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED

Page 1804 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX B

CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
- EXISTING

Page 1805 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 16:08:59 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************,r********************************************************,r**** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 62 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.273
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.8 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Volume Module: II II II
Base Vol: 77 162 9 13 231 73 73 26 16 3 31 6
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 162 9 13 231 73 73 26 16 3 31 6
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 77 162 9 13 231 73 73 26 16 3 31 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 77 162 9 13 231 73 73 26 16 3 31 6
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 77 162 9 13 231 73 73 26 16 3 31 6

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.38 1.00 0.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1900 1800 100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1176 724 1900 1592 308 Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.50 0.16 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 23.2 20.1 20.1 22.0 21.2 18.7 23.1 18.3 18.3 21.9 18.2 18.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.2 20.1 20.1 22.0 21.2 18.7 23.1 18.3 18.3 21.9 18.2 18.2 DesignQueue: 2 4 0 0 6 2 2 1 0 '0 1 0
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1806 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 16:09:39 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):

Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):

Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service:

0.175

14.7 B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II I
Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
I
Volume Module: II II II I
Base Vol: 23 211 55 19 215 64 72 42 13 118 112 46
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 23 211 55 19 215 64 72 42 13 118 112 46
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 23 211 55 19 215 64 72 42 13 118 112 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 23 211 55 19 215 64 72 42 13 118 112 46
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 23 211 55 19 215 64 72 42 13 118 112 46
I
Saturation Flow Module: II II II I
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.59 0.41 1.00 1.54 0.46 1.00 1.53 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 2864 746 1900 2782 828 1900 2757 853 1900 1900 1900

I (I II II I
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.18 0.07 Delay/Veh: 21.2 15.5 15.5 19.1 13.8 13.8 13.9 13.6 13.6 14.4 14.3 13.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.2 15.5 15.5 19.1 13.8 13.8 13.9 13.6 13.6 14.4 14.3 13.7 DesignQueue: 1 5 1 1 5 1 2 1 0 3 3 1
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1807 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:09:41 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.624
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.0 Optimal Cycle: 85 Level Of Service: D
***********************************************************t******************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0. 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Volume Module: II II II
Base Vol: 444 136 30 24 395 74 21 18 16 261 11 155
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 444 136 30 24 395 74 21 18 16 261 11 155
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 444 136 30 24 395 74 21 18 16 261 11 155
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 444 136 30 24 395 74 21 18 16 261 11 155
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 444 136 30 24 395 74 21 18 16 261 11 155
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 - Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.68 0.32 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.96 0.04 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 2958 652 1900 3040 570 725 622 553 1823 77 1900

I II II II I
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.08 Crit Moves: **** - **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 1.10 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.74 0.74 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.61 0.61 0.35 Delay/Veh: 109.4 26.3 26.3 30.8 37.6 37.6 25.7 25.7 25.7 31.4 31.4 27.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 109.4 26.3 26.3 30.8 37.6 37.6 25.7 25.7 25.7 31.4 31.4 27.5 DesignQueue: 18 5 1 1 16 3 1 1 1 10 0 6
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1808 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:12:35 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):

Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):

Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service:
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:

0.840

52.5 D
Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L- T- R
Permitted
Include
10 15 15
1 0 1 1 0
Volume Module:

Base Vol:

Growth Adj:

Initial Bse:

User Adj:

PHF Adj:

PHF Volume:

Reduct Vol:

Reduced Vol:

PCE Adj:

MLF Adj:

Final Vol.:

Saturation
Sat/Lane:

Adjustment:

Lanes:

Final Sat.:
6 1.00
6 1.00

1.00 6
0 6

1.00 1.00
6 992

1.00 992

1.00 1.00
992
0 992

1.00 1.00
992
Protected
Include
10 15
1 0 1 1
Split Phase
Include
15 20 20
0 0 1 • 0
Split Phase
Include
20 20 20 20
0 1 0 0 1! 0 0
II
617 166 794 17 108 1 376 1 1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
617 166 794 17 108 1 376 1 1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
617 166 794 17 108 1 376 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
617 166 794 17 108 1 376 1 1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
617 166 794 17 108 1 376 1 1
Flow Module:
1900 1900

1.00 0.95

1.00 1.23
1900 2226
1900 1900

0.95 1.00

0.77 1.00
1384 1900
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.45 0.45
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.45 0.45 0.45
Volume/Cap: 0.01 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 18.4 54.7 54.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 18.4 54.7 54.7
DesignQueue: 0 41 26
******************************************************************************** 46 1.00
46 1.00

1.00 46
0 46

1.00 1.00
46 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.96 0.04 0.99 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.02
3534 76 1883 17 1900 40 40
1900

1.00 0.96
1821

0.09 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.03
**** ****

0.09 1.00
123.5

1.00 123.5
10 0.53

0.42 16.9

1.00 16.9
26 0.53

0.42 16.9

1.00 16.9
1 0.20

0.29 41.3

1.00 41.3
6 0.20

0.29 41.3

1.00 41.3
0 0.20

1.00 93.5

1.00 93.5
21 0.17

0.15 43.0

1.00 43.0
0 ****

0.17 0.17

0.15 0.15

43.0 43.0

1.00 1.00

43.0 43.0
0 3
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1809 of 2775 ends

MITIGB - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:14:22 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.279
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.2 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II I
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Volume Module: II II II
Base Vol: 67 246 19 17 187 44 73 72 63 10 30 8
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 67 246 19 17 187 44 73 72 63 10 30 8
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 67 246 19 17 187 44 73 72 63 10 30 8
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 67 246 19 17 187 44 73 72 63 10 30 8
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 67 246 19 17 187 44 73 72 63 10 30 8

II II I I
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 0.79 0.21 Final Sat.: 1900 1764 136 1900 1900 1900 1900 1013 887 1900 1500 400

I II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.41 0.10 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 23.0 22.5 22.5 22.1 20.3 18.3 23.1 19.5 19.5 22.0 18.3 18.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.0 22.5 22.5 22.1 20.3 18.3 23.1 19.5 19.5 22.0 18.3 18.3 DesignQueue: 2 7 1 0 5 1 2 2 2 0 1 0
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1810 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:14:55 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.177
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.8 Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

Base Vol: 46 303 48 21 226 51 74 92 60 44 54 33
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 303 48 21 226 51 74 92 60 44 54 33
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 303 48 21 226 51 74 92 60 44 54 33
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 46 303 48 21 226 51 74 92 60 44 54 33
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 303 48 21 226 51 74 92 60 44 54 33

I' II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.21 0.7.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 3116 494 1900 2945 665 1900 2185 1425 1900 1900 1900

II II (I
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.05 Delay/Veh: 19.5 14.2 14.2 21.2 15.6 15.6 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.7 13.8 13.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.5 14.2 14.2 21.2 15.6 15.6 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.7 13.8 13.6 DesignQueue: 1 7 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1811 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:15:57 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.839
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 63.6 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: g
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L T - R

I II II II
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Volume Module: II II II I
Base Vol: 311 216 14 4 310 109 11 12 34 835 12 313
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 311 216 14 4 310 109 11 12 34 835 12 313
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 311 216 14 4 310 109 11 12 34 835 12 313
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 311 216 14 4 310 109 11 12 34 835 12 313
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 311 216 14 4 310 109 11 12 34 835 12 313

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.48 0.52 0.19 0.21 0.60 0.99 0.01 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 3390 220 1900 2671 939 367 400 1133 1873 27 1900

II II II
I
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.45 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.44 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.93 0.93 0.18 0.18 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.37 Delay/Veh: 101.8 44.2 44.2 47.1 77.5 77.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 64.7 64.7 22.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 101.8 44.2 44.2 47.1 77.5 77.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 64.7 64.7 22.4 DesignQueue: 18 12 1 0 19 7 1 1 2 35 1 12
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1812 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:16:29 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Existing
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):

Loss Time (sec):

Optimal Cycle:
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:
120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.848
12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 57.8
120 Level Of Service: E
Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Permitted
Include
10 15
1 0 1
I) II
Protected
Include
15 10 15 15
1 0 1 0 1 1 0
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 740
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 10 740
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 10 740
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 740
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 10 740
424 185 970 2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
424 185 970 2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
424 185 970 2
0 0 0 0
424 185 970 2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
424 185 970 2
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.27
Final Sat.: 1900 2295
1900 1900 1900

0.95 1.00 0.95

0.73 1.00 1.99
1315 1900 3603
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.01
Crit Moves:

Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32
Volume/Cap: 0.02 1.00
Delay/Veh: 27.7 66.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 27.7 66.4
DesignQueue: 0 36
******************************************************************************** Module:

0.32 0.32
****
Split Phase Split Phase
Include Include
20 20 20 20 20 20
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0
131

1.00 131

1.00 1.00
131
0 131

1.00 1.00
131
3 1.00
3 1.00

1.00 3
0 3

1.00 1.00
3 593 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00
593 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
593 14 3
0 0 0
593 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
593 14 3
42 1.00
42 1.00

1.00 42
0 42

1.00 1.00
42 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190Q

0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.01 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.24 0.05 0.71
7 1857 43 1900 451 97 1353

0.10 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.07
****

0.32 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.31 0.31

1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.23 0.23

66.4 119.6 28.5 28.5 30.7 30.7

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

66.4 119.6 28.5 28.5 30.7 30.7
21 11 40 0 6 0

0.31 0.03 0.03 0.03
**** ****

0.31 0.17 0.17 0.17

1.00 0.19 0.19 0.19

77.6 43.3 43.3 43.3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

77.6 43.3 43.3 43.3
30 1 0 2
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1813 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX C

CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
- BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT

Page 1814 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:51:48 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.260
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 167.3 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: g
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected
Rights: Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1
Volume Module: II II II I
Base Vol: 84 502
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 84 502
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 84 502
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Reduced Vol: 84 502
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 84 502
Protected
Include
10 15 15
1 0 0 1 0
II I
Protected Protected
Include Include
10 15 15 10 15 15
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
198 97 702 290 118

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
198 97 702 290 118

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
198 97 702 290 118
0 0 0 0 0
198 97 702 290 118

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
198 97 702 290 118
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 0.72
Final Sat.: 1900 1363
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

0.28 1.00
537 1900
II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.37 0.37 0..05 0.37
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.26
Volume/Cap: 0.53 1.39 1.39 0.61 1.40
Delay/Veh: 56.1 233 232.6 60.0 234
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 56.1 233 232.6 60.0 234
DesignQueue: 5 27 11 6 38
******************************************************************************** 1900

1.00 1.00
1900
496 331 273 1086

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
496 331 273 1086

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
496 331 273 1086
0 0 0 0
496 331 273 1086

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
496 331 273 1086
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
1900 1900
II
154

1.00 154

1.00 1.00
154
0 154

1.00 1.00
154
II
1900 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.60 0.40 1.00 0.88
1140 760 1900 1664
II
1900

1.00 0.12
236

0.15 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.14 0.65 0.65
**** ****

0.26 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.47 0.47

0.58 0.75 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.39 1.39

40.0 71.2 80.7 80.7 120.9 215 215.3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

40.0 71.2 80.7 80.7 120.9 215 215.3
15 7 22 15 16 46 7
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1815 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 18:53:51 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.268
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 122.6 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
I II II ii I
Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.48 0.52 1.00 1.68 0.32 1.00 1.56 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 2678 932 1900 3039 571 1900 2807 803 190O 1900 1900 Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.24 •0.24 0.21 0.67 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Volume/Cap: 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.27 1.27 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.39 1.27 0.27 Delay/Veh: 205.0 150 149.8 171.9 171 171.2 14.4 17.7 17.7 17.1 157 15.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 205.0 150 149.8 171.9 171 171.2 14.4 17.7 17.7 17.1 157 15.7 DesignQueue: 17 43 15 21 57 11 4 22 6 13 49 9
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1816 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 19:57:53 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.293
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 677.8 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1. 0 0 0 •1 ! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

I II II
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 1746
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 1746
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 1746
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 1746
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol : 1746
1222

1.00 1222

1.00 1.00
1222
0 1222

1.00 1.00
1222
30 1.00
30 1.00

1.00 30
0 30

1.00 1.00
30 Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane:

Adjustment:

Lanes:

Final Sat.:
1900

1.00 1.00
1900
1900

0.95 1.95
3523
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.92
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.32
Volume/Cap: 2.87
Delay/Veh: 888.0
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 888.0
DesignQueue: 105
(
24 1.00
24 1.00

1.00 24
0 24

1.00 1.00
24 1876

1.00 1876

1.00 1.00
1876
0 1876

1.00 1.00
1876
683

1.00 683

1.00 1.00
683
0 683

1.00 1.00
1900 1900

0.95 1.00

0.05 1.00
87 1900
II
Module:

0.35 0.35

0.48 0.72

26.0 1.00 1.00

26.0 26.0
46 1

0.48 0.72

26.0 1900

0.95 1.47
2646
21 1.00
21 1.00

1.00 21
0 21

1.00 1.00
683 21
II
1900

0.95 0.53
964
II
1900

1.00 0.38
725
II I
18 16 668 11 773

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
18 16 668 11 773

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
18 16 668 11 773
0 0 0 0 0
18 16 668 11 773

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
18 16 668 11 773
1900

1.00 0.33
622

0.01 0.71 0.71 0.03 0.03
**** ****

0.08 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.17

0.15 2.87 2.87 0.17 0.17

51.5 891 891.0 43.2 43.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

51.5 891 891.0 43.2 43.2
1 114 42 1 1
II
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

0.29 0.98
553 1869
II
1900

1.00 0.02
31 1900

1.00 1.00
1900

0.03 0.36 0.36 0.41
****

0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

0.17 2.14 2.14 2.44

43.2 575.3 575 708.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

43.2 575.3 575 708.0
1 41 1 48
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1817 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 19:59:00 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):

Loss Time (sec):

Optimal Cycle:
***********
Approach:

Movement:
120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):
12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):
120 Level Of Service:

2.751
860.4
F
******************************************************.*************** Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T- R L- T R L - T - R L - T - R
Permitted
Include
10 15 15
1 0 1 1 0
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 6
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 6
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 6
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 6
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol.: 6
Protected
Include
10 15
1 0 1 1
Split Phase
Include
15 20 20
0 0 1 0 0
Split Phase
Include
20 20
1 0 0
3378 1024 556 1369 17 534 1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3378 1024 556 1369 17 534 1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3378 1024 556 1369 17 534 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3378 1024 556 1369 17 534 1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3378 1024 556 1369 17 534 1
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.53
Final Sat.: 1900 2770
1900 1900

0.95 1.00

0.47 1.00
840 1900
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 1.22 1.22
Crit Moves:

Green/Cycle:

Volume/Cap:

Delay/Veh:

User DelAdj:

AdjDel/Veh:

DesignQueue:
****
1784

1.00 1784

1.00 1.00
1784
0 1784

1.00 1.00
1784
1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

1.98 0.02 0.99 0.01
3566 44 1896 4
1900

1.00 1.00
1900
20 20
1! 0 0
1 1

1.00 1.00
1 1

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
1 1
0 0
1 1

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
1 1
46 1.00
46 1.00

1.00 46
0 46

1.00 1.00
46 1900 1900

1.00 1.00

0.02 0.02
40 40
1900

1.00 0.96
1821

0.29 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.94 0.03 0.03 0.03
**** **** ****

0.36 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.17

0.01 3.34 3.34 3.34 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 3.34 0.15 0.15 0.15

24.3 1094 1094 1124 33.6 33.6 82.7 82.7 1102 43.0 43.0 43.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

24.3 1094 1094 1124 33.6 33.6 82.7 82.7 1102 43.0 43.0 43.0 0 206 62 37 55 1 28 0 114 0 0 3
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1818 of 2775 ends

MITIGB - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 20:00:31 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
****************************:*************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.806
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 324.1 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:

Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L- T- R
Protected Protected Protected Protected
Include Include Include Include
10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
II ll
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 208
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 208
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 208
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 208
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol.: 208
941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane:

Adjustment:

Lanes:

Final Sat.:
252

1.00 252

1.00 1.00
252
0 252

1.00 1.00
252
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.79 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.23 1.00 0.78
1900 1504 396 1900 1900 1900 1900 1471 429 1900 1473
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.11
Crit Moves:

Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.34
Volume/Cap: 1.25 1.85
Delay/Veh: 206.2 430
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 206.2 430
DesignQueue: 13 50
******************************************************************************** Module:

0.63 0.63 0.16
**** ****

0.34 0.09

1.85 1.85
430.1 461.5

1.00 1.00
430.1 461.5
13 19

0.42 0.34

1.25 164

1.00 164
40 0.10 0.11

0.34 0.07

0.30 1.47

29.7 301.6

1.00 1.00

29.7 301.6
9 13
1900

1.00 0.22
427

0.73 0.73 0.11
**** ****

0.39 0.39 0.08

1.85 1.85 1.34
426 426.0 243.8

1.00 1.00 1.00
426 426.0 243.8
54 16 13

0.59 0.59

0.40 0.40

1.47 1.47
255 254.9

1.00 1.00
255 254.9
41 12
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1819 of 2775 ends

MITIGB - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 20:01:13 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):

Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):

Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service:

1.266
106.7
F
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:

Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L
Protected
Include
10 15
1 0 1 1
Protected
Include
15 10 15
0 1 0 1 1
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 219
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 219
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 219
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 219
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol.: 219
East Bound West Bound
- T - R L - T - R
Permitted
Include
15 20 20 20
0 1 0 1 1 0
Permitted
Include
20 20 20
1 0 1 0 1
1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00
1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.60
Final Sat.: 1900 2880
II
1900 1900

0.95 1.00

0.40 1.00
730 1900
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.12
Crit Moves:

Green/Cycle: 0.10
Volume/Cap: 1.10
Delay/Veh: 147.1
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 147.1
DesignQueue: 13
******************************************************************************** Module:

0.44 0.44 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.58 0.22
**** **** ****

0.35 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46

1.27 1.27 1.27 1.10 1.10 0,19 0.81 0.81 0.30 1.27 0.48
165 165.1 204.0 95.8 95.8 19.3 30.8 30.8 20.5 161 22.9

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
165 165.1 204.0 95.8 95.8 19.3 30.8 30.8 20.5 161 22.9
62 16 17 61 7 6 44 9 10 47 16
422

1.00 422

1.00 1.00
422
0 422

1.00 1.00
422
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

1.80 0.20 1.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 1.00
3252 358 1900 2973 637 1900 1900
1900

1.00 1.00
1900
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1820 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 20:02:07 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 2.323
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 666.2 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L T - R
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Volume Module: II (I lI
Base Vol: 1029 1698 14 4 2246 1050 11 12 34 1140 12 924 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1029 1698 14 4 2246 1050 11 12 34 1140 12 924 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1029 1698 14 4 2246 1050 11 12 34 1140 12 924 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 1029 1698 14 4 2246 1050 11 12 34 1140 12 924 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1029 1698 14 4 2246 1050 11 12 34 1140 12 924 Saturation Flow Module: (I II II
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 - Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 1.36 0.64 0.19 0.21. 0.60 0.99 0.01 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 3580 30 1900 2460 1150 367 400 1133 1880 20 1900 Capacity Analysis Module:

