LOCUST AVENUE & VINEYARD AVENUE PROJECT TRAFFIC … · LOCUST AVENUE & VINEYARD AVENUE PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED) November 2, 2017 Prepared by: Chris Pylant Carl Ballard,

��

��

��

�� !��"��!#��$��#�%��"�

LOCUST AVENUE & VINEYARD AVENUE PROJECT

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED)

November 2, 2017

LOCUST AVENUE & VINEYARD AVENUE PROJECT

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED)

November 2, 2017

Prepared by:

Chris Pylant ■ Carl Ballard, LEED GA ■ William Kunzman, P.E.

Kunzman Associates, Inc.

1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 ■ Orange, California 92868 5005 La Mart Drive, Suite 201 ■ Riverside, California 92507

(714) 973-8383 ■ www.traffic-engineer.com JN 7010

03/31/2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 A. Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................... 1 B. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1 C. Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 1 D. Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 2

II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 5 A. Intersection Analysis Methodology ................................................................................. 5 B. Roadway Segment Analysis Methodology ....................................................................... 5 C. Level of Service Standards ............................................................................................... 6 D. Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................... 6

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 8 A. Existing Traffic Controls & Intersection Geometry .......................................................... 8 B. Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 8 C. Existing Levels of Service .................................................................................................. 8 D. General Plan General Plan/Renaissance Specific Plan Circulation Element .................... 9 E. Transit Service .................................................................................................................. 9

IV. PROJECT TRIPS ................................................................................................................. 22 A. Trip Generation .............................................................................................................. 22 B. Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 22 C. Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................. 22 D. Project Trip Contribution Test ....................................................................................... 22

V. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................................................................. 30 A. Method of Projection ..................................................................................................... 30 B. Future Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 30

1. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 30 2. Project Completion (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project) Traffic

Volumes ................................................................................................................ 30 3. Cumulative Conditions (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus

Cumulative) Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 31 4. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Traffic Volumes ......................................... 31

VI. FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................................................. 47 A. Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment & Intersection Level of Service ...................... 47 B. Project Completion (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project) Roadway

Segment & Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 47 C. Cumulative Conditions (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus

Cumulative) Roadway Segment & Intersection Levels of Service ................................. 47 D. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Roadway Segment & Intersection Levels

of Service ....................................................................................................................... 48

VII. MITIGATION MEASURES AND COST ESTIMATES ............................................................... 58

A. Intersection Improvements ........................................................................................... 58 B. Roadway Segment Improvements ................................................................................. 58

VIII. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 63 A. Off-Site Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 63 B. On-Site/Access Recommendations ................................................................................ 63

APPENDICES Appendix A – Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B – Scoping Agreement Appendix C – Intersection Turning Movement Count Worksheets Appendix D – Intersection Delay and Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E – Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for Congestion Management Program

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ............................................................ 10 Table 2. Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service ........................................................ 11 Table 3. Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................. 23 Table 4. Other Development Trip Generation ......................................................................... 32 Table 5. Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................ 50 Table 6. Existing Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service .................................... 51 Table 7. Project Completion Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ......................................... 52 Table 8. Project Completion Intersection Delay and Level of Service ..................................... 53 Table 9. Cumulative Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .................................... 54 Table 10. Cumulative Conditions Intersection Delay and Level of Service ................................ 55 Table 11. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .............. 56 Table 12. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Intersection Delay and Level of Service .......... 57 Table 13. Summary of Intersection Improvements and Costs ................................................... 60 Table 14. Project Fair Share Intersection Traffic Contribution .................................................. 61 Table 15. Roadway Segment Improvements, Cost, and Fair Share Contribution ...................... 62