Vo1/Sat: 0.54 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.91 0.91 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.61 0.61 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 2.81 1.09 1.09 0.03 2.81 2.81 0.18 0.18 0.18 2.81 2.81 2.25 Delay/Veh: 870.7 86.2 86.2 50.6 858 857.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 868.5 868 619.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 870.7 86.2 86.2 50.6 858 857.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 868.5 868 619.2 DesignQueue: 65 73 1 0 131 61 1 1 2 71 1 55
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1821 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Mar 22, 2001 20:02:43 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.839
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 894.0 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

Permitted
Include
10 15
1 0 1 1
Protected
Include
15 10 15 15
0 1 0 1 i. 0
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 3397
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 10 3397
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 10 3397
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 3397
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 10 3397
Split Phase
Include
20 20 20
0 1•0 01
993 595 1876 2 233 3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
993 595 1876 2 233 3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
993 595 1876 2 233 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
993 595 1876 2 233 3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
993 595 1876 2 233 3
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane:

Adjustment:

Lanes:

Final Sat.:
1900 1900

1.00 0.95

1.00 1.55
1900 2793
Split Phase
Include
20 20 20
0 0 1! 0 0
1891 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00
1891 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
1891 14 3
0 0 0
1891 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
1891 14 3
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

0.45 1.00 1.99 0.01 0.99 0.01
817 1900 3606 4 1876 24
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 1.22 1.22
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.35
Volume/Cap: 0.01
Delay/Veh: 25.2
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 25.2
DesignQueue: 0
******************************************************************************** 42 1.00
42 1.00

1.00 42
0 42

1.00 1.00
42 1900 1900

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.24
1900 451

0.31 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.12
****

0.35 0.35 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.29 0.29 0.29

3.44 3.44 3.44 1.17 1.17 0.43 0.43 3.44
1140 1140 1168 117 117.4 35.2 35.2 1146

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1140 1140 1168 117 117.4 35.2 35.2 1146
211 62 39 80 0 11 0 122
1900

1.00 0.05
97 1900

1.00 0.71
1353

1.00 0.03 0.03 0.03
**** ****

0.17 0.17 0.17

0.19 0.19 0.19

43.3 43.3 43.3

1.00 1.00 1.00

43.3 43.3 43.3
1 0 2
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1822 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX D

CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
- BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS

Page 1823 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Fri Mar 23, 2001 10:39:21 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.778
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.6 Optimal Cycle: 70 Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Il II Il
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 84 502 198 97 702 290 118 496 331 273 1086 154 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 84 502 198 97 702 290 118 496 331 273 1086 154 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 84 502 198 97 702 290 118 496 331 273 1086 154 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 84 502 198 97 702 290 118 496 331 273 1086 154 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 84 502 198 97 702 290 118 496 331 273 1086 154

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.43 0.57 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1900 2589 1021 3686 3610 1900 1900 3610 1900 1900 3162 448

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.19 0.15 0.06 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.34 0.34 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.90 0.90 0.18 0.91 0.71 0.43 0.64 0.81 0.56 1.05 1.05 Delay/Veh: 27.6 40.9 40.9 26.6 41.3 31.3 28.5 26.9 38.0 24.0 62.3 62.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.6 40.9 40.9 26.6 41.3 31.3 28.5 26.9 38.0 24.0 62.3 62.3 DesignQueue: 3 16 6 3 23 9 4 16 11 8 31 4
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1824 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Fri Mar 23, 2001 10:41:35 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.887
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 44.1 Optimal Cycle: 113 Level Of Service: D
***********************************************************.********************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 20 20 10 20 20
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1
II II lI
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 273 785 273 354 1092 205 131 671 192 390 1272 271

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3686 3610 1900 3686 3610 1900 1900 3610 1900 3686 3610 1900

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vo1/Sat: 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.07 0.19 0.10 0.11 0.35 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.39 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.74 0.49 0.74 0.89 0.32 0.83 0.61 0.33 0.61 0.89 0.36 Delay/Veh: 79.9 41.2 35.7 56.5 46.2 29.7 82.9 36.7 32.6 47.6 41.5 25.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 79.9 41.2 35.7 56.5 46.2 29.7 82.9 36.7 32.6 47.6 41.5 25.9 DesignQueue: 17 39 13 21 52 9 8 33 9 22 56 11
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1825 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Fri Mar 23, 2001 11:39:49 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.654
Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.8 Optimal Cycle: 85 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II I
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Ignore Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 15 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0' 0 0 0 1 0 1! 0 1
Volume Module: II II II
Base Vol: 0 1222 1721 0 1234 669 0 0 0 657 0 744
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1222 0 0 1234 669 0 0 0 657 0 744
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1222 0 0 1234 669 0 0 0 657 0 744
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1222 0 0 1234 669 0 0 0 657 0 744
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0O1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1222 0 0 1234 669 0 0 0 657 0 744

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 1.53 Final Sat.: 0 3610 1900 0 3610 1900 0 0 0 2791 0 2909
(I II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vo1/Sat: 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.26 Crit Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.65 Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 14.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 21.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 14.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 21.9 DesignQueue: 0 29 0 0 29 16 0 0 0 20 0 23
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1826 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:18:11 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.893
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.7 Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Permitted Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Ignore Include
Min. Green: 0 15 15 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Module: II II II
Base Vol: 0 2440 1013 522 1369 0 505 0 1773 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2440 1013 522 1369 0 505 0 0 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2440 1013 522 1369 0 505 0 0 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2440 1013 522 1369 0 505 0 0 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 2440 1013 522 1369 0 505 0 0 0 0 0

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 5187 1900 3686 3610 0 3686 0 1900 0 0 0

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.47 0.53 0.14 0.38 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.16 0.76 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.79 0.89 0.89 0.50 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 16.6 26.4 56.8 4.9 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 16.6 26.4 56.8 4.9 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DesignQueue: 0 61 26 25 20 0 24 0 0 0 0 0
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1827 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Fri Mar 23, 2001 10:37:42 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements.

PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.925
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 51.5 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

II II II
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 208 941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869 252 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 208 941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869 252 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 208 941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869 252 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0
Reduced Vol: 208 941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869 252 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 208 941 248 306 798 194 208 1070 312 212 869 252

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.58 0.42 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.0O 1.55 0.45 Final Sat.: 1900 2857 753 3686 3610 1900 1900 3610 1900 1900 2798 812

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.33 0..33 0.08 0.22 0.10 0.11 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.34 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.34 0.92 0.90 0.50 0.90 0.92 0.92 Delay/Veh: 59.1 48.4 48.4 85.0 40.7 33.3 92.2 47.6 32.9 84.7 50.3 50.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 59.1 48.4 48.4 85.0 40.7 33.3 92.2 47.6 32.9 84.7 50.3 50.3 DesignQueue: 12 44 12 19 40 9 13 52 15 13 42 12
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1828 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Fri Mar 23, 2001 10:41:05 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):

Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):

Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service:
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

0.902

47.7 D
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 20 20 10 20 20
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1

II II I)
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 219 1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106 422 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 219 1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106 422 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 219 1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106 422 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 219 1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106 422 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 219 1278 324 276 1291 142 168 1101 236 258 1106 422

I I I I I I
Saturation Flow Module:

II II I I
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.35 0.17 0.07 0.36 0.07 0.09 0.30 0.12 0.07 0.31 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.91 0.44 0.90 0.92 0.19 0.92 0.88 0.36 0.84 0.92 0.67 Delay/Veh: 61.3 44.0 27.5 81.7 45.2 24.4 98.5 44.8 29.7 72.5 50.1 37.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 61.3 44.0 27.5 81.7 45.2 24.4 98.5 44.8 29.7 72.5 50.1 37.1 DesignQueue: 14 57 14- 17 58 6 10 52 11 16 53. 20
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1829 of 2775 ends

MITIGB - Default Scenario Fri Mar 23, 2001 11:39:16

Page 1 ends

Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.972
Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.8 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II I
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Ignore Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 15 15 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1! 0 1

II II II
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1698 994 0 1268 1034 0 0 0 1118 0 914
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1698 0 0 1268 1034 0 0 0 1118 0 914
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1698 0 0 1268 1034 0 0 0 1118 0 914
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1698 0 0 1268 1034 0 0 0 1118 0 914
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1698 0 0 1268 1034 0 0 0 1118 0 914

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 1.45 Final Sat.: 0 3610 1900 0 3610 1900 0 0 0 2945 0 2755
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.54 0.00 0.00 •0.00 0.38 0.00 0.33 Crit Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.85 Delay/Veh: 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 18.6 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.7 0.0 36.5 User DelAdj: 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 18.6 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.7 0.0 36.5 DesignQueue: 0 57 0 0 41 35 0 0 0 50 0 41
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1830 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:12:23 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout Without Project With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.837
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.8 Optimal Cycle: 68 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
it II ll
Control: Permitted Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Ignore Include
Min. Green: 0 15 15 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0. 0 2 0 .0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Module: II II II
Base Vol: 0 2489 989 563 1876 0 194 0 1864 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2489 989 563 1876 0 194 0 0 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2489 989 563 1876 0 194 0 0 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2489 989 563 1876 0 194 0 0 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0.2489 989 563 1876 0 194 0 0 0 0 0

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.15 0.52 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.65 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.5 15.5 35.8 3.2 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 10.5 15.5 35.8 3.2 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DesignQueue: 0 40 16 18 16 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1831 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX E

CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
- BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT

Page 1832 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:44:48 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative
**:r***************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):

Loss Time (sec)
Optimal Cycle:
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:
120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):
12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):
120 Level Of Service:

1.276
171.7
F
Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II I
Protected Protected Protected Protected
Include Include Include Include
10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 84
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 84
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 84
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 84
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol.: 84
509 199 100 705 286 123 494

1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
509 199 100 705 286 123 494

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
509 199 100 705 286 123 494
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 199 100 705 286 123 494

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
509 199 100 705 286 123 494
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 0.72
Final Sat.: 1900 1366
1I
342 281 1085 166

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
342 281 1085 166

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
342 281 1085. 166
0 0 0 0
342 281 1085 166

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
342 281 1085 166
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59
534 1900 1900 1900 1900 1123
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.37 0.37
Crit Moves:

Green/Cycle: 0.08
Volume/Cap: 0.53
Delay/Veh: 56.1
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 56.1
DesignQueue: 5
******************************************************************************** II
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

0.41 1.00
777 1900
1900

1.00 0.87
1648
1900

1.00 0.13
252

0.05 0.37 0.15 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.66 0.66
**** **** **** ****

0.27 0.27 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.47 0.47

1.41 1.41 0.63 1.40 0.57 0.78 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.41 1.41
238 238.4 61.2 236 39.7 75.1 86.3 86.3 125.6 221 221.3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
238 238.4 61.2 236 39.7 75.1 86.3 86.3 125.6 221 221.3
28 11` 6 38 15 8 22 15 17 47 7
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1833 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:45:48 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):

Loss Time (sec):

Optimal Cycle:
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II I
Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Volume Module: I� II II
Base Vol: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 2709 901 1900 3077 533 1900 2796 814 1900 1900 1900

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.24 -0.24 0.20 0.64 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 1.23 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.23 1.23 0.14 0.48 0.48 0.40 1.27 0.34 Delay/Veh: 190.6 177 177.3 191.9 150 150.5 16.1 19.8 19.8 18.9 161 18.1 User Del•Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 190.6 177 177.3 191.9 150 150.5 16.1 19.8 19.8 18.9 161 18.1 DesignQueue: 15 45 15 26 60 10 5 24 7 13 48 11
******************************************************************************** 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):
9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):
120 Level Of Service:

1.272
125.0
F
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1834 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:47:25 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.249
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 648.3 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II
Control: Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 1748 1224 30 24 1820 589 21 18 16 617 11
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 Initial Bse: 1748 1224 30 24 1820 589 21 18 16 617 11
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1748 1224 30 24 1820 589 21 18 16 617 11
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 1748 1224 30 24 1820 589 21 18 16 617 11
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1748 1224 30 24 1820 589 21 18 16 617 11
Split Phase
Include
15 20 20
0 0 0 1! 0
Split Phase
Include
20 20 20 20
0 0 1 0 0 1
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.95
Final Sat.: 1900 3524
1900 1900

0.95 1.00

0.05 1.00
86 1900
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.92 0.35 0.35
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.48 0.48
Volume/Cap: 2.80 0.72 0.72
Delay/Veh: 855.3 26.0 26.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 855.3 26.0 26.0
DesignQueue: 103 46 1
******************************************************************************** 775

1.00 775

1.00 1.00
775
0 775

1.00 1.00
775
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.51 0.49 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.98 0.02
2727 883 725 622 553 1867 33
1900

1.00 1.00
1900

0.01 0.67 0.67 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0..33 0.41
**** **** ****

0.08 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

0.15 2.80 2.80 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.98 1.98 2.45

51.5 859 859.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 503.6 504 710.8

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

51.5 859 859.5 43.2 43.2 43.2 503.6 504 710.8
1 111 36 1 1 1 38 1 48
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1835 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:48:18 Page 1-i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.779
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 877.6 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0

II II II
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 6 3386 1026 585 1327 17 533 1 1797 1 1 46
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 6 3386 1026 585 1327 17 533 1 1797 1 1 46
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 6 3386 1026 585 1327 17 533 1 1797 1 1 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 6 3386 1026 585 1327 17 533 1 1797 1 1 46
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 6 3386 1026 585 1327 17 533 1 1797 1 1 46
fl II 'I
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.53 0.47 1.00 1.97 0.03 0.99 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.02 0.96 Final Sat.: 1900 2771 839 1900 3564 46 1896 4 1900 40 40 1821 Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 1.22 1.22 0.31 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.95 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.01 3.38 3.38 3.38 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.00 3.38 0.15 0.15 0.15 Delay/Veh: 24.5 1110 1110 1138 32.0 32.0 83.0 83.0 1117 43.0 43.0 43.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 24.5 1110 1110 1138 32.0 32.0 83.0 83.0 1117 43.0 43.0 43.0 DesignQueue: 0 208 63 39 53 1 28 0 115 0 0 3
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1836 of 2775 ends

MITIGB - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:49:45 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.859
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 345.5 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

I II II II I
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 0.77 0.23 Final Sat.: 1900 1484 416 1900 1900 1900 1900 1428 472 1900 1469 431

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.64 0.64 0.16 0.44 0.10 0.11 0.75 0.75 0.11 0.60 0.60 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 1.34 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.34 0.31 1.48 1.91 1.91 1.37 1.48 1.48 Delay/Veh: 239.9 455 454.6 486.1 206 30.8 305.9 450 450.4 256.5 260 259.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 239.9 455 454.6 486.1 206 30.8 305.9 450 450.4 256.5 260 259.7 DesignQueue: 16 51 14 20 42 9 13 54 18 14 41 12
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1837 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:50:34 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):

Loss Time (sec):

I II II II I
Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

II II (I
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 265 1262 288 328 1313 153 187 1044 251 260 1114 423 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 265 1262 288 328 1313 153 187 1044 251 260 1114 423 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 265 1262 288 328 1313 153 187 1044 251 260 1114 423 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 265 1262 288 328 1313 153 187 1044 251 260 1114 423 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 265 1262 288 328 1313 153 187 1044 251 260 1114 423 120
9 (Y+R = 4 sec)
120
Critical Vol./Cap. (X):

Average Delay (sec/veh):

Level Of Service:

1.285
117.2
F
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.63 0.37 1.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 1.61 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 2939 671 1900 3233 377 1900 2910 700 1900 1900 1900 Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.59 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 1.16 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.16 1.16 0.22 0.79 0.79 0.30 1.28 0.49 Delay/Veh: 164.0 174 174.5 206.4 122 122.0 19.8 30.2 30.2 20.7 169 23.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 164.0 174 174.5 206.4 122 122.0 19.8 30.2 30.2 20.7 169 23.2 DesignQueue: 16 63 14 20 63 7 7 42 10 10 48 16
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1838 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:51:20 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 2.330
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 666.5 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
***********************************************************.********************* Approach:

Movement:

Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Protected Protected Split Phase
Include Include Include
10 15 15 10 15 15 20 20 20
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 1027
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 1027
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 1027
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 1027
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol.: 1027
Split Phase
Include
20 20 20
0 1 0 0 1
1754 14 4 2270 1059 11 12 34 1137 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1754 14 4 2270 1059 11 12 34 1137 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1754 14 4 2270 1059 11 12 34 1137 12
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1754 14 4 2270 1059 11 12 34 1137 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1754 14 4 2270 1059 11 12 34 1137 12
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.98
Final Sat.: 1900 3581
903

1.00 903

1.00 1.00
903
0 903

1.00 1.00
903
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.02 1.00 1.36 0.64 0.19 0.21 0.60 0.99 0.01
29 1900 2462 1148 367 400 1133 1880 20
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.54
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.19
Volume/Cap: 2.82
Delay/Veh: 874.7
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 874.7
DesignQueue: 65
******************************************************************************** Module:

0.49 0.49

0.44 0.44

1.12 1.12

98.9 98.9

1.00 1.00

98.9 98.9
75 1
1900

1.00 1.00
1900

0.00 0.92 0.92 0.03 0.03 -0.03 0.60 0.60 0.48
**** **** ****

0.08 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21

0.03 2.82 2.82 0.18 0.18 0.18 2.82 2.82 2.22

50.6 861 861.4 43.2 43.2 43.2 872.6 873 602.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50.6 861 861.4 43.2 43.2 43.2 872.6 873 602.1
0 133 62 1 1 2 71 1 54
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1839 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:51:50 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 2.847
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 895.1 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:

Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Permitted Protected
Include Include
10 15 15 10 15
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1.

Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 3421 989 600 1883 2 258 3
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 10 3421 989 600 1883 2 258 3
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 10 3421 989 600 1883 2 258 3
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 3421 989 600 1883 2 258 3
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 10 3421 989 600 1883 2 258 3
Split Phase Split Phase
Include Include
15 20 20 20 20 20 20
0 0 1• 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.55
Final Sat.: 1900 2800
1889 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00
1889 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
1889 14 3
0 0 0
1889 14 3

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
1889 14 3
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

0.45 1.00 1.99 0.01 0.99 0.01
810 1900 3606 4 1878 22
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.01
Crit Moves:

Green/Cycle: 0.35
Volume/Cap: 0.01
Delay/Veh: 25.2
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 25.2
DesignQueue: 0
******************************************************************************** Module:

1.22 1.22
****

0.35 3.45
1144

1.00 1144
213

0.35 3.45
1144

1.00 1144
61 42

1.00 42

1.00 1.00
42 0
42 1.00

1.00 42
1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.24 0.05
1900 451 97

0.32 0.52 0.52 0.14 0.14
****

0.09 0.45 0.45 0.29 0.29

3.45 1.17 1.17 0.48 0.48
1172 118 117.9 35.9 35.9

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1172 118 117.9 35.9 35.9
40 80 0 13 0
1900

1.00 0.71
1353

0.99 0.03 0.03 0.03
**** ****

0.29 0.17 0.17 0.17

3.45 0.19 0.19 0.19
1151 43.3 43.3 43.3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1151 43.3 43.3 43.3
122 1 0 2
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999. Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1840 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX F

CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
- BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS

Page 1841 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:14:44 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):

Loss Time (sec):

Optimal Cycle:
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:
70 Critical Vol./Cap. (X):
12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):
70 Level Of Service:

0.785

44.0 D
Control:

Rights:

Min. Green:

Lanes:

North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Protected
Include
10 15
1 0 1 1
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 84
Growth Adj: 1.00
Initial Bse: 84
User Adj: 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00
PHF Volume: 84
Reduct Vol: 0
Reduced Vol: 84
PCE Adj: 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00
Final Vol.: 84
Saturation
Sat/Lane:

Adjustment:

Lanes:

Final Sat.:
509

1.00 509

1.00 1.00
509
0 509

1.00 1.00
509
Protected Protected
Include Include
15 10 15 15 10 15
0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0
II II
199

1.00 199

1.00 1.00
199
0 199

1.00 1.00
199
Flow Module:
1900

1.00 1.00
1900
1900

0.95 1.44
2595
Capacity Analysis
Vol/Sat: 0.04
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14
Volume/Cap: 0.31
Delay/Veh: 27.6
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 27.6
DesignQueue:
******************************************************************************** 3 16
100

1.00 100

1.00 1.00
100
0 100

1.00 1.00
100
705

1.00 705

1.00 1.00
705
0 705

1.00 1.00
705
286

1.00 286

1.00 1.00
286
0 286

1.00 1.00
286
II
1900 1900

0.95 0.97

0.56 2.00
1015 3686
II
Module:

0.20 0.20
1900

0.95 2.00
3610

0.03 0.20
****

0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21

0.92 0.92 0.19 0.91

42.3 42.3 26.6 41.8

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

42.3 42.3 26.6 41.8
6 3 23
123 494

1.00 1.00
123 494

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
123 494
0 0
123 494

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
123 494
Protected
Include
15 10 15 15
1 1 0 1 1 0
II I
342 281 1085 166

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
342 281 1085 166

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
342 281 1085 166
0 0 0 0
342 281 1085 166

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
342 281 1085 166
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
1900 1900
II

0.15 0.21

0.70 30.9

1.00 30.9
9 1900

0.95 2.00
3610
II
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
1900 1900
II

0.06 0.14 0.18
****

0.14 0.21 0.21

0.45 0.64 0.84

28.7 26.8 40.7

1.00 1.00 1.00

28.7 26.8 40.7
4 16 11
1900
0:95

1.73 3131
1900

0.95 0.27
479

0.15 0.35
****

0.26 0.33

0.58 1.05

24.3 65.3

1.00 1.00

24.3 65.3
8 31

0.35 0.33

1.05 65.3

1.00 65.3
5 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1842 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:15:45 -Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.896
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 45.0 Optimal Cycle: 118 Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 20 20 10 20 20
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1

II II II
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 249 818 272 447 1189 206 138 677 197 383 1215 320 Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.14 0.12 0.33 0.11 0.07 0.19 •0.10 0.10 0.34 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.37 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.78 0.49 0.78 0.91 0.30 0.87 0.64 0.35 0.64 0.91 0.45 Delay/Veh: 69.0 42.9 35.9 55.5 45.8 27.6 91.6 38.4 33.9 49.4 45.1 29.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.0 42.9 35.9 55.5 45.8 27.6 91.6 38.4 33.9 49.4 45.1 29.0 DesignQueue: 15 41 13 26 55 9 9 34 10 22 56 14
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1843 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:16:21

Page 1 ends

Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.651
Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.4 Optimal Cycle: 85 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Ignore Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 15 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0. 1 0 0 • 0 00 1 0 1! 0 1
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1224 1723 0 1272 575 0 0 0 606 0 746
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1224 0 0 1272 575 0 0 0 606 0 746
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1224 0 0 1272 575 0 0 0 606 0 746
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1224 0 0 1272 575 0 0 0 606 0 746
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1224 0 0 1272 575 0 0 0 606 0 746
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 190O 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.55 Final Sat.: 0 3610 1900 0 3610 1900 0 0 0 2752 0 2948
II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.25 Crit Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.65 Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 14.6 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 22.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 14.6 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 22.0 DesignGueue: 0 29 0 0 30 14 0 0 0 19 0 23
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1844 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:16:38 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.898
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.1 Optimal Cycle: 104 Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II
Control: Permitted Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Ignore Include
Min. Green: 0 15 15 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
'I II II
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 2446 1015 551 1327 0 504 0 1786 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2446 1015 551 1327 0 504 0 0 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2446 1015 551 1327 0 504 0 0 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2446 1015 551 1327 0 504 0 0 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 2446 1015 551 1327 0 504 0 0 0 0 0
Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.47 0.53 0.15 0.37 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.17 0.76 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.79 0.90 0.90 0.48 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 17.6 28.0 58.5 4.8 0.0 60.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 17.6 28.0 58.5 4.8 0.0 60.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DesignQueue: 0 65 28 28 20 0 26 0 0 0 0 0
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1845 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:02:49 Page 1-i Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvments
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.942
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.2 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

I II II II
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

II II II
I
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 253 957 268 309 827 190 211 1073 355 217 875 257

I II II II I
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.56 0.44 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.55 0.45 Final Sat.: 1900 2820 790 3686 3610 1900 1900 3610 1900 1900 2790 820

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.23 0.10 0.11 0.30 0.19 0.11 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.35 0.94 0.91 0.57 0.91 0.94 0.94 Delay/Veh: 62.4 50.6 50.6 89.1 44.7 34.6 96.6 49.6 34.9 87.5 53.2 53.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 62.4 50.6 50.6 89.1 44.7 34.6 96.6 49.6 34.9 87.5 53.2 53.2 DesignQueue: 15 45 12 19 42 9 13 52 17 13 42 12
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1846 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:03:59 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvments
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / 14th St. (EW)
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.940
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 50.8 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 15 15 10 15 15 10 20 20 10 20 20
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1

II II II
Volume Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.35 0.15 0.09 0.36 0.08 0.10 0.29 0.13 0.07 0.31 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.94 0.41 0.94 0.95 0.21 0.94 0.83 0.38 0.85 0.94 0.68 Delay/Veh: 75.7 49.2 28.3 86.8 49.6 24.9 100.1 40.3 29.6 73.3 53.2 37.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 75.7 49.2 28.3 86.8 49.6 24.9 100.1 40.3 29.6 73.3 53.2 37.8 DesignQueue: 16 58 13 20 59 6 11 49 11 16 54 20
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1847 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:08:26 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
**********************************************************************.********** Intersection #3 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. WB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.975
Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.1 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: C
******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Ignore Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 15 15 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Q 1! 0 1
Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1754 992 0 1283 1043 0 0 0 1115 0 893
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1754 0 0 1283 1043 0 0 0 1115 0 893
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1754 0 0 1283 1043 0 0 0 1115 0 893
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1754 0 0 1283 1043 0 0 0 1115 0 893
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1754 0 0 1283 1043 0 0 0 1115 0 893

II II II
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.00 1.44 Final Sat.: 0 3610 1900 0 3610 1900 0 0 0 2955 0 2745

II II II
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.33 Crit Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.84 Delay/Veh: 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 18.4 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.0 36.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 18.4 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.0 36.3 DesignQueue: 0 58 0 0 41 36 0 0 0 51 0 40
******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1848 of 2775 ends

MITIG8 - Default Scenario Sat Mar 24, 2001 13:09:41 Page 1-1 Noble Creek Specific Plan
Buildout With Project With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Beaumont Ave. (NS) / I-10 Fwy. EB Ramps (EW) ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.842
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.5 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: B
******************************************************************************** Approach:

Movement:

North Bound
South Bound East Bound West Bound

L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
Control: Permitted Protected
Rights: Include Include
Min. Green: 0 15 15 10 15
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0.

Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 2517
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 2517
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2517
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2517
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: O2517
Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 3.00
Final Sat.: 0 5187
Permitted
Ignore
0 0 0
0 2 0. 0 0
II
Permitted
Include
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
985 568 1883 0 219 0 1862 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
985 568 1883 0 219 0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
985 568 1883 0 219 0 0 0
0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 0
985 568 1883 0 219 0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
985 568 1883 0 219 0 0 0
II II Il
1900 1900

1.00 0.97

1.00 2.00
1900 3686
Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.49 0.52
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.62 0.62
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.79 0.84
Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.3 16.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 11.3 16.2
DesignGueue: 0 42 17
******************************************************************************** 1900

0.95 2.00
3610
1900 1900 1900

1.00 0.97 1.00

0.00 2.00 0.00
0 3686 0
1900 1900

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00
1900 0
0 1.00
0 1.00

1.00 0
0 0

1.00 1.00
0 0

1.00 0

1.00 1.00
0 0
0 1.00

1.00 0
1900

1.00 0.00
0 1900

1.00 0.00
0 0.15 0.52 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
**** ****

0.18 0.80 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.84 0.65 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

36.6 3.5 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

36.6 3.5 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 17 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE

Page 1849 of 2775 ends

F. AIR QUALITY IMPACT URBEMIS7G

MODELING

Page 1850 of 2775 ends

Page: 1
URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0
File Name:

Project Name:

Project Location:

C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 7G For Windows\Projects\noble.urb Noble Creek Vistas
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)

DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Winter)
Total Land Use Area to be Developed (Estimated): 193 acres Retail/Office/Institutional Square Footage: 0
Single Family Units: 965 Multi -family Units: 0

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
Source
Demolition
Site Grading
Const. Worker Trips
Stationary Equip
Mobile Equip. - Gas
Mobile Equip. - Diesel
Architectural Coatings
Asphalt Offgassing
T0TALS(lbs/day, unmitigated)

3.29 5.70

1.85 0.00

4.24 0.00

0.00 15.08
ROG NOx CO PM10
- - - 0.00

30.86 - 102.56

8.06 15.29 1.55

1.51 - 0.09

0.00 - 0.00

58.00 - 3.57

98.43 15.29 107.76
SOX

3.06 0.02

0.00 3.60

6.68

Page 1851 of 2775 ends

Page: 3
Changes made to the default values for Construction
The asphalt option switch changed from on to off.

The architectural coating option switch changed from on to off.

The construction year changed from 2000 to 2010.
1 The construction mitigation measure option switch changed from on to off.

The site grading max daily acreage estimate changed from to 10.

The site grading annual days earth moving changed from 250 to 22.

The site grading tracked loader total vehicles changed from to 2.

The site grading tracked loader hours/day changed from 8 to 6.

The site grading wheeled loader total vehicles changed from to 2.

The site grading wheeled loader hours/day changed from 8 to 4.

The site grading motor grader total vehicles changed from to 2.

The site grading motor grader hours/day changed from 8 to 4.

The worker construction year changed from 2000 to 2005.

The stationary equipment equipment units changed from 2 to 11.

The mobile diesel fork lift 175 HP total vehicles changed from to 4.

The mobile diesel fork lift 175 HP hours/day changed from 8 to 4.

The mobile diesel truck: off hwy total vehicles changed from to 2.

The mobile diesel truck: off hwy hours/day changed from 8 to 4.

Changes made to the default values for Area
The wood stove option switch changed from on to off.

The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off.

Mitigation measure Orient Buildings North/South: Rsdntl Space Heat. has been changed from off to on.

Mitigation measure Increase Insulation Beyond Title 24: Rsdntl Space Heat. has been changed from off to on.

Changes made to the default values for Operations
The pass by trips option switch changed from on to off.

The mitigation option switch changed from on to off.

The operational emission year changed from 2000 to 2010.

The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 232.

The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 116.

The double counting other trip limit changed from to 812.

The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both

Page 1852 of 2775 ends

Top 4 Hourly Ozone Measurements
http:// wvw.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2 www.exe/adamquery.macBrancl View this
page for
another
pollutant:

Start
Over:

Data
Statistics
Home
Search (SiteMap (Software
Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly AMIN
Ozone Measurements
and Number of Days Above the Hourly
Standards
at Banning Airport
parts per million
1998 1999
High
2nd High
3rd High
4th High
Aug 3
Aug 5
Jul 14
Aug 6

0.168

0.155
*Days > State Standard
*Days > National
Standard
**Year Coverage
75 Jun 30
Jun 29
Jun 12
Jun 28

0.144

0.141
55 5
97 2000
Sep 19
Jun 13
Aug 5
Jun 4

0.138

0.137

0.129

0.125
53 4
100
�— Go Backward a Year

IIIEZEZEMID
* The number of days at least one measurement was greater than the level of the state hourly standard (0.09 parts per million) or the national hourly standard (0.12 parts per million). The number of days above the standard is not
necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.
** Year Coverage is an indicator of how extensive monitoring was during the time of year when high pollutant
concentrations are expected. Year coverage ranges from 0 to 100. For example, a Year Coverage of 75 indicates that monitoring occurred 75% of the time when high pollutant concentrations are expected. For the current year, Year Coverage will be 0 at the beginning of the year and will increase as the data for the year become available.
1 of 1

Page 1853 of 2775 ends

04/10/2001 2:59 Pk

Top 4 Eight -Hour Carbon Monoxide Averages
http://www . arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2 www.exeladamquery.mac/B--nci View this
page for
another
pollutant:

Start
Over:

Data
Statistics
Home
ABM
(ARS Home (AQD Home t siteklap
Highest 4 Daily Maximum
8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide
Averages
and Number of Days Above the 8 -Hour
Standards
at Riverside-Rubidoux
parts per million
1998 1999
High
2nd High
3rd High
4th High
Dec 30
Dec 31
Nov 25
Nov 24

4.78 4.10

3.88 3.79
*Days > State Standard
*Days > Nat'l Standard
**Year Coverage
Jan 7
Jan 5
Jan 18
Jan 13

4.43 3.60
98 2000
Jan 10
Jan 9
Feb 9

3.63 3.43

3.09 2.99
0 54
M Go Backward a Year G Fomeallialreat
* The number of days at least one non -overlapping 8 -hour average was greater than the level of the state 8 -hour standard (9.0 parts per million) or the national 8 -hour standard (9 parts per million). The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.
** Year Coverage is an indicator of how extensive monitoring was during the time of year when high pollutant
concentrations are expected. Year coverage ranges from 0 to 100. For example, a Year Coverage of 75 indicates that monitoring occurred 75% of the time when high pollutant concentrations are expected. For the current year, Year Coverage will be 0 at the beginning of the year and will increase as the data for the year become available.

Page 1854 of 2775 ends

1 of 1 04/10/2001 3:01 PD

Top 4 Daily PM10 Measurements http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2ww...olumn=&MeasureNo=5&se1_SummaryType=situ 2 of 2

Page 1855 of 2775 ends

04/10/2001 3:04 Pl

G. SCAG POLICIES CONSISTENCY

ASSESSMENT

Page 1856 of 2775 ends

APPENDIX +G -SLAG POLICY

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
Consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) February 20, 2001 response to the project NOP, the following discussions specifically cite policies listed in the SCAG NOP response, and address the manner in which the project is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies. Specifically, the following discussion evaluate of the project's consistency with applicable regional land use plans/policies, and with the City of Beaumont's General Plan goals, objectives and supporting policies. Each policy discussion concludes with a finding of consistency or inconsistency of the project with stated plans and/or policies. This finding of consistency/inconsistency is considered a preliminary interpretation only.

The City of Beaumont, through the public hearing process, is responsible for making the final determination of project consistency. Based on the following discussions, the project is considered to be substantially consistent with applicable regional plans/policies and with relevant City General Plan Land Use Element Goals, Objectives and Policies.

Consistency with Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies Policy Statement 3.01: The population, housing and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. The SCAG forecasts presented in Table G-1 are based on ultimate Buildout of the City, including the City Sphere of Influence (SOI) consistent with the adopted/updated General Plan. As relevant, SCAG population, housing, and jobs forecasts were employed in analyses presented in the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan EIR. The project is considered consistent with Policy Statement 3.01.

Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix G -Page 1

Page 1857 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Table G-1
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Population, Housing and Employment Projections
2000 2005 2010 2015
WRCOG
2020
Population 1,315,300 1,564,900 1,814,100 2,033,900 2,204,000 Employment 366,700 454,800 563,200 644,900 740,300
Households 424,600 504,800 585,000 647,800 730,900
City of Beaumont
Population
Employment
Households
18,500 26,600 34,700 41,800
6,900 10,300 13,800 16,600
6,200 9,700 11,200 13,200
Source: SCAG, 1998 RTP Adopted Forecast, from NOP Response Letter dated February 20, 2001. 49,200
20,100
15,800
Policy Statement 3.03: The timing, financing and location ofpublic facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. The Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan is a 322 -acre, master planned residential community placed near existing and programmed transportation, infrastructure, and all necessary supporting municipal facilities. Development of this residential community is governed by a Specific Plan, which is a detailed plan for the development of an area. The Specific Plan directs all facets of development, from the distribution of land uses to the location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, from methods of financing public improvements to development standards within the Specific Plan area.

In short, the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan governs the timing, financing and location of all needed utility and transportation systems in order to ensure that such services are provided concurrent with the need for such facilities. Through the use of a Specific Plan, the project makes best use of, and minimizes impacts to, existing infrastructure. The project will is considered consistent with Policy Statement 3.03.

Consistency with Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies Policy Statement 4.01: Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators:

Mobility - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient and economical movements of people and goods. • Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes - 22 minutes • PM Peak Highway Speed - 33 mph
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (All Trips) - 33 percent SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Appendix G -Page 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 1858 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Accessibility - Transportation Systems should ensure the ease with which opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost.
• Work Opportunities within 25 Minutes - 88 percent
Environment - Transportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips).
• Meeting Federal and State Standards - Meet Air Plan Emission Budgets Reliability - Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips). • Transit - 63 percent
• Highway - 76 percent
Safety - Transportation Systems should provide minimal, risk, accident, death and injury. (All Trips).
•
•
Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0.008
Injury Accidents - 0.929
Livable Communities - Transportation Systems should facilitate Livable Communities in which all residents have access to opportunities with minimal travel time. (All Trips). • Vehicle Trip Reduction -1.5 percent
• Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction -10.0 percent
Equity - The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All Trips).
• Low -Income (Household Income $12,000) Share of Net Benefits - Equitable Distribution of Benefits
Cost Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment. (All Trips). • Net Present Value - Maximum Return on Transportation Investment • Value of a Dollar Invested - Maximum Return on Transportation Investment A comprehensive project traffic study was prepared for the proposed project, and was the basis for traffic impacts analysis presented in this Draft EIR. The full analysis is included as Appendix E to this document.

Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix G -Page 3

Page 1859 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

The projected level of mass transit use by patrons and employees of the proposed Specific Plan is speculative. The traffic study assessed potential impacts to the roadway system without any special mass transit consideration. The traffic impact analysis clearly demonstrates that the presented mitigation measures will reduce potential traffic impacts of the project below levels of significance.

Compliance with SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators, are discussed below.

Mobility: The project has direct access to major arterial roadways, State Routes 60 and 79 and the Interstate 10 Freeway corridor, facilitating mobility of Specific Plan residents.

Accessibility/Liveable Communities: Consistent with the above discussion on "mobility," the proposed Specific Plan area is proximate to existing employment opportunities in The City of Beaumont. Further, within a an approximate 25 -mile radius defined by Palm Springs to the west, Hemet to the south and San Bernardino and Riverside to the east, other cities offer employment opportunities available to the Specific Plan residents. These job opportunities are well served by existing arterial highways that interconnect the subarea and the entire Inland Empire Environment: As presented in the project Specific Plan, the proposed development represents an efficient and complementary land use, especially in relation to the use of roadway and other existing or programmed infrastructure. The project will logically provide access to the surrounding region via the existing and planned highway system. The project site is also readily accessible to vicinity patrons via the existing local circulation system. The project is conveniently located in relation to its identified market area. Siting of the project as described reduces vehicle travel miles and associated air pollutants.

Reliability: The project site is located proximate to established transit services. As described above and in the project Traffic Study, the subject site has direct access to a highly -developed subregional and regional roadway system. The City of Beaumont and other WRCOG members have coordinated a backbone system of arterial and major roadways that will help assure reasonable and dependable levels of service for private and mass transit vehicles.

Safety: There are clear and obvious elements proposed in the Specific Plan design and/or required by existing City, County and State design standards, which provide empirical information sufficient to characterize the project as having a diminished risk of accident, death and injury. Please refer also to the project Specific Plan, the attached Initial Study, the assessment of potential geologic hazards SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Appendix G -Page 4 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 1860 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.
presented in EIR Section 4.2, the analysis of potential flood hazards/water resources impacts presented in EIR Section 4.3, and the analysis of potential traffic and circulation impacts presented in EIR Section 4.6. Please refer also to the relating supporting EIR technical appendices.

Equity: Implementation of the project will require and facilitate transportation improvements on abutting roadways, as well as at regionally significant intersections. Improvements resulting from the project will be equally available to all residents of the City and region.

Cost -Effectiveness: Implementation of the project transportation improvements consistent with the design presented in the Specific Plan, and the area -wide improvements plan recommended by the Beaumont Traffic Model and Capital Improvements Program(s) adopted by the City facilitates comprehensive, coordinated planing of transportation improvements, minimizing redundant or inefficient efforts, thereby and maximizing returns on transportation investments.

As supported by the preceding discussions, the project is consistent with the Policy Statement 4.01.

Policy Statement 4.02: Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. Potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts related to the proposed project have been addressed and mitigated, where applicable, in the Draft EIR for the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan. Please refer also to EIR Section 4.6, and the project Traffic Study presented in EIR Appendix E. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 4.02.

Policy Statement 4.04: Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority.

Please refer also to EIR Section 4.6, and the project Traffic Study presented in EIR Appendix E. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 4.04.

Policy Statement 4.16: Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity. The proposed project represents buildout of the City consistent with the adopted/updated General Plan. To a large degree the project will utilize existing roadways and/or previously planned/programmed roadway improvements as reflected in the General Plan Circulation Element, as modified by updates to the Beaumont Traffic Model. Improvements required by the project are incorporated in the Beaumont Traffic Model as revised to incorporate the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan. The proposed project is substantially consistent with Policy Statement 4.16.

Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix G -Page 5

Page 1861 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Consistency with Growth Management Policies Related to the Regional Comprehensive Plan Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Living
Policy Statement 3.04: Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. As presented in EIR Section 4.1.2.3, "Population, Employment, and Housing," projected employment/housing trends for the County, WRCOG, and the City indicate a continuing "imbalance" within the subregion, although the degree of imbalance will be alleviated to some extent by an anticipated long-term influx of jobs. SCAG projections for the region anticipate that housing -rich areas will persist in the Inland Empire and peripheral areas of northern Los Angeles County and southern Orange County, with the majority of job creation occurring in central/southern Los Angeles and Orange counties.

The proposed project would contribute more to the housing side of the jobs/housing equation, and in this sense would not alleviate the projected continuation of the housing/jobs imbalance within the subregion. Housing created by the project is however, consistent with SCAG projected housing/employment trends for the City and region. Further, as indicated by SCAG projections, by 2020 the City will approximate SCAG's regionally established employment/housing balance.

Policy Statement 3.05: Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities; Policy Statement

3.09: Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources offending for development and the provision of services.

Please refer to the Specific Plan, and EIR Sections 4.9 "Utilities/Public Services/Energy," and 7.0 "Alternatives Analysis." The project is consistent with Policy Statements 3.05 and 3.09.

Policy Statement 3.10: Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. Future development within the Specific Plan area that is in substantial conformance with the development standards and land use regulations of the Specific Plan may proceed with minimal additional entitlement enactments.

For example, the EIR adopted for a Specific Plan may streamline the processing of subsequent discretionary actions by obviating the need for additional environmental documentation. Further, the Specific Plan is an inclusive document wherein development policies, land use regulations, capital improvement programs, and financing methods are all contained in one location, thereby facilitating reference to applicable regulations governing a specific aspect of the development proposal. The project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.10.

SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Appendix G -Page 6 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 1862 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Consistency with Growth Management Policies Related to the Regional Comprehensive Plan Goal to Improve the Regional Quality of Life
Policy Statement 3.12: Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. The proposed project includes land uses that are consistent with the Circulation Element of the Beaumont General Plan's goals and policies supporting the development of public transportation facilities, and providing a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Further the Specific Plan incorporates bike, pedestrian and equestrian trails and paths. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.12.

Policy Statement 3.13: Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment; Policy Statement 3.14:

Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. Transit opportunities within the City of Beaumont are provided primarily by Dial -A -Ride Service. Regional transit is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency, which provides buses from the corner of 14th Street and Beaumont Avenue hourly, from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The nearest transfer point is approximately 15 minutes away, at San Gorgonio Hospital on Highland Springs Road. The project will have no adverse impact on the provision of this transit service, and future residents of the Noble Creek Vistas community will be well positioned to take advantage of existing transit opportunities. Additionally, a new transit stop is recommended at the project Cougar Way - Beaumont Avenue intersection. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statements 3.13 and

3.14. Policy Statement 3.16: Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.

Please refer to the Specific Plan and consistency statements for policies 3.05, 3.09, 3.13, 3.14, and

4.01. Policy Statement 3.17: Support and encourage settlement patterns which contain a range of urban densities. The Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan will provide low density, single-family residences, consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site.

Elsewhere within the City and region, varied urban densities are evident. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.17.

Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix G -Page 7

Page 1863 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Policy Statement 3.18: Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact. Please refer to the consideration of project alternatives, Section 7 of this EIR. The project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.18.

Policy Statement 3.19: Support policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state and federal plans. The project will not affect open space areas identified in local, state and federal plans. The project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.19.

Policy Statement 3.20: Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. Please refer to the discussion of hydrology/water resources presented in EIR Section

4.3, and the discussion of biologic resources presented in EIR Section 4.5.

Policy Statement 3.21: Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. The project site is devoid of recorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. Please refer to EIR Section 4.4 "Cultural Resources." As yet unknown historic resources that may be identified in the course of project implementation will be avoided, or appropriately relocated and preserved. Appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed to address any potentially significant impacts to paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.21.

Policy Statement 3.22: Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood and seismic hazards. The project site does not contain steep slopes, nor is it considered especially susceptible to high fire danger or seismic hazards. Design of the project together with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures will protect structures from potential seismic/geologic hazards and potential flooding of Noble Creek. Please refer also to the Specific Plan and EIR Sections 4.2, "Earth Resources" and 4.3, "Hydrology/Water Resources." The proposed project is substantially consistent with Policy Statement 3.22.

Policy Statement 3.23: Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. Each of these issues is addressed in this EIR (please refer to Section SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Appendix G -Page 8 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 1864 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

4.02, "Earth Resources"; Section 4.05, "Biologic Resources"; Section 4.08, "Noise"; and Section

4.10, "Public Services). Mitigation measures have been developed and will be implemented where appropriate. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.23.

Consistency with Growth Management Policies Related to the Regional Comprehensive Plan Goal to Provide Social, Political and Cultural Equity
Policy Statement 3.24: Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation ofprograms that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The proposed project will, upon buildout, provide 965 single-family residences to meet the population demands of the City and region as projected by the General Plan and SCAG's growth management plan. Affordable housing is not included as a component of this project but its provision is appropriately addressed in the City General Plan Housing Element. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.24.

Policy Statement 3.27: Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. Upon approval, the proposed project would be annexed into the City of Beaumont, where all residents have an equal opportunity to obtain all available public services. Please refer also to EIR Section 4.9, "Utilities/Public Services/Energy." The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 3.27.

Air Quality Chapter Core Actions
Policy Statement 5.07: Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community -based shuttle services, provision of demand management -based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. Please refer to the above previous discussions of the relevant SCAG policies and consistency statements and the EIR in total. More specifically, please refer to the project mitigation measures summary presented in EIR Section 1.0, "Executive Summary." The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 5.07.

Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix G -Page 9

Page 1865 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Policy Statement 5.11: Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. Potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts relative to Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality have been addressed and mitigated, where applicable, in the Draft EIR for the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 5.11.

Water Quality Chapter Recommendations and Policy Options Policy Statement 11.02: Encourage "Watershed Management" programs and strategies, recognizing theprimary role of local governments in such efforts; Policy Statement 11.06: Clean up the contamination in the region's major groundwater aquifers since its water supply is critical to the long-term economic and environmental health of the region. The financing of such cleanups should leverage state and federal resources and minimize significant impacts on the local economy. Please refer to the Specific Plan and EIR Section 4.3, "Hydrology/Water Resources." The project is consistent with Policy Statements 11.02 and 11.06.

Policy Statement 11.05: Support regional efforts to identify and cooperatively plan for wetlands to facilitate both sustaining the amount and quality of wetlands in the region and expediting the process for obtaining wetlands permits. Please refer to the Specific plan and EIR Sections 4.3, "Hydrology/Water Resources," and 4.5, "Biologic Resources." The project is consistent with Policy Statement 11.05.

Policy Statement 11.07: Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost- effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. The City actively employs recycled/reclaimed water where appropriate. Please refer also to the Specific Plan, EIR Section 4.3, "Water Resources," and EIR Section 4.9, "Utilities/Public Services/Energy." The project is consistent with Policy Statement 11.07.

SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Appendix G -Page 10 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 1866 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Policy Statement 11.08: Ensure wastewater treatment agency facility planning and facility development be consistent with population projection contained in the RCPG, while taking into account the need to build wastewater treatment facilities in cost-effective increments of capacity, the need to build well enough in advance to reliably meet unanticipated service and storm water demands, and the need to provide standby capacityforpublic safety and environmental protection objectives. Please refer to the Specific Plan, EIR Section 4.3, "Water Resources," and EIR Section

4.9, "Utilities/Public Services/Energy." The project is consistent with Policy Statement 11.08.

Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals - Outdoor Recreation Policy Statement 9.01: Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region; Policy Statement 9.02: Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation; Policy Statement 9.03: Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities. The proposed project contains approximately 49 acres of parks and open space including connecting bike, pedestrian, and equestrian paths and trails. Parklands and improved open space provided by the project is more than double State Quimby Act or City requirements for parkland dedications.

Parklands proposed by the project will be either naturally self-sustaining unimproved open spaces, or will be improved and maintained by H0A' s and/or CFD 's structured and implemented concurrent with approval of the project. Please refer also to the Specific Plan and EIR 4.9, "Utilities/Public Services/Energy." The proposed project is consistent with Policy Statement 9.01.

Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals - Public Health and Safety Policy Statement 9.04: Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards; Policy Statement 9.05: Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment; Policy Statement 9.06:

Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed. The project does not propose habitable structures within areas of known hazards. Potential seismic effects and flood hazards are mitigated as outlined in EIR Sections 4.2 and 4.3 respectively. Adequate areas clear of flammable growth will be maintained around residential structures consistent with Riverside County Fire Department requirements, thereby reducing potential wildfire hazards. The project site is currently accessible to emergency equipment, and the project does not propose elements or aspects that would adversely affect emergency access. The project is consistent with Policy Statements 9.04, 9.05 and 9.06.

Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix G -Page 11

Page 1867 of 2775 ends

Applied Planning, Inc.

Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals - Resource Production Policy Statement 9.07: Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations. The proposed Specific Plan site is has limited agricultural value, and is not defined by the State as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Limited sand and gravel mining currently occurs within the project site, however, no mineral resources are known to exist on the project site that would be of State or regional importance. The project is consistent with Policy Statement 9.07.

Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals - Resource Protection Policy Statement 9.08: Develop well -managed, viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands. Please refer to the Specific plan and the discussion of biologic resources presented in EIR Section 4.5. The project is consistent with Policy Statement 9.08
SCAG Policies Consistency Analysis Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Appendix G -Page 12 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 1868 of 2775 ends

H. WATER SERVICE ASSESSMENT

Page 1869 of 2775 ends

Project Water Supply Agreement

Page 1870 of 2775 ends

WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY

AND THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
DRAFT
8-8-03
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 1st day of September, 2003, by and between the SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY, a public agency (the "Pass Agency"), and THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, a municipal corporation ("Beaumont").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Pass Agency was formed by special act of the California Legislature (Stats. 1961, ch. 1435, West's Water Code Appendix §§101-1 et seq. "the SGPWA Act"), which granted it express authority to "contract with the State of California for delivery of water under the State Water Plan." (Water Code Appendix § 101.15); and, WHEREAS, the SGPWA Act further provides that it was the intent of the Legislature that, "in allocating water received from the State Water Project ... the highest priority shall be given to eliminating groundwater overdraft conditions within any agency or district receiving the water"; and,
WHEREAS, a study conducted by the Pass Agency indicates that there is currently an overdraft condition within the Beaumont Basin; the groundwater basin from which water is extracted to serve the City of Beaumont; and,
WHEREAS, Beaumont desires to participate with the Pass Agency in measures to address the overdraft condition with the ultimate goal of eliminating the continuing overdraft and providing sufficient water supplies to permit growth within its area; and WHEREAS, the Pass Agency has recently completed the initial phases of its East Branch Extension Project, which consists of a pipeline, pumping stations and other facilities, to transmit State Water Project water into the Pass Agency and into spreading grounds capable of percolating a portion of the State Water Project supply water into the Beaumont Basin for replenishment of the groundwater basin; and, WHEREAS, the capacity of the East Branch Extension pipeline is sufficient ultimately to import the Pass Agency's Table A allocation of the State Water Project water of 17,300 acre-feet per year which, by a combination of direct groundwater replenishment and by surface deliveries in -lieu of pumping by groundwater producers, is expected to completely eliminate the current overdraft condition and to provide a sufficient supply to avoid future overdraft as a result of new development within the Pass Agency's jurisdiction; and,

Page 187 ends

WHEREAS, The Pass Agency has commenced a program to percolate 2,000 acre-feet of State Water Project water per year into the Beaumont Basin, but lacks sufficient funding to purchase additional State Water Project water to expand its groundwater replenishment program; and,
WHEREAS, the Pass Agency is currently limited at this stage of its program to completely eliminate the overdraft of the Beaumont Basin, by the capacity of its spreading facilities, but the Pass Agency does have sufficient capacity for percolating a limited amount of additional State Water Project water with funding made available to the Pass Agency by Beaumont; and,
WHEREAS, Beaumont has received an application for development approval for the Noble Creek Vista Specific Plan Project ("Project"), comprised of 965 residential units, which is proposed to be supplied water by the retail water purveyor by increasing the pumping from the Beaumont Basin; and,
WHEREAS, each residential unit of the Project is expected to create an additional demand of .64 acre-feet per year, per unit for a total demand of 618 acre-feet annually for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the purchase of 618 acre-feet per year of imported State Water Project water for the additional demand of the Project, plus an additional 124 acre-feet per year of imported State Water Project supply, for a total of 742 acre-feet per year for replenishment of the Beaumont Basin, would offset additional pumping from the Beaumont Basin by the retail water purveyor necessary to supply the Project and would provide additional replenishment to help alleviate current overdraft conditions in accordance with the SGPWA Act; and,
WHEREAS, if the approval of the Project by Beaumont is made subject to the yearly purchase of the additional water for replenishment, the Project will not contribute to the overdraft and will promote the Pass Agency's objective of eliminating overdraft of the Beaumont Basin;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1. CONSISTENCY WITH PRIORITY FOR USE OF STATE PROJECT
SUPPLY.

The Pass Agency finds and determines that the purchase of additional imported State Water Project water for replenishment of the Beaumont Basin groundwater basin, in an amount which is calculated as 120% of the anticipated annual water demand of the Project, more than offsets the additional pumping that would be required by the retail water agency serving the Project, and that the excess replenishment will partially mitigate the

Page 1872 of 2775 ends

overdraft of the Beaumont Basin which currently exists without the proposed development. The total amount of State Water Project water to be purchased annually for groundwater replenishment in connection with the Project is 742 acre-feet per year, calculated as follows: 965 residential units x 0.64 af/unit per year = 618 acre-feet per year x 20% = 124 acre-feet per year of additional water to partially mitigate the existing overdraft. The Board of Directors of the Pass Agency therefore finds and determines that by permitting the Pass Agency to purchase and percolate into the Beaumont Storage Unit an additional 742 acre-feet per year of additional water from the State Water Project (618 acre-feet to offset the Project demand and 124 acre-feet for additional mitigation), the use of State Water Project water as provided in this Agreement is consistent with requirements of the SGPWA Act that priority for the use of water delivered under the State Water Plan be given to the elimination of overdraft.

2. PURCHASE OF WATER FOR REPLENISHMENT OF BEAUMONT

STORAGE UNIT
From and after the effective date of this agreement, the Pass Agency shall order, purchase and take delivery of 742 acre-feet per year of water from its Table A allocation under its contract with the State of California (hereinafter referred to as the "Purchased Water"), in addition to those quantities of water it would otherwise purchase to conduct its current direct replenishment and in - lieu delivery programs and such future programs that the Pass Agency may undertake with other funding sources. The Purchased Water will be used exclusively for direct replenishment of the Beaumont Basin by percolation, provided that, if direct replenishment is or becomes infeasible as a result of any cause, the Pass Agency may use said Purchased Water for surface deliveries under agreements providing for reduction of pumping in the Beaumont Basin on a one-to-one ratio to the amount of surface water delivered. Alternatively, in the Pass Agency's sole discretion, it may carry over any amount of the Purchased Water that it was not able to use for replenishment in one year to a subsequent year. In the event a portion of the Purchased Water amount is carried over to a subsequent year payment for that water will be deferred to the year in which it is actually used.

3. PAYMENT FOR PURCHASED WATER
The Pass Agency shall have sole control over the timing and method of replenishment operations whether by spreading or in lieu deliveries, including the Purchased Water. The Pass Agency shall invoice Beaumont on a semi- annual basis for the Purchased Water, at a rate that reflects all variable costs of the Purchased Water delivered to the spreading grounds, as provided in Resolution No. 2003-09 including the costs of power, operation &

Page 1 ends

maintenance, and administration. The costs invoiced to Beaumont shall not include any charges for capital facilities or debt service on capital facilities.

Beaumont shall pay for the Purchased Water within 30 days of after the Pass Agency invoices Beaumont for one-half of the total annual amount of Purchased Water provided hereunder. The rate for Purchased Water shall be adjusted annually by the Pass Agency to reflect the actual costs of providing such water in the most recent period.

4. CONSUMPTIVE USE BY THE NOBLE CREEK VISTA SPECIFIC

PLAN PROJECT
If, after completion of the Project and the connection to the retail water system, the actual recorded demand of the Project should exceed 618 (965 units x .64 af/unit) acre-feet per year, the amount of Purchased Water Beaumont is required to purchase hereunder shall be increased proportionately, so that the amount of Purchased Water exceeds actual demand by 20 %. For example, if actual water demand associated with the Project is 640 acre-feet per year, the amount Purchased Water Beaumont will be obligated to purchase in the following year shall be increased to 768 acre- feet. However, if the amount of water used by the Project is less than 618 acre-feet per year, Beaumont will nevertheless be obligated to purchase a minimum amount of 742 acre-feet per year during the term of this Agreement.

5. STATUS OF PURCHASED WATER
The Parties acknowledge that the Pass Agency's sole obligation hereunder is to purchase the 742 acre-feet per year of imported State Water Project water and use it for replenishment of the Beaumont Basin. Once the Purchased Water is used for replenishment the Pass Agency shall have no further obligation or liability with respect to the Purchased Water, including but not limited to the extraction or use of the Purchased Water for the Project or otherwise. It is the intent of this agreement that, whatever the ultimate disposition of the Purchased Water, the use of the Purchased Water for replenishment of the Beaumont Basin will more than offset the additional demand created by the Project and as a result the approval of the Project by Beaumont will not exacerbate the existing overdraft condition and will mitigate existing and future overdraft of the Beaumont Basin.

6. TERM
The term of this Agreement will commence September 1, 2003, however the obligations of the Parties will commence upon the date that final tract map approval is given for the Project by Beaumont. This Agreement will continue in effect until such time as it is determined by the Pass Agency that the Beaumont Storage Unit is no longer in overdraft.

Page 18741 of 2775 ends

7. OTHER AGREEMENTS
It is understood by the Parties that the Pass Agency may enter into other agreements and implement other programs for replenishment of the Beaumont Storage Unit groundwater basin, as funding becomes available for facilities and water purchases, and that the Purchased Water under this Agreement shall be in addition to such other replenishment activities.

8. ADDITIONAL WATER
Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the terms of any future agreements for the purchase of additional State Project Water for replenishment of the Beaumont Basin by the Pass Agency with Beaumont or any other person or entity.

9. REMEDIES FOR BREACH
In addition to other remedies the Pass Agency may have under law, damages or for collection of payments due hereunder for Purchased Water; in the event Beaumont fails or refuses to pay invoices properly submitted by the Pass Agency for Purchased Water, within 60 days after notice of delinquency from the Pass Agency, the Pass Agency may discontinue the spreading or delivery of the Purchased Water, or may reallocate the credit for the Purchased Water to any other agency which produces groundwater from the Beaumont Storage Unit, and agrees to pay for the delinquent charges. In addition, the Pass Agency may refuse to certify an adequate water supply for any future development or project for which development approval by the City of Beaumont is required, until such time as all delinquencies and other breaches have been cured, and sufficient water is replenished into the Beaumont Storage Unit to offset the water demand of all projects approved by Beaumont plus additional amounts to mitigate the overdraft, at Beaumont's sole cost and expense.

10. NOTICES
Any notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be given or delivered by personal delivery, by facsimile, or by depositing the same in the United States Mail depository, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the Party to which to notice is directed, as follows:

If to the Pass Agency:

San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
P.O. Box 520
Beaumont, CA 92223
Attn: General Manager

Page 185 of 2775 ends

If to Beaumont:

City of Beaumont
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Attn: City Manager

11. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
The potential environmental impacts of the replenishment of the Beaumont Basin provided for in this Agreement were addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Water Importation Plan adopted in April 1994, as amended per the Addendum adopted June 1996. This Agreement makes no changes or additions to the project described in the EIR as amended, therefore, no additional environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act.

12. INTEGRATION
This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the Parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior written or oral understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered by this Agreement.

13. INTERPRETATION AND GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and construed as if drafted by both Parties. The headings contained within this Agreement are for convenience only, and shall have no force or effect in the construction of this Agreement.

14. MODIFICATION
This Agreement may not be modified, altered or amended except in writing, signed by authorized officials of each Party.

15. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole benefit of the Parties hereto. No other person or entity shall have any right of action based upon the provisions of this Agreement.

16. ASSIGNMENT
Beaumont shall have the right to assign its interest in this Agreement to the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District, provided that such assignment shall not relieve Beaumont from any of its obligations hereunder or constitute a waiver of any remedy that the Pass Agency may have to enforce this Agreement against Beaumont or Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District or both. Except as provided herein, neither Party shall transfer this Agreement, in whole or in part, or any interest hereunder, to any other person or entity,

Page 187 ends

without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempt to transfer or assign this Agreement, or any privilege hereunder, without such written consent shall be void and confer no right on any person or entity that is not a party to this Agreement.

Dated: SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER
AGENCY
President of the Board of Directors
Dated: CITY OF BEAUMONT
Mayor
SGP WA -W atSupAgmt-Beaumont(8-7clean)

Page 1817 of 2775 ends

Project Water Supply Reimbursement
Agreement

Page 1878 of 2775 ends

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE WATER (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of September , 2003, by and between Nobel Creek Meadows, LLC ("Nobel Creek"), Leonard B. Olinger Family Trust ("Olinger"), and D. Donald Lonie ("Lonie") (collectively, "Developers"), and the City of Beaumont, a municipal corporation (the "City").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Developers have applied for development approval for the Noble Creek Vista Specific Plan Project ("Project"), comprising of 965 residential units ("Residential Units"); WHEREAS, Nobel Creek owns the property within the Project identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 406-070-024 upon which 333 of the Residential Units will be constructed; WHEREAS, Olinger owns the property within the Project identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 406-070-021 upon which 298 of the Residential Units will be constructed; WHEREAS, Lonie owns the property within the Project identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 406-080-010 upon which 201 of the Residential Units will be constructed; WHEREAS, 133 of the Residential Units are to be constructed on the property within the Project identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 406-130-007 and which and is not owned by Developers ("Non -Owned Units");
WHEREAS, Developers have proposed that the Project be supplied water from the Beaumont Basin, which is the groundwater basin from which water is extracted to serve the City; WHEREAS, the City has, subject to approval of the Project and Developers' agreement to reimburse the City, entered into an agreement with the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, a public agency (the "Pass Agency") under which the City agrees to purchase 742 acre-feet per year for the replenishment of the Beaumont Basin (a copy of the Water Supply Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by this reference); WHEREAS, Developers, subject to the approval of the Project, desire to purchase 618 acre-feet per year for use by the Project ("Project Water Supply") subject to a pro rata off set for each Residential Unit which is "Transferred," as that term is defined herein; WHEREAS, the City, subject to the approval of the Project, desires to provide the Project Water Supply to the Project; all as more particularly described in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing promises, the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Developers and the City hereby covenant and agree as follows:
293312.
1 a•al

Page 1879 of 2775 ends

98217 18E 606 dno..4J tltyey
dLQ=20 £0 80 100

1. Purchase of Project Water Supply. Subject to the approval of the Project, the City agrees to provide and continue to provide the Project with the Project Water Supply_ Subject to the approval of the Project, the Developers agree to reimburse the City for the Project Water Supply in the amount of $92,640 per year (617.6 acre feet per year x $150 per acre foot).

Developers agree that this amount is in addition to the fees to be paid by Developers for the facilities necessary to provide the Project Water Supply. Developers shall reimburse the City for the Project Water Supply provided each year by no later than January 31St of the following year_ The amount to be reimbursed by each Developer (subject to reduction pursuant to Section 2) shall be as follows:

Developer Name
Annual Amount Due
Nobel Creek
$36,224
Olinger
$32,864
Lonie
$23,552
Total Amount Due
$92,640

2. Reduction of Reimbursement as Residential Units Receive Water Meters. The City agrees that the cost of the Project Water Supply will ultimately be borne by owners of the Residential Units. Accordingly, at the end of each year, the Developers' total annual payment amount will be decreased basedupon the number of Residential Units that have been "Transferred" within the previous year. Once such reduction is made, the Developers will have no further obligation to pay for that portion of the Project Water Supply. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Transferred" means that a water meter has been paid for and installed in the Residential Unit. The reduction in payment will be applied as between Developers as follows:

2.1. Units Owned by Developers. A Developer shall receive a $96 reduction to its Project Water Supply payment for each Residential Unit on that Developer's property which is Transferred in the previous year.

2.2. Non -Owned Units. Each of the three Developers will receive $32 reduction to its Project Water Supply payment for each Non -Owned Unit which is Transferred in the previous year.

3. Completion of Fewer than 965 Residential Units. The Project, as currently proposed, consists of 965 Residential Units. However, the parties agree that should the Project be lawfully completed with fewer than 965 Residential Units, Developers shall have no obligation to reimburse the City for the Project Water Supply once all Residential Units within the Project, as built, have been Transferred.

4. Right to Require Water Supply from Other Source. The City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, obtain the Project Water Supply from a source other than Pass Agency. 293312,1
6'd 9BZ' T86 606
2

Page 1880 of 2775 ends

dnoJ9 T4iyel dLO: O co 80 l°O

5. Assignment. This Agreement may be assigned to the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District in the City's sole and absolute discretion. A Developer may, without the approval of the City, assign this Agreement to (a) an affiliated entity of such Developer, or (b) to any person or entity in the event of the sale or transfer of such Developer's portion of the Project to such person or entity. All other assignments by any of the Developers shall require the written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. All other assignments by the City shall require the written consent of the Developers, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

6. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of each of the parties hereto.

7. Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach whether of the same of another provision of this Agreement.

8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed, enforced and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

10. No Oblization to Third Parties. The execution and delivery of this Agreement shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon, nor obligate either of the parties hereto to any person or entity not a party to this Agreement.
1I. Complete Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior negotiation, discussions or communications by and between the City and the Developers and constitutes the entire agreement between the City and the Developers with respect to the subject matter hereof.

12. Amendments in Writing. The provisions of this Agreement may not be altered except by a written instrument duly executed by each of the parties hereto.

13. Notices. All notices, demands or other communications given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly delivered upon the receipt by facsimile transmission as evidenced by a receipt transmission report, or upon the delivery by overnight express delivery service, addressed as follows:
293312.1
If to Nobel Creek, to:

Nobel Creek Meadows, LLC
577 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Attn.: Jack Vander Woude
Fax: (909) 381-4286
3 •d

Page 1881 of 2775 ends

98Zt' T BE 606 dno..l9 t i ye j
d80:a0 60 8Q qoo

If to Olinger:

If to Lonie:

If to City:

Leonard B. Olinger Family Trust
462 N. Linden Drive #435
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Attn.: Leonard B. Olinger
Fax:

D. Donald Lonie
411 West State St., Suite B
Redlands, CA 92373
Attn.:

Fax:

City of Beaumont
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Attn.: City Manager
Fax:

14. Interpretation. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and preparation by and among the parties. The parties therefore expressly acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall not be deemed prepared or drafted by one party or another, or its attorneys, and will be construed accordingly.
[This Space Intentionally Left Blank; Signatures Begin On The Next Page] 293312.1
S ' d 98211 I8E 606
4

Page 1882 of 2775 ends

dnoJ9 d80:20 BO 80 100

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developers have caused this Agreement to be executed and sealed, all the day and year first written above.

DEVELOPERS: NOBEL CREEK MEADOW, LLC
By:

Name:

Title:

LEONARD B. OLINGER FAMILY TRUST
By:

Name:

Title:

D. DONALD LONIE
By:

Name:

Title:

CITY: THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, a municipal
corporation
By:

Name:

Title:
2933111
5

Page 1883 of 2775 ends

9'd Seat. 186 606 dnoaj igtye1
d80=Z0 CO 80 400

EXHIBIT A

WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
(See Attached)
293312.1
L'd 982b 186 606
A-1

Page 1884 of 2775 ends

dnoa9 iligel d80=Z0 80 80 400

Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1885 of 2775 ends

PARSONS
100 West Walnut Street • Pasadena, California 91124 • (626) 440-2000 • Fax: (626) 440-2630 • www.parsons.com August 7, 2002
Mr. Charles J. Butcher
General Manager
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
560 Magnolia Avenue
Beaumont, CA 92223
Subject: Final 2000 Urban Water Management Plan update, (August 2002)" Dear Mr. Butcher:

Parsons is pleased to submit the Final Urban Water Management Plan Update (UWMP) dated August, 2002. It incorporates the necessary revisions and reorganization of the Draft UWMP. Enclosed are 10 copies of the Final UWMP for your use and distribution. After final adoption by the Board of Directors at the next scheduled meeting, a copy should be submitted to the State. Prior to submitting the State's copy, the final resolution needs to be inserted into Appendix B and the placeholder removed.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 626-440-6211 or Joy de Graaf at 626-440- 6071.

Very truly yours,
seph C. Reichenberger, P.E.

District Engineer
o0F E SS/0
O PGE I C `', \
fr
xP. 6-30-05
J`]9 C /
CF CAU\F��

Page 1887 of 2775 ends

FINAL
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
560 N. MAGNOLIA AVENUE
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA 92220
AUGUST 2002

Page 1888 of 2775 ends

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pg
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND BASIS FOR PLANNING 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.2 LAw 1-1

1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1-2
1A PUBLIC HEARING 1-2

1.5 ADOPTION RESOLUTION 1-2

1.6 AGENCY COORDINATION 1-2

1.6.1 LAw 1-2

1.6.2 COORDINATION WITHIN THE DISTRICT 1-2

1.6.3 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL AGENCIES 1-3

1.6.4 FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH LOCAL AGENCIES 1-5

1.6.5 SETTLEIMIENTAGREEMENT WITH YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1-5

1.7 SUPPLIER SERVICE AREA 1-5

1.7.1 LAW 1-5

1.7.2 DESCRIPTION 1-5

1.7.3 CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS 1-8

1.7.4 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 1-8

1.8 PROJECT TEAM 1-13

1.9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1-13
SECTION.2 WATER SOURCES 2-1

2.1 LAw
1-1

2.2 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES 2-1

2.2.1 ULTIMATE SUPPLY SOURCES 2-1

2.2.2 EXISTING AND PLANNED SUPPLY SOURCES 9-2

2.2.3 GROUNDWATER 2-5

2.2.4 SURFACE WATER 2-7

2.2.5 RECYCLED WATER 2-10

2.2.6 I,VIPORTED WATER 2-11

2.3 2.4

TRANSFER OR EXCHANGE OPPORTUNITIES

SUMMARY
7-12
SECTION 3 WATER USE 3-1

3.1 LAW 3-1

3.2 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER USE 3-1

3.2.1 PAST AND CURRENT WATER USE 3-1

3.2.2 PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS BY LAND DEVELOPMENT

3.2.3 PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS BY POPULATION 3-7
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District i August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1889 of 2775 ends

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION 3 WATER USE (CONTINUED)

3.3 POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER USERS 3-8
SECTION 4 WATER RESOURCE RELIABILITY 4-1

4.1 LAw 4-1

4.2 RELIABILITY 4-1

4.3 FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE OF SUPPLY DEFICIENCIES 4-2

4.4 PLANS TO AFFIRM A RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY 4-2

4.5 RELIABILITY COMPARISON 4-3

4.6 INCONSISTENT WATER SOURCES 4-5

4.6.1 LAW 4-5

4.7 THREE YEAR MINIMUM WATER SUPPLY 4-6

4.7.1 LAW 4-6
SECTION 5 SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON PROVISIONS 5-1

5.1 LAW 5-1

5.2 TWENTY-FIVE YEAR COMPARIS[ON 5-1

5.2.1 SUPPLY VS. DEMAND BY POPULATION 5-1

5.2.2 SUPPLY VS. DEMAND BY LAND DEVELOPMENT. 5-3

5.2.3. SUMMARY OF WATER RESOURCE AVAILABILITY 5-5

5.3 BELOW NORMAL WATER YEAR COMPARISONS 5-5

5.3.1 SINGLE DRY YEAR COMPARISON 5-6

5.3.2 MULTIPLE DRY YEARS COMPARISON 5-6

5.4 STWMA COMPARISONS 5-7
SECTION 6 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN 6-1

6.1 LAw 6-1

6.2 PREPARATION FOR CATASTROPHIC WATER SUPPLY INTERUPTIONS 6-1

6.2.1 DROUGHT CONDITIONS 6-1

6.2.2 EARTHQUAKE OR OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS 6-2

6.2.3 CONTAMINATION 6-2

6.3 BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT EMERGENCY FACILITIES 6-2

6.4 STAGES OF ACTION 6-4

6.4.1 STAGE 1 6-4

6.4.2 STAGE ) 6-4

6.4.3 STAGE 3 6-5

6.4.4 STAGE 4 6-5

6.4.5 INIPLEMENTATION 6-5
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District ii
August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1890 of 2775 ends

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
SECTION 6 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN (CONTINUED)

6.5 METHODS OF DEMAND REDUCTION 6-5

6.5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 6-5

6.5.2 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION METHODS AND PROHIBITIONS 6-6

6.5.3 PENALTIES OR CHARGES 6-6

6.5.4 WATER USE RESTRICTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 6-6

6.6 MONITORING WATER DEMANDS & USAGE TRENDS 6-7
SECTION 7 WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 7-1

7.1 LAW 7-1

7.2 WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 7-2

7.3 BMP 1 -WATER SURVEYS PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS 7-6

7.3.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-6

7.4 BMP 2 -RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING RETROFIT 7-6

7.4.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-6

7.4.2 METHODS TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 7-6

7.4.3 ESTIMATE OF EXISTING CONSERVATION SAVINGS 7-6

7.5 BMP 3- SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAKS DETECTION AND REPAIR 7-7

7.5.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-7

7.5.2 METHODS TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 7-7

7.6 BMP 4 -METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS 7-7

7.6.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-7

7.6.2 METHODS TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 7-7

7.7 BMP 5 -LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVES 7-7

7.7.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-8

7.7.2 METHODS TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 7-8

7.7.3 ESTIMATE OF EXISTING CONSERVATION SAVINGS 7-8

7.7.4 EVALUATION 7-8

7.8 BMP 6 -HIGH -EFFICIENCY WASHING MACHINE REBATE PROGRAMS 7-8

7.9 BMP 7 -PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS 7-8

7.9.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED .IMPLEMENTATION 7-8

7.10 BMP 8 -SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 7-9

7.10.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-9

7.11 BMP 9 -CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL (CIO ACCOUNTS 7-9

7.1 1.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-9

7.11.2 METI•IODs TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 7-9

7.12 BMP 10 -WHOLESALE AGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 7-9
Beaumont-Cheny Valley Water District iii August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1891 of 2775 ends

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION 7 WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES (CONTINUED)

7.13 BMP 11 -CONSERVATION PRICING 7-9

7.13.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-10

7.13.2 METHODS TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 7-10

7.14 BMP 12 -CONSERVATION COORDINATOR 7-10

7.14.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-10

7.15 BMP 13 -WATER WASTE PROHIBITION 7-10

7.15.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-10

7.16 BMP 14 -RESIDENTIAL ULTRA -LOW -FLUSH TOILETS (ULFT) REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS 7-11

7.16.1 IMPLEMENTATION OR SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION 7-11
SECTION 8 WATER RECYCLING 8-1

8.1 WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 8-1

8.2 WASTEWATER GENERATION, COLLECTION, AND TREATMENT 8-2

8.2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RECYCLED WATER PLAN 8-2

8.3 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AND RECYCLED WATER USES 8-3

8.3.1 HISTORY OF WATER RECYCLING IN THE SERVICE AREA 8-3

8.3.2 TYPE AND PLACE OF RECYCLED WATER CURRENTLY BEING USED 8-4

8.3.3 RECYCLED WATER QUANTITY 8-4

8.3.4 RECYCLED WATER QUALITY 8-5

8.3.5 POTENTIAL USES OF RECYCLED WATER 8-9

8.3.6 POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS 8-11

8.4 CITY OF BEAUMONT RECYCLED WATER ORDINANCES 8-12
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District iv August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Pl n 1892 of 2775

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
TABLES
TABLE 1-1 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1-3
TABLE 1-2 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EDU PROJECTIONS 1-9
TABLE 1-3 NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS BY CUSTOMER TYPE 1-11
TABLE 1-4 DEVELOPMENTS REQUESTING SERVICE 1-12
TABLE 2-1 POTENTIAL ULTIMATE DISTRICT AVAILABLE WATER SOURCES (AVERAGE YEARS) 2-2 TABLE 2-2 CURRENT AND PROJECTED AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES - DEVELOPMENT BASIS 2-3 TABLE 2-3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES - POPULATION BASIS 2-4 TABLE 2-4 GROUNDWATER WELL CAPACITY SUMMARY 2-5
TABLE 2-5 ESTIMATED DIVERSION POTENTIAL 2-8
TABLE 3-1 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER USE - DEVELOPMENT BASIS 3-2 TABLE 3-2 TOTAL PROJEC IED WATER USE BY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION 3-2 TABLE 3-3 WATER DEMANDS FOR DEVELOPMENTS REQUESTING SERVICE 3-5 TABLE 3-4 PROJECTED WATER USE - POPULATION BASIS 3-8
TABLE 4-1 AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY 4-4
TABLE 5-1 PROJECTED SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON BY POPULATION GROWTH 5-2 TABLE 5-2 PROJECTED SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON BY KNOWN DEVELOPMENTS REQUESTING SERVICE 5-3
TABLE 5-3 SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND DEMAND COMPARISON 5-5
TABLE 5-4 STWMA COMPARED TO ESTIMATES BY LAND DEVELOPMENT 5-7 • TABLE 6-1 AVAILABLE EMERGENCY RESERVOIR STORAGE 6-3
TABLE 6-2 WELLS WITH EMERGENCY GENERATORS AND BACKUP SYSTEMS 6-3 TABLE 6-3 WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE STAGES AND CONDITIONS 6-4 TABLE 6-4 PER CAPITA HEALTH & SAFETY WATER QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 6-6 TABLE 6-5 PENALTIES AND CHARGES 6-6
TABLE 7-1 STATUS OF 1986 WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES 7-3 TABLE 7-2 RECOMMENDED WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURE AND THEIR STATUS AS OF 2000 7-4
TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) RECOMMENDED WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURE AND THEIR STATUS AS OF 2000 7-5
TABLE 8-1 WASTEWATER GENERATION AND COLLECTION 8-2
TABLE 8-2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT 8-2
TABLE 8-3 RECYCLED WATER MINERAL QUALITY (1995-2001) 8-6 TABLE 8-4 RECYCLED WATER METAL CONCENTRATIONS (1995-2001) 8-8 TABLE 8-5 STATE WATER PROJECT WATER QUALITY 8-9
TABLE 8-6 POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS (2005 - 2025) 8-11 TABLE 8-7 PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY AND PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS COMPARISON (2005 - 2025) 8-12
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District_ v August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1893 of 2775 ends

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page

FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 1-7 FIGURE 1-2 POPULATION GROWTH PAST, PRESENT, AND FORECAST 1-10 FIGURE 2-1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES 2-3 FIGURE 2-2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION FROM 1970 THROUGH 2000 2-6 FIGURE 2-3 PROPOSED RECHARGE PROGRAM 2-9
FIGURE 3-1 TOTAL WATER USE BY LAND USE DESIGNATION IN 2000 3-3 FIGURE 3-2 TOTAL WATER USE BY LAND USE DESIGNATION IN 2025 3-3 FIGURE 3-3 POTABLE WATER DEMAND AND SEWERED WASTEWATER GENERATION PROJECT i ED FROM DEVELOPMENT 3-6
FIGURE 4-1 AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY FOR 2010 4-4 FIGURE 5-1 SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND DEMAND COMPARISON BY POPULATION GROWTH 5-2 FIGURE 5-2 SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND DEMAND COMPARISON BY KNOWN DEVELOPMENTS REQUESTING SERVICE 5-4
FIGURE 5-3 STWMA AND UWMP LAND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES 5-8

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT ACT (URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT OF 1983 - INCLUDING AMENDMENTS)

RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AND THE BEAUMONT-

CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AND THE BEAUMONT-CHERRY

VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF PERCOLATION PONDS

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SAN TIMOTEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

AUTHORITY

JOINT FINANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-1 AND BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District vi August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Managemept n1894 of 2775

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

APPENDIXES (CONTINUED)

APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J.

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX L

APPENDIX M

APPENDIX N

APPENDIX O

AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT FINANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-1 AND BEAUMONT-CHERRY

VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

SETTLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND BEAUMONT-

CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

CALCULATIONS FOR WATER DEMAND AND WASTEWATER GENERATION BY

DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF BEAUMONT RECYCLED WATER USE REGULATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 772 CITY OF BEAUMONT RECYCLED WATER USE REGULATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 773 CITY OF BEAUMONT RECYCLED WATER USE REGULATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 775

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENTS RECIEVED
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District vii
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1895 of 2775 ends

August 6, 2002

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AD Assessment District
AF Acre Feet
AF/Day Acre Feet Per Day
AFY Acre Feet Per Year
BMP Best Management Practices
BSU Beaumont Storage Unit
CFD Community Facilities District
Company Beaumont Land and Water Company
District Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
DWR Department of Water Resources
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per Day
GPD Gallons Per Day
GPF Gallons Per Flush
GPM Gallons Per Minute
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
HP Horsepower
JPA Joint Powers Agency
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commissions
MAX Maximum
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MF Microfiltration
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MIH Miners Inch Hours
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1896 of 2775 ends

August 6, 2002

BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)
MIN Minutes / Minimum
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSL Mean Sea Level
N/A Not Available/Not Applicable
Pass San Gorgonio Pass
Pass Agency San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
RCFCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Recharge Program Stormwater Runoff and Groundwater Recharge Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCPGA Southern California Professional Golf Association SOI Sphere of Influence
STWMA San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority
SWP State Water Project
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
THM Trihalomethane
TOC Total Organic Carbon
OF Ultra -filtration
ULFT Ultra -Low -Flush Toilet
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWCP/UWMP Urban Water Conservation Plan/Urban Water Management Plan WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
YVWD Yucaipa Valley Water District
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Managemerpq 1897 of 2775

SECTION 1

BACKGROUND, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT,

AND BASIS FOR PLANNING

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare urban water management plans and update them every five years. These plans satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 including amendments that have been made to the Act. Sections 10610 through 10657 of the Water Code detail the information that must be included in these plans, as well as who must file them. Appendix A contains the text of the Act. This report constitutes the 2000 update to the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District's (District's) 1995 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

Recent amendments to the Act now require that total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in 5 -year increments. The Act also requests the information be shown for a single dry water year and multiple dry water years.

Additional amendments to the Act now require that all plans include a detailed water recycling analysis that includes a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency's service area along with current and potential recycled water uses.

According to the Act, "The conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level." The Act requires that each urban water supplier, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, shall prepare, update and adopt its urban water management plan at least once every five years or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero. The Plan may be updated at any time when the Urban Water Supplier believes significant changes have occurred in population, land use, and/or water sources that may affect the contents in the Plan.

1.2 LAW
10642. Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. Prior to adopting a plan, the urban water supplier shall make the plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing thereon. Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published. After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-1 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,

Page 1898 of 2775 ends

1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Prior to adopting the UWMP, the UWMP is made available for public review and hearing. Notification of the hearing is made pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code. Publication of notice pursuant to this Section shall be "once a week for two successive weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the fourteenth day, including herein the first day." Upon completion of the hearing, the District shall adopt the plan as prepared or as modified after the hearing. Within 30 days of adoption of the UWMP by the District, a copy of the UWMP is to be filed with the State of California, Department of Water Resources (DWR).

1.4 PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing was held at the District offices at 7:00 pm on July 9, 2002. A summary of the public hearing and comments received is provided in Appendix O and this UWMP has been amended as appropriate.

1.5 ADOPTION RESOLUTION
The District prepared this update of its UWMP in March through July 2002. The updated plan is proposed to be adopted by the Board of Directors in early August 2002 (Appendix B) and will be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of Board approval thereafter. This plan includes all information necessary to meet the requirements of California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6 (Urban Water Management Planning).

1.6 AGENCY COORDINATION

1.6.1 Law
Describe the coordination of the plan preparation. 10620 (d) (2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.

1.6.2 Coordination Within the District
Several agreements with the District and other agencies have been established in order to manage and preserve existing groundwater supplies. In addition, agreements have been developed to put into place mechanisms for development of new sources of water, including facilities for the distribution of recycled water.

The District first developed a needs study in 1980 to identify immediate infrastructure needs to supply water and meet fire flow requirements. This was then developed into a master plan in 1986, which was followed by updates in 1990 and 1994. In each of these plans, the City of Beaumont's General Plan and pending development projects were addressed along with the necessary water supply projects to meet these projected needs.

The District has been very proactive in ensuring water supplies are available for all new development.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-2 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,

Page 1899 of 2775 ends

Senate Bill SB 901 (Costa), chaptered in 1995, required coordination between adopted community general plans and water supply. It also requires the water purveyor to assess the reliability of water supply for all projects, which were above a certain threshold level of development. The Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 required local agencies, such as the District, to prepare a "Plan of Service" to assess the ability of the agency (District) to provide reliable and cost effective service to the proposed annexation. The District reviews the environmental documents associated with each project and provide comments as appropriate relative to water supply. Appropriate reports and studies are provided as required.

Recent legislation, SB 221 (Kuehl) now requires that the District provide written verification that a sufficient water supply is available or will be available prior to completion of any project with 500 or more homes. The companion bill, SB 610 (Costa), requires specific information to be included in the urban water management plan whenever groundwater is a source of water supply. This Urban Water Management Plan Update conforms to SB 610 and addresses the issues in SB 221.

The District is also a member of the San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority (STWMA). The STWMA is a joint powers agency (JPA) consisting of Yucaipa Valley Water District, City of Beaumont, Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District, and the South Mesa Water Company. The goal of the JPA is the development of a watershed management program for the San Timoteo watershed area. This program includes specific elements to manage surface water, groundwater, imported water, and recycled water resources.

Table 1-1 summarizes the efforts the District has taken to include various agencies and the community in the Urban Water Management planning process.

Table 1-1
Coordination and Public Involvement
Helped
write the
plan
Was
contacted for
assistance
Was sent
a copy of
the draft
Commented
on the draft
Attended
public
meetings
Was sent a
notice of
intention
to adopt
San Gorgonio Pass Water
Agency (Wholeseller)
4 4
4 4
. J
City of Beaumont
(Wastewater Agency)
4 4
4 Yucaipa Valley Water
District (Water &
Wastewater Agency)
4 4
4 San Timoteo Watershed
Management Authority
q
4 Al
. J
Citizen Groups
4 4
4 General Public
4 4
4 Public Library
-
�-
-
Various Developers
4 4
4 4
. J

1.6.3 Cooperative Agreements with Local Agencies
The District entered into several separate cooperative agreements with the City of Beaumont, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (Pass Agency), Riverside County Flood Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-3 August 6,2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,

Page 1900 of 2775 ends

Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCD), and others as described below to construct predefined improvements including water supply facilities. i In March of 1993, the District and the City of Beaumont entered into a cooperative agreement to facilitate implementation of the City's General Plan and Public Facilities Financing Program to ensure logical and orderly economic development within the City and the City sphere of influence (SOI) and safe groundwater management practices in the service areas of the District. Included was the need to cooperate in a long-term program to maintain safe groundwater management practices in the service area of the District and recognize the need to establish funding mechanisms to provide for the acquisition and development of certain new sources of water supply, including the use of recycled water and imported water, in such a way as to protect and preserve the existing water supply. A copy is attached in Appendix C.
• In March of 1993, the District and City of Beaumont entered into a cooperative agreement with the Pass Agency to ensure cooperation in developing a long-term program to maintain safe groundwater management practices, to establish funding mechanisms to provide for the acquisition and development of new sources of water supply, including recycled water and imported water, in such a way as to protect and preserve the existing water supply through the importation of supplemental water from the State Water Project (SWP) for direct use and/or groundwater recharge. A copy of the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Water Facilities Master Plan Cooperative Agreement is provided in Appendix D.
• In March of 1998, the District and City entered into the Implementation Memorandum of Understanding Relating to Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Beaumont and the District (Reclaimed Water Implementation Memorandum of Understanding) to provide for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance by the City of necessary modifications to the wastewater treatment plant an& a recycled water distribution system for the City to deliver recycled water to customers and potential customers within the City, the City's SOI, and the District's S0I. A copy is attached in Appendix E.
• In January of 1999, the District, Pass Agency and the RCFCD entered into a cooperative agreement for joint use of existing percolation ponds known as Little San Gorgonio Creek Spreading Grounds. The agreement was formed to ensure that the percolation ponds would be operated in a coordinated manner to allow recharge of both local and supplemental waters to maximize public benefit while preserving existing rights of the District and RCFCD. A copy is attached in Appendix F. • In November of 2000, the District, along with the City of Beaumont, Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD), and the South Mesa Mutual Water Company entered into an agreement to form a JPA, known as the STWMA to implement a regional water resource management program in the upper parts of the San Timoteo and San Gorgonio watersheds that would ensure current and future water supply availability, optimal use of water resources, with an emphasis on maximizing the use of local resources. A copy of this agreement is attached in Appendix G.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-4 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,

Page 1901 of 2775 ends

1.6.4 Financing Agreement with Local Agencies
• In June of 1993, the City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 93-1 (CFD No. 93-1) and the District entered into a financing agreement for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities within the boundaries of the City of Beaumont. Certain predefined improvements to be funded by CFD No. 93-1 include recycled water facilities. A copy of the Joint Financing Agreement is provided in Appendix H.
• In December of 1999, the District and the City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 93-1 entered into a financing agreement to amend and restate the above joint financing agreement to provide for the issuance of bonds by the City with respect to Assessment District No. 98-1 (AD No. 98-1) to fund water and recycled water improvements and to provide for the annexation of property to CFD No. 93-1, AD No. 98-1 or the creation by the City of another financing district in the future. A copy of the Joint Financing Agreement to reinstate CFD No. 93-1 is provided in Appendix I.

1.6.5 Settlement Agreement with Yucaipa Valley Water District In January of 1994, the District and YVWD entered into a Settlement Agreement. This agreement was formed as a result of litigation between the two parties regarding extraction of groundwater from the Beaumont Storage Unit (BSU). The agreement set forth the groundwork for a time schedule in developing and implementing a Basin Management Plan for the joint use and management of the BSU. The agreement between the two parties also set forth defined limits on the allowable annual production of groundwater from the BSU. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is provided in Appendix J.

1.7 SUPPLIER SERVICE AREA

1.7.1 Law
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following:
10631. (a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.

1.7.2 Description
The District owns approximately 2,800 acres of watershed land north of Cherry Valley along the Little San Gorgonio Creek (also known as Edgar Canyon) and Noble Creek.

This land has pre -1914 recorded water rights amounting to 3,000 miners inch hours (MIH) or approximately 45,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of right for diversion of water for domestic and irrigation uses. However, the District has never had a demand that requires such large quantities of water supply; and the watersheds may not be capable of supplying such quantities during an average year. The creeks/canyons have been used for Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-5 August 6. 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,

Page 1902 of 2775 ends

water development via diversions for irrigation and domestic service since the latter part of the 1800s.

At the turn of the Twentieth Century the District's service area was provided water by the Beaumont Land and Water Company (Company) via diversions along the Little San Gorgonio Creek. This Company owned the land that would become the Beaumont Irrigation District in 1919 and the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District in 1920. Even though the name has changed, the District's authority comes from the Irrigation District Law of the State of California
As the Company's land began to develop, the need for water grew. To answer the new demands the Company began the construction of wells in 1907 on the watershed lands.

With the construction of the new wells the Company began to divert water for recharge in the canyon areas rather than through the direct diversions, which began in 1902. The diversions allowed the Company to recharge the underground aquifers during storm events and pump the water as needed. With the diversions the Company also purchased the riparian water rights from downstream landowners. The purchases required the Company to deliver some amount of water on a regular basis. The District today continues deliveries of water as required by agreements dating back to the early 1900s.

At the present time the District is not operating the wells in Noble Canyon.

Figure 1-1 shows the District's present service boundary and SOI. The District's present service area covers approximately ten square miles, virtually all of which is in Riverside County and includes the City of Beaumont and the community of Cherry Valley. The District owned land in San Bernardino County is located just north of the Riverside -San Bernardino County line in Edgar Canyon where the District operates a number of wells and a reservoir.

The District's SOI, or ultimate service planning area, encompasses an area of approximately 40 square miles. This SOI was established by the Riverside and San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs). SOIs are established as a planning tool and help establish agency boundaries and avoid problems in service, unnecessary duplication of costs, and inefficiencies associated with overlapping service.

The District's SOI is bounded on the west and north by the YVWD and on the east by the City of Banning. The northerly boundary of Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is one -mile south of the District's southerly SOI boundary. The area between EMWD and the District's SOI is not within any SOI and could be annexed to either the District or EMWD.

In 1982, the District petitioned San Bernardino LAFCO to extend the District's SOI into the area west of Oak Glen Road known as the Wildwood Canyon area. YVWD opposed that extension, and after much discussion, the District and YVWD entered into an agreement which limited the District's SOI in San Bernardino County to the area east of Oak Glen Road in exchange for the agreement that YVWD would not export water from Wildwood Canyon.

In Riverside County, the north half of Section 30, T2S, RIE is not presently in the SOI of either YVWD or the District. This area was disputed and claimed by both agencies.

Representatives of the YVWD and the District have met to discuss this area. Meetings and negotiations are currently being held which will reestablish a comprehensive SOI Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-6 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan a 1903 of 27section 1 — Background, Public Involvement, Page and Basis for Planning

Source: modified from USGS 1:24 000 topographic maps of Beaumont, Forest Falls, Yucaipa, and El Casco, CA 0 •
Sphere of Influence
8000
Approximate Scale in Feet
NORTH
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
Figure 1-1
District Boundary and Sphere of Influence
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
Beaumont, California
1-7
August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1904 of 2775 ends

Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,
and Basis for Planning

between the two Districts. As of this date no formal agreement has been drawn up, however, taking a conservative planning approach, the north half of Section 30 is included in the District's service area for water service.

The service area ranges in elevation from 2,600 feet above mean sea level in Beaumont, to 2,800 feet in Cherry Valley, and over 4,000 feet in the upper reaches of the SOI.

1.7.3 Climate Characteristics

1.7.3.1 Temperature
In Beaumont, mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures in January are 37°F and 58°F, respectively, and in July, 58°F and 95°F, respectively. However, temperatures below freezing are common in winter in the upper elevations of the service area.

Temperatures over 100°F are also common in the summer.

1.7.3.2 Precipitation
Virtually all the precipitation occurs during the months of November through April; most of the precipitation is in the form of rain, but snow is common in higher elevations of the service area during the winter. Annual precipitation in Beaumont averages approximately 18.5 inches, with increasing amounts of precipitation with increasing elevation.

1.7.4 Demographic Characteristics

1.7.4..1 Population Density

1.7.4.1.1 Current
The District's present service area includes approximately 6,173 service connections.

The US Census data for the year 2000 was adjusted to estimate the actual population located within the District boundary using a Geographic Information System (GIS) model along with District information on services outside the current District boundary. The population served within the District service area was approximately 14,550 with an estimated 9,6501 in the City of Beaumont, 320 in unincorporated areas, and 4,580 in Cherry Valley2'3. It should be noted that the Census 2000 data for the City of Beaumont totals 11,384 and for Cherry Valley totals 5,891; however, not all of the. population within the City of Beaumont and Cherry Valley is currently served by the District.

1.7.4.1.2 Projected
Based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Growth Forecast4 the forecasted population for the City of Beaumont is presented in Table 1-2 for the years of 2010 through 2025. It is assumed that the entire City of Beaumont will be served by the District by the year 2005. Overall, the average estimated growth is forecast to be approximately 2,000 people per year through 2025. Based on these forecasts as well as past and present population estimates, population, housing, and corresponding Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) projections Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-8
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Page 1905 of 2775
August 6, 2002
Section 4 — Water Use

were estimated and provided in Table 1-2. This represents a forecasted linear increase in the population as shown in Figure 1-2.

Table 1-2
Population, Housing, and EDU Projections
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
City of Beaumont'$
Population
9,650
16,000
26,300
34,300
43,200
54,900
Households
3,293
5,500
9,200
12,400
16,300
20,500
People / EDU

2.93 2.90

2.86 2.77

2.65 2.68
Beaumont Unincorporated Areas
Population
320
350
370
430
500
580
Households
100
110
120
140
160
190
People / EDU

3.11 3.08

3.06 3.02

3.04 3.03
Cherry Valley
Population
_ 4,580
5,760
6,940
8,120
9,300
10,700
Households
1,700
1,900
2,300
2,700
3,100
_
3,500
People / EDU

2.70 n 3.08

3.06 3.04

3.04 3.03
TOTALS
Population
14,550
22,110
33,610
42,850
53,000
66,180
Households
5,093
7,510
11,620
15,240
19,560
24,190
People / EDU

2.86 2.94

2.89 2.81

2.71 2.74
The population forecast for Cherry Valley is based on the Cherry Valley Community Policies of one -acre single-family residential lots, which would forecast for an ultimate growth of approximately 24,700. The forecasted growth from 2005 through 2025 for both the unincorporated area of the City of Beaumont and Cherry Valley is based on the forecasted, equivalent rate of growth of the unincorporated areas of West Riverside County6. Most development is occurring within the City of Beaumont, and the forecast for these areas coincides with SCAG's forecast for all unincorporated cities in west Riverside County.

Based on these projections the total service area population for the District will increase by more than 2.3 times the current population in 2010, and by 2025, it is projected to increase by more than 4.5 times the current population.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-9
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1906 of 2775 ends

August 6, 2002
Section 4 — Water Use

Figure 1-2
Population Growth Past, Present, and Forecast
_7r1
Population (thousands)
0 a)
-1 -L N.) co .4.. Ui d)

O O O O O O O C
I
I 1
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
O City of Beaumont
9,650
16,000
26,300
34,300
43,200
54,900
p Beaumont Unicorp. Areas
320
350
370
430
500
580
® Cherry Valley
4,580
5,760
6,940
8,120
9,300
10,700
MI Total Service Population
14,550
22,110
33,610
42,850
53,000
66,180

1.7.4.2 Land Development
Historically, the principal industry in the Beaumont and Cherry Valley area has been agriculture and agriculture related services, particularly those associated with fruit production (cherries) and egg ranching. Current trends suggest that more and more agricultural areas are being converted to residential uses as new buyers are seeking more affordable homes. Several major development projects have already been started or are in the planning phase. These include the Oak Valley Greens, Three Rings Ranch, Noble Creek Vistas, Oak Valley Partners Champion Development, Hovchild Sunburst Development, and the Rolling Hills projects, just to name a few. These projects and others will have a major impact on the District's water supply system and the water resources in the entire San Gorgonio Pass (Pass) area. Table 1-3 lists the projected number of water user connections by customer type.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-10
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Page 1907 of 2775
August 6, 2002
Section 4 — Water Use

Table 1-3
Number of Connections by Customer Type
Customer Type
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Residential
N/A
N/A
5,555
8,378
11,962
15,076
17,633
19,337
Commercial
N/A
N/A
263
368
383
389
403
426
Industrial
N/A
N/A
7 10
11 11
12 13
Landscape/
Recycled Water
Users
N/A
N/A
108
163
343
505
505
514
Agriculture
N/A
N/A
147
131
123
115
113
95 Other
Total
N/A
N/A
6,080
9,050
12,821
16,096
18,666
20,385
A number of proposed developments that have requested water service are shown in Table 1-4.

Future water demands can be developed using either population or land development rate of growth (EDU growth). Both methods are used in this UWMP update.

Using the SCAG estimates for the District SOI, the development growth rate would be approximately 764 EDUs per year over the next 25 years. This estimate greatly exceeds the City of Beaumont's approximation of 600 EDUs per year. Using the known land developments in the District's SOI and projecting their completion, the estimated growth rate over the next 25 years averages approximately 533 EDUs per year; 699 EDUs/year over the next 10 years and 593 EDUs/year over the next 20 years. SCAG estimates have a tendency to be a little higher than actual growth as shown in this example.

Based on the District's knowledge of the service area in concert with the City of Beaumont, the District believes the population growth model developed by SCAG over estimates growth in the service area. The District believes the land development rate better reflects water demand increases in the service area. Therefore, for planning purposes the land development based estimated water supply and demand were used to generate the projected water supply and demands presented in Sections 2 and 3.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 1-11
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Page 1908 of 2775
August 6, 2002
Section 4 — Water Use

Table 1-4
Developments Requesting Service
9LLZ lo 6061. abed
Project Name
Entitlement Stat us
Juri sdi cti onal
Status
Development Plan
Number of
EDUs
Estimated
Years to
Build Out
Estimated
Start. Date
Deutsch - Pardee
SP Approved; Tentative Tract
Approval in Process
City
Develop Master Plan
4,640
31 2002
Noble Creek Villages
Final Commercial PM in Approved
City
Develop Commercial Lots
140
2 2003
Coscan Stewart, Three Rings
Ranch
Final Maps Approved
City
_
Market Finished Lots / Builder
393
3 2002
Cougar Crossing
Tentative Tract Map Amendment in
Process
City
Builder
164
2 2003
Cougar Ranch
Final Map in Process
City
Builder
67 1
2002
Heartland California Beaumont LP
SP/Tentative Tract Map Approved
City
Bulk Sale of JP Offered
1,484
10 2004
Hovchild
SP Approved
City
Bulk Sale Offered
2,305
10 Beyond 2025
Lockhead Aircraft, Beaumont
G ateway
SP Amendment in Process
City
In Escrow for Industrial
400
3 2005
Loma Linda
SP / Te ntative Commercial PM
Approved
City
72 Acres in Escrow for
Commercial
2,723
11 Beyond 2025
Noble Creek (Lone, Donald D.)
Tentative Tract Approved; SP
Amendment in Process
Annexation in
Process
In Escrow with Builder
200
2 2003
Noble Creek Meadows, LLC
Tentative Tract Approved; SP
Amendment in Process
Annexation in
Process
Market Finished Lots
300
2 2003
_
Oak Valley Partners LP / SCPGA
SP Amendment in Process
City Sphere
Portion in Escrow, Bulk Sale;
Golf Course Completed
4,250
30 2003
Olinger Commercial
General Plan / Zoning
City
Market Commercial Parcels
84 1
2003
Precision 1 & 2 LLC
Final Map in Process
City
Builder
71 1
2005
Rolling Hills Ranch
Tentative Tract Map Approved
Cit y
In Escrow with Builder
546
4 _
2003
Westbrook Oak Valley Greens
PUD / Tentative Tract Approved;
Final Maps Approved
City
_
Market Finished Lots
2,740
18 2002
Beaumont Mesa, Nejedly
General Plan / Zoning
City
Finished RV Lots and Single-
Family Lots
850
4 Beyond 2025
Willow Springs Area
SP on Hold
Annexation on
Hold
Market Finished Lots
3,010
13 Beyond 2025
Mission Viejo Co., Jack Rabbit
SP / Tentative Tract on Hold
Annexation on
Hold
Unknown
1,200
5 Beyond 2025
Tract 24933
Tract Maps Approved
City Sphere
Unknown
28 1
2002
Tract 30388
Tract Maps Approved
City Sphere
Unknown
59 I
1 2003
Tract 25272
Tract Maps Approved
City Sphere
Unknown
20 1
2002
Tract 30131
Tract Maps Approved
City Sphere
Unknown
35 1
2002
Tract 30132
Tract Maps Approved
City Sphere
Unknown
36 1
2002

TOTA LS
25,745
OTHER POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS, UNSCHEDULED (Assumed to occur beyond 2025) 9,880
Beyond 2025

OVERALL POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOTALS
35,625
Beaumo nt -Cherry Valley Water District
2000 Urban Water Management Plan
1-12
August 6, 2002
Section 4 — Water Use

1.8 PROJECT TEAM
The 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Update was prepared under the direction of Mr. Joseph C. Reichenberger, P.E., District Engineer with assistance from Mr. Steve Gratwick, P.E., Mr. Joseph Walters, P.E., and Ms. Joy de Graaf.

1.9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The District Engineer would like to express appreciation for the help and assistance given by the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District in the study, particularly Mr. C. J.

Butcher, General Manager; Julie Audet, Administrative Assistant, Jay Wilfley, General Superintendent, Tony Lara, Production Superintendent, and the rest of the District staff. httv:// www.dof.ca.Qov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E5a.xis , California State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2000 and 2001. 2 htto:// www.pe.netl-rksnow/cacountycherryvalleymis.htm , The Press Enterprise Company, "Key to the City", 3 http://plue.sedac.ciesin.org/plue/geocorr/htmis/placesCA.html ° http://www.scag.ca.gov/erowthforecast/Cizv° %20Prolections%20{or%20Web%20Site.xls 5 Basis = http://www.scag.ca.gov/for population and households 6 http://www.sca2.ca.gov/growth,forecast/Cirv%20Projections%20for%20Web%20Site.xls Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
2000 Urban Water Management Plan
1-13 August 6, 2002
Section 1 — Background, Public Involvement,
and Basis for Planning

Page 1910 of 2775 ends

SECTION 2

WATER SOURCES

2.1 LAW
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following:
10631 (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments [to 20 years or as far as data is available.]

2.2 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
As discussed in Section 1, the District has historically served its customers with groundwater produced from Edgar Canyon and the BSU. Wells in the canyon were supplemented by surface water capture and percolation. The District recognizes the continuing need for development of new water supplies for the planned growth of Cherry Valley and Beaumont. This section of the UWMP provides the existing, planned and ultimate water sources that the District intends to use for distribution to its service area.

2.2.1 Ultimate Supply Sources
The total potential ultimate water available to the District to accommodate growth and new development is as shown in Table 2-1.1 The ultimate build out condition is not anticipated to occur until approximately 2050 or beyond. The timeline for availability of these water sources is discussed further in this section.

The urban runoff and associated groundwater recharge for the potential ultimate available water source is estimated using all of the undeveloped portions of the District's SOI and factoring out evapotranspiration during the wet season months. Urban runoff would be a new source of water supply not currently available. The availability of this urban runoff will depend heavily on what runoff controls (e.g., capture ponds for recharge) are implemented for all future developments. The City of Beaumont in cooperation with the District and RCFCD has plans to implement retention projects along Noble, Marshall, and Potrero Creeks for capture and recharge of urban runoff. The City of Beaumont requires new developments to include retention basins that recharge stormwater.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-1 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 — Water Sources

Page 1911 of 2775 ends

Table 2-1
Potential Ultimate District Available Water Sources (Average Years) Source
Annual Yield (AF)
Groundwater, SSW
2,300 to 4,300a
Groundwater, Edgar Canyon
2,600 to 1,800b
Imported SWP3
6,500
Return Flows from Septic Systems
1,200`
Stormwater Capture and Groundwater Recharge
4,100
Capture Infiltration (shallow groundwater)
300
Urban Runoff/Groundwater Recharge _
6,800
Well Transfers from Recycled Water Users
4,500
Conversion of Existing Potable Water Uses to Recycled Water and/ Replenishment Groundwater Using Recycled Water'
8,700
Total Potential Ultimate Available Water Supply
37,400
a For planning purposes 3,500 AFY will be used. Ultimately the District will acquire a larger portion of the annual yield of the BSU.
b Reduction in annual yield anticipated to occur with implementation of stormwater capture program and the reduction in recharge in Edgar Canyon. Therefore for planning purposes 1,800 AFY will be used. c Based on an ultimate build -out of 1 EDU/acre and 0.15 AFY/septic system. d Based on urban runoff calculations for all undeveloped areas within the District SOI.

2.2.2 Existing and Planned Supply Sources
Table 2-2 provides a summary breakdown of current and projected available water supply for the next 20+ years based on planned developments. The District currently receives all of its potable water supply from wells. For as long as the District has been serving the local community, the wells, supplemented with captured surface flows, have been capable of meeting the increase in demands for potable water. However, the District's service area 'is undergoing rapid development and population growth, which creates a higher potable water demand. In association with the potable demand, the area has also had an increase in landscaped areas such as golf courses. Non -potable demands will be met with recycled water supply where possible. The planned community growth and associated demands for water supply have generated the District's need to find new sources of supply. The timeline for these new sources is provided in Table 2-2 by the planned years in which these sources become available.

The District will initially utilize recycled water from the City of Beaumont's wastewater treatment plant as well as the percolation of stormwater in groundwater basins to meet the increased demands projected through the year 2025. Thereafter, supplemental SWP water may be utilized to supplement the remaining water supply needs.

The estimates provided in Table 2-2 for urban runoff were calculated using the Deutsch - Pardee and Oak Valley Partners LP/SCPGA developments. It was assumed that 25% of the developed acreages were impermeable. The wet season pan evaporations was used to estimate evapotranspiration and adjust the available runoff for groundwater recharge.

The wet season was assumed to occur between November and April. Annual average precipitation in Beaumont was estimated at 18 inches (1.5 ft). Figure 2-1 shows the current and projected available water supplies in a graphical format.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-2 August 6, 2002 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Page 1912 of 2775
Section 2 — Water Sources

Table 2-2
Current and Projected Available Water Supplies - Development Basis Water Supply Sources
2000a
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
SWP Via Pass Agency (Estimated Available)
0 5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Groundwater Extractions (Edgar Canyon)
2,671
1,800
1,800
_1,800
1,800
1,800
Groundwater Extractions (BSU)
3,637
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,500
Return Flows from Septic Systems i
0 280 _
350
400
460
520
Urban Runoff/Groundwater Recharge')
0 400
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
Captured Infiltration
(shallow groundwater)
0 0
300
300
300
300
Stormwater Capture / Groundwater
Recharge
0 2,600
4,100
_
4,100
_
4,100
4,100
Recycled Water Users -Well Transfers`
0 800
2,600
4,500
4,500
4,500
Recycled Water Supply/ Used
0 1,000
3,200
4,100
4,600
5,100
Total Forecasted
6,308
15,380
21,850
24,800
25,460
26,120
Units of Measure: Acre-feet/Year
a Current water supply indicates actual water production for year 2000 and may not include all available water supply. b Includes 500 AFY estimated urban runoff at Cherry Ave and Brookside Ave starting around 2010. c Acquisition of potable water supply wells from potential recycled water users as they become District customers. d Recycled water supply that would be in demand for non -potable use by various potential users including but not limited to:

Oak Valley Greens -800 AFY, Oak Valley Golf and Resort (SCPGA)-800*2 AFY, Highland Springs North -200 AFY, SunnyCal-1900 AFY.

Figure 2-1
Current and Projected Available Water Supplies
Water Supply (acre-feet per year)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

AIFILITTIE
2000 2005 201.0 2015 2020 2025
Year
II Recycled Water Supply/Use
O Recycled Water Users -Well Transfers
O Stormwater Capture/Groundwater
Recharge
■ Captured Infiltration (shallow
groundwater)
O Urban Runoff/Groundwater Recharge
O Return Flows from Septic Systems
O Supplier Produced Groundwater
(Beaumont Storage Unit)
0 Supplier Produced Groundwater (Little
San Gorgonio)
® State Water Project via San Gorgonio
Pass Water Agency (Estimated Available)
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
2-3 August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 — Water Sources

Page 1913 of 2775 ends

Table 2-3 below provides a summary breakdown of current and projected available water supply for the next 20+ years based on population growth. As discussed in Section 1 of this UWMP, the population growth estimates outpace the planned development estimates provided by the City of Beaumont and the District. All of the water supply estimates remain the same when comparing the land development based and population based water sources with the exception of recycled water available. Due to the increased growth rate of population as provided by SCAG, there would be an increase in wastewater generation and therefore additional recycled water available for reuse. All of the subsequent discussion in Section 2 refers to the planned development based estimates.

Table 2-3
Current and Projected Available Water Supplies — Population Basis Water Supply Sources
2000a
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
SWP Via Pass Agency_(Estimated Available)
0 5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Groundwater Extractions (Edgar Canyon)
2,671
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
Groundwater Extractions (BSU)
3,637
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,500
Return Flows from_Septic Systems
0 280
350
400
460
520
Urban Runoff/Groundwater Recharge
0 400
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
Captured Infiltration
(shallow groundwater)
0 0
300
300
300
300
Stormwater Capture / Groundwater
Recharge _
0 2,600
4,100
4,100
4,100
4,100
Recycled Water Users -Well Transfers
0 800
2,600
4,500
4,500
4,500
Recycled Water Supply / Used
0 1,000
3,600
4,800
5,700
6,000
Total Forecasted
6,308
15,380
22,250
25,500
26,560
27,020
Units of Measure: Acre-feet/Year
a Current water supply indicates actual water production for year 2000 and may not include all available water supply. b Includes 500 AFY estimated urban runoff at Cherry Ave and Brookside Ave starting around 2010. c Acquisition of potable water supply wells from potential recycled water users as they become District customers. d Recycled water supply that would be in demand for non -potable use by various potential users including but not limited to:

Oak Valley Greens -800 AFY, Oak Valley Golf and Resort (SCPGA)-800`2 AFY, Highland Springs North -200 AFY, SunnyCal-1900 AFY.

Presently the BSU is not adjudicated. Through the efforts of the STWMA, the BSU is expected to be adjudicated as early as the end of 2002 or the beginning of 2003.

Therefore for planning 3,780 to 4,020 acre-feet including septic system return flows will be used as the District's available BSU supply. This amount is believed to be conservative and possibly the amount allocated to the District may be higher. Taking into consideration the additional groundwater that will be available to the District, over the next twenty-five years as the recycle water use increases, the available supply will increase to 8,520 AFY from the BSU.

Presently potable water is being supplied by wells not owned or operated by the District for irrigation of the Oak Valley Golf Course, SCPGA and Highland Springs, North Golf Course. As these potable water irrigation demands are replaced with recycled water, the amount of groundwater previously pumped for irrigation will be available to the District for meeting potable water demands over the next twenty-five years. It is anticipated that approximately 4,500 AFY of potable water use for irrigation will be replaced with recycled water for irrigation of these golf courses. This amount is above the 1,100 AFY of potable water presently supplied by the District to irrigation users that will also be Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-4
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Page 1914 of 2775
August 6, 2002
Section 2 — Water Sources

included in the Recycled Water in lieu Program.

2.2.3 Groundwater

2.2.3.1 Existing Sources
Table 2-4 presents a summary of the District's wells and their current capacity.

The District currently owns and operates a total of 23 groundwater wells of which only 19 are used to any great degree. These 19 wells have a total production capability of approximately 20 million gallons per day (mgd).

The District's wells are located in four areas:
• Upper Edgar Canyon (San Bernardino County)
• Middle Edgar Canyon (San Bernardino County)
• Lower Edgar Canyon (Riverside County)
• BSU (Riverside County)
Note that "Edgar Canyon" is synonymous with "Little San Gorgonio Creek".

Table 2-4
Groundwater WeII Capacity Summary
Area / Location
No. of Wells
Pump Capacity '
(mgd) _
(AFY)
Upper Edgar Canyon
9 2.88
3,230
Middle Edgar Canyon
1 0.86
960
Lower Edgar Canyon
3 1.65
f 1,850
BSU
6 14.83
16,610
TOTALS
19 20.22
22,650
Not included above is the District's recently drilled well in the BSU, which has been test pumped to 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm). This well is anticipated to be on-line in late 2002 or early 2003. The District's current maximum day demand is approximately 11 mgd. Production capacity currently exceeds maximum day demand.

The District's annual groundwater production from 1970 through 2000 is depicted in Figure 2-2. From 1970 to 2000, the District's average annual production was 4,873 acre- feet. The minimum annual production of 3,417 acre-feet occurred in 1983 and the maximum annual production of 6,308 acre-feet resulted in 2000. For the 1970 — 2000 period, the BSU supplied approximately 53% of the total groundwater production while 21%, 10%, and 16% were produced from the Upper, Middle, and Lower Edgar Canyon areas, respectively. Total production in any given year is a function of the hydrologic conditions and usually mirrors the annual rainfall.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-5
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1915 of 2775 ends

August 6, 2002
Section 2 — Water Sources

Figure 2-2
Groundwater Production from 1970 through 2000
7000
6000
112
✓ 5000
C
O 4000
o
C▪ s
Cs • 3000
L
a
d
2000
a)
to
5woo
o
O
ti
O)
CO
O)
CO
ti
O
CO
O
N
CO
c)
CO
CO
O)
O▪ )
O)
O
O)
O)
CO
o)
ti
O
■ Beaumont Storage Unit • Edgar Canyon, Upper
D Edgar Canyon, Middle D Edgar Canyon, Lower
(.0
CO CO
O) O)
T T
Year
O
O
o
N
The BSU is a large underground storage reservoir with at least 1.1 million acre-feet of water in storage and about 200,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of unused groundwater storage. - The groundwater recharge projects being implemented by the District and the City of Beaumont will increase the recharge of the BSU. The District will recover this new recharge through wells as part of their normal supply. The BSU will also be used to store supplemental water during years of surplus that will subsequently be used during dry years (local dry -year yield or conjunctive use). The STWMA has indicated that between 1980 and 2000 the BSU has generally been in equilibrium; during wet years the BSU has been recharged by rainfall percolation to offset extractions during dry years.

An important element in maintaining present water supplies, especially in the BSU, is cooperative use of the available groundwater. The District and affected agencies, such as, the City of Beaumont and YVWD, formed mutual two-party agreements, similar to agreements discussed in Section 1, and the STWMA to manage the BSU in order to preserve and protect the BSU at current levels.

2.2.3.2 Planned Sources
The District currently maintains 40 to 50 ponds in Upper Edgar Canyon to capture and recharge winter runoff on Little San Gorgonio Creek in an effort to supplement the groundwater in the canyon and minimize the amount of water extracted from the BSU.6 Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-6
August 6, 2002
20O0 Urban Water Management Plan Page 1916 of 2775
Section 2 — Water Sources

The Upper Edgar Canyon ponds have historically shown an increase in production in the canyon of approximately 800 AFY, however the District estimates that approximately 2,600 AFY has been captured and percolated in the Upper Edgar Canyon ponds. The resulting production from Little San Gorgonio Creek, adjusted for the reduction in stormwater percolation, is therefore approximately 1,800 AFY (2,600 AFY less 800 AFY). This estimate is based on historic pumping records and evaluation of the corresponding weather conditions. It could be overly conservative due to the fact that the historic pumping records matched the water demand on the system.

For planning purposes, the District estimates 5,580 AFY, including return flows, to be the available yield from the BSU and Edgar Canyon areas in 2005. Return flows from septic systems are expected to increase as development planned for 1 EDU/acre increases within the District's SOI. By 2025, the return flows are expected to reach approximately 520 AFY. Over the next twenty-five years the District estimates the yield from both groundwater sources to increase to 10,320 AF annually as the recycled water system comes on line (well transfers to the District) and return flows from septic systems increase due to development. This estimate assumes that the District will be allocated 3,500 AFY in extractions from the BSU once the STWMA has adjudicated the basin.

This estimate is considered quite conservative and does not include the additional extractions that would be acquired by the District through the capture and recharge programs involving stormwater and urban runoff, which are discussed under Section

2.2.4.2. To further accommodate the new development water demands the STWMA plans to develop a watershed management plan for the 140 square mile area, which includes the service area of the members. One of the projects that STWMA is currently working on is the development of a plan for urban stormwater collection and groundwater recharge.

This project is jointly funded by STWMA and a grant from the State Water Resources Control, Board.

2.2.4 Surface Water

2.2.4.1 Existing
Presently there are no facilities that capture local surface water for direct reuse. As discussed previously, the District owns and operates 40 to 50 ponds in Upper Edgar Canyon to capture and percolate storm runoff. These ponds have contributed to the productivity of the Edgar Canyon wells since early in the Twentieth Century, however the amount of runoff percolated does not correlate well to the amount of additional production in the canyon wells.

2.2.4.2 Planned
The District has been diverting surface flows in Edgar Canyon for groundwater recharge since 1902. Over the last twenty years the District has found that the amount of water diverted was considerably more than the amount that could be retrieved via the District wells. The District Engineer has determined that a large quantity of the diverted and percolated water flow is lost from the service area due to the severely faulted underground geology of Edgar Canyon.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
2-7 August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 — Water Sources

Page 1917 of 2775 ends

In 200O the District Engineer was directed to undertake a study of the Little San Gorgonio Creek and Noble Creek watershed areas to determine the amount of available runoff. Based on historic precipitation and stormwater drainage patterns in Little San Gorgonio and Noble Creeks for the years of 1956 through 1983, expected water yields were estimated for capture potential as provided in Table 2-5. The study determined that from the Little San Gorgonio Creek watershed there are approximately 2,600 AFY long- term average runoff and 1,500 AFY long-term average runoff from the Noble Creek watershed tributary up to Orchard Avenue. This study is the basis for the District's Stormwater Runoff and Groundwater Recharge Program (Recharge Program).

Table 2-5
Estimated Diversion Potential
Watershed Area
Average Annual
Precipitation, inches
Average Annual
Water Yield, AF
Noble Creek
23 1,500
Little San Gorgonio Creek
26 2,600
TOTAL
4,100
Once the Recharge Program is implemented as planned, the quantity of recoverable water supply would increase since only an estimated 800 AFY of 2600 AFY is actually realized as well production in Edgar Canyon currently.

The District is currently in the preliminary design stages for the Recharge Program, which would utilize the Little San Gorgonio spreading grounds at the mouth of Edgar Canyon. The Recharge Program has been developed to implement plans for new source water. Once this program is in place, the quantity of surface flow captured in Upper Edgar Canyon would be minimized. Under the Recharge Program, the Little San Gorgonio Creek spreading grounds would be modified for use as desilting basins. These desilting basins would capture stormwater runoff from Little San Gorgonio Creek and the adjoining Wallace Canyon. Stormwater currently captured in Upper Edgar Canyon would be allowed to flow down to the modified spreading grounds unless the Upper Edgar ponds are required for flood control.

The District also plans the construction of wetlands habitat areas on Noble Creek, and pipelines to transfer captured and desilted stormwater flows from Little San Gorgonio and Noble Creeks to the proposed community park/groundwater recharge site located downstream for direct recharge into the BSU. The groundwater recharge facilities would be developed into a recreational park for additional beneficial use by the surrounding community. Figure 2-3 provides the general locations for the Recharge Program planned facilities. At the present time, the District is performing a pilot test to determine percolation rates at the proposed community park/groundwater recharge site.

The capture of shallow groundwater or infiltration appears feasible based on the operation of the District's resource recovery well RR1, which captures underflow of unknown origin during the winter months in the lower Edgar Canyon. There is an estimated 300 AFY, which could be captured by additional recovery wells. This water is Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-8
2000 Urban Water Management Plapage 1918 of 2775
August 6, 2002
Section 2 — Water Sources

t;
\„.04
�� rm
Nees i
rout
Jyopo. F Communit
R charge `F�aciif
Source: modified from USGS 1:24 000 topographic map of Beaumont, CA NORTH
0 2000
Aaproximate Scale in Feet
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-9
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1919 of 2775 ends

I �
2929
2870 `.--7.: 1\r`3.4
Figure 2-3
Proposed Recharge Program
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
Beaumont, California
August 6, 2002
Section 2 - Water Sources

not included in the yield from lower Edgar Canyon as determined by the District's long- term historic pumping records. It is a new source of supply.

The City of Beaumont is developing plans and requirements for urban stormwater management that will require new development to construct recharge structures along Noble, Marshall, and Potrero Creeks. This will allow for collection of storm flows for recharge from the developed areas of Cherry Valley and Beaumont, as well as from the new construction currently being planned. An estimated 1,300 AFY of captured urban runoff is anticipated for groundwater recharge by 2025.

These additional sources of surface water contributing to groundwater recharge along with captured infiltration (shallow groundwater), would contribute an additional 5,700 AFY of potable water supply by the year 2025.

2.2.5 Recycled Water

2.2.5.1 Existing
Currently, the District is installing recycled water pipelines as part of the overall recycled water distribution system. The pipelines and appurtenances are being installed as development occurs.

Currently the City of Beaumont treats all of the wastewater to meet Title 22 regulations for recycled use. Presently all flows are being discharged to Cooper Creek which is tributary to San Timoteo Creek.

2.2.5.2 Planned
The District is working with the City of Beaumont to develop a program that will replace existing potable water demand used for irrigation with recycled water. Currently, there is approximately 1,100 AFY of potable water delivered by the District used for existing irrigation demands on the golf courses (Highland Springs Golf Course, South), parks, schools, cemeteries, medians and other green belt areas within the District's service area.

There are two additional golf courses and a poultry operation within and adjacent to the District's SOI that have their own wells that could use recycled water in lieu of groundwater once available.

Including all planned and existing facilities within the District's SOI, the irrigation demand is an additional 4,500 AFY. Although the total recycled water demand is 5,600 AFY, only 5,100 AFY of recycled water will be available by the year 2025. It is conceivable that the District may offset 5,600 AFY of potable water demand by 2025 if adequate recycled water supply (wastewater) is found.

In addition to capturing and percolating storm runoff, the District intends to recharge surplus recycled water into the BSU as part of the Recharge Program discussed earlier.

The recycled water would pass through natural nitrate removal facilities proposed by the District on land currently owned in Noble Canyon and is expected to begin by 2010.

Recharge with recycled water will require blending with natural runoff and/or imported water to meet California Department of Health and Safety regulations.

Refer to Section 8 for the current installation and plan details of water recycling projects.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-10
August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plapage 1920 of 2775
Section 2 — Water Sources

2.2.6 Imported Water

2.2.6.1 Existing Sources
The District is eligible to receive imported water from the Pass Agency. In addition to the District, other eligible agencies include the YVWD and City of Banning and the Cabazon Water District. The Pass Agency has a contract with the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for 17,300 AFY of SWP water from Silverwood Reservoir via the Devil's Canyon Power Plant. This amount of water should be shared among all of the eligible agencies.

A method of allocating water among the various agencies within the Pass Agency service area could be on the basis of assessed valuation. For example, if a water purveyor has 40 percent of the Pass Agency's total assessed valuation, then the water purveyor could be entitled up to 40 percent of the Pass Agency's available supply. A draft report, using the assessed valuation method, prepared May 1988 by the Pass Agency's engineer has indicated the District is "entitled" to 37.8 percent or 6,540 AFY of the Pass Agency's. entitlement. If other areas of the Pass Agency do not require their full "allocation", any "unallocated" water could be available to the District.

The Pass Agency's contract entitlement is not guaranteed every year. At one time, during the initial planning stages of the SWP, this was virtually guaranteed. However the inability to construct all of the SWP facilities, environmental concerns, and the need to provide more water through the Delta to maintain water quality for fish and wildlife, have all contributed to decreasing the long-term yield from the SWP. Reports have indicated that the dependable yield from the SWP is on average approximately 75 percent of its contracted obligation. Based on this then, the District's allocation could be only about 4,900 AFY. For planning purposes, it will be assumed that 5,000 AFY would be available from the Pass Agency on a long-term average supply condition. The annual allocation from the DWR varies from year to year depending on hydrologic conditions.

Over the last 13 years, (1990 through 2002), the allocation for municipal and industrial purposes ("M&I") ranged from a low of 30% to 100% of the contract amount. The average for the period was 75%; the median was 90%.

2.2.6.2 Planned
In order to bring imported water into the Beaumont and Cherry Valley areas, pipeline and appurtenant facility construction is needed.

The Pass Agency has recently completed construction of the East Branch Extension — Phase 1 to Noble Creek. The Cherry Valley Pump Station near the District's Taylor Tank is nearing completion. The Pass Agency is proposing to deliver untreated SWP water as early as summer 2002 to the existing Little San Gorgonio spreading grounds for percolation into the local BSU. The East Branch extension presently ends at Noble Creek where water can be released into the creek for percolation into the BSU.

The new system will initially have the capability of delivering 8,650 acre-feet annually.

With the cooperation of the Pass Agency and the joint use of the District's runoff and recharge facilities, the Pass Agency will be able to store imported SWP water in the BSU for current and future uses. This will eliminate the reliability issues associated with the Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
2-11 August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plan Section 2 — Water Sources

Page 1921 of 2775 ends

SWP as the Pass Agency will have as many as twenty years to recharge the groundwater basin, which has an estimated unused storage capacity of between 200,000 and 400,000 acre-feet. This banked water in the near teiiii can be saved to meet demands after the water from the District, City of Beaumont and STWMA projects have been utilized.

2.3 TRANSFER OR EXCHANGE OPPORTUNITIES
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following:
10631 (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.

Pending changes in the State Water Contracts will make water transfers among State Water Contractors easier. The District, in coordination with the Pass Agency, could pursue transfer of water from other State Water Contractors or their subagencies either on a permanent basis or temporary basis.

In addition, water transfers from non-SWP service areas are possible. This water could be conveyed in SWP facilities with the cost of transport paid by the Pass Agency.

The District, through the adoption Facility Fees, collects fees from developers to finance additional water and recycled water facilities, sources of water supply, such as excess water entitlements from the SWP or additional water right entitlements. The fees collected also allow the District to participate in other projects such as desalination in exchange for imported water.

2.4 SUMMARY
The key elements for supporting the continued growth in the District are the construction of a recycled water distribution system, the implementation of the Recharge Program, the development of an urban runoff program, and the delivery and recharge of SWP water.

With these projected available water sources along with the incidental water sources planned for the next twenty-five years, the District will have 26,120 AFY available in 2025.

Construction of a recycled water distribution system to make recycled water available to parks, playgrounds, golf courses, street medians, and freeway landscaping, will save valuable potable water resources for their highest and best use (domestic consumption).

The implementation of the recycled water system is projected to conserve 5,100 AFY of potable water in the year 2025. Based on the District's average annual usage per EDU of

0.61 AFY, the potable water savings will provide water to 8,360 EDU.

The District's proposed Recharge Program, as discussed in Section 2.2.4.2, will also provide new water supply to the District for potable use. The Recharge Program with an estimated 4,100 AFY will provide 6,700 EDU with potable water. Both the Recharge Program and recycled water distribution combined will provide a total water source for over 15,000 EDU. Section 5 of this UWMP provides a comparison of the available water sources and the projected demands.

I 1994 Water System Master Plan Update (September 1995). Prepared by Parsons Engineering Science Inc. for Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District, pg. 4-21.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District
2-12 August 6, 2002
2000 Urban Water Management Plan_
age 1922 of 2775
Section 2 — Water Sources

2 1994 Water System Master Plan Update (September 1995). Prepared by Parsons Engineering Science Inc. for Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District.
3 Ibid. pg. 4-17.
4 Ibid. pgs. 7-14 to 7-17.
5 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfles/westevao.fnaLhtml , .Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)—Pan Evaporation for the Western States.
6 1994 Water System Master Plan Update (September 1995). Prepared by Parsons Engineering Science Inc. for Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District, page 4-17.
7 Resource Development: Surface Water Capture for Little San Gorgonio Creek & Other Locations (September 12, 2000), Prepared by Parsons Engineering Science Inc. for Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District.

Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District 2-13
2000 Urban Water Management Plan

Page 1923 of 2775 ends

Beaumont City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Beaumont City Council
June 17, 2025