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Map.................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls .......................................... 12 Figure 4. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .................... 14 Figure 6. Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................... 15 Figure 7. City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element ......................................................... 16 Figure 8. City of Rialto General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections .................................................. 17 Figure 9. City of Rialto Truck Routes ......................................................................................... 18 Figure 10. Renaissance Specific Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan ............................ 19 Figure 11. Existing Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 12. Existing Transit/Rail Routes and Service Areas........................................................... 21 Figure 13. Project Trip Distribution - Cars ................................................................................... 24 Figure 14. Project Trip Distribution - Trucks ................................................................................ 25 Figure 15. Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 26 Figure 16. Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................... 27 Figure 17. Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ...................... 28 Figure 18. Project Trip Contribution Test Volumes ..................................................................... 29 Figure 19. Other Development Location Map ............................................................................. 34 Figure 20. Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................... 35 Figure 21. Existing Plus Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement

Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 22. Existing Plus Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement

Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 23. Project Completion Average Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................... 38 Figure 24. Project Completion Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement

Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 25. Project Completion Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement

Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 26. Cumulative Conditions Average Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................. 41 Figure 27. Cumulative Conditions Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement

Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 28. Cumulative Conditions Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement

Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 29. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Average Daily Traffic Volumes ........................ 44 Figure 30. General Plan Buildout With Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning

Movement Volumes ................................................................................................... 45

Figure 31. General Plan Buildout With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................................... 46

Figure 32. Circulation Recommendations ................................................................................... 64

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of potential traffic impacts resulting from development of the proposed Locust Avenue & Vineyard Avenue project and to identify the traffic mitigation measures necessary to maintain the established level of service standard for the elements of the impacted roadway system. The traffic issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Rialto is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the traffic impact analysis, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act authorizing legislation. This report analyzes traffic impacts for the anticipated opening date with occupancy of the development in Opening Year 2019, at which time it will be generating trips at its full potential. This report also analyzes potential project traffic impacts for General Plan Buildout (Post‐2035) traffic conditions. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. A. Project Description

The project site is located at the northeast corner of the Locust Avenue/Vineyard Avenue intersection in the City of Rialto. The 6.32 acre project site is proposed to consist of a 120,600 square foot warehouse facility. Access is proposed to be provided to Locust Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. For purposes of this analysis, the project is planned to be fully operational by year 2019.

B. Traffic Conditions The study area roadway segments currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service (see Table 1). The study area intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing traffic conditions (see Table 2). The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 719 daily passenger car equivalent trips, 59 passenger car equivalents trips of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 64 passenger car equivalent trips of which will occur during the evening peak hour (see Table 3). The study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions (see Table 5).

ii

The proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions (see Table 6). The study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Project Completion traffic conditions (see Table 7). The proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Project Completion traffic conditions (see Table 8). As shown in Table 5, the following roadway segments are forecast to operate at a deficient Level of Service (E or F) for Cumulative traffic conditions without improvements (see Table 9): ■ Locust Avenue from Bohnert Avenue to Vineyard Avenue ■ Locust Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Casmalia Street The study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Cumulative traffic conditions with improvements (see Table 9). The proposed project is forecast to result in a significant traffic impact at the following study intersections based on the net change in delay for Cumulative traffic conditions without improvements (see Table 10):

Alder Avenue (NS) at: Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #1 (morning/evening peak hours) SR‐210 Freeway Westbound Ramps (EW) ‐ #2 (evening peak hour)

The proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Cumulative traffic conditions with improvements (see Table 10). The following roadway segments are forecast to operate at a deficient Level of Service (E or F) for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions with improvements (see Table 11). ■ Locust Avenue from Bohnert Avenue to Vineyard Avenue ■ Locust Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Casmalia Street The proposed project is forecast to result in a significant traffic impact at the following study intersections based on the net change in delay for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions without improvements (see Table 12):

Alder Avenue (NS) at: Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #1 (morning/evening peak hours) SR‐210 Freeway Westbound Ramps (EW) ‐ #2 (evening peak hour)

Locust Avenue (NS) at: Bohnert Avenue (EW) ‐ #4 (morning/evening peak hours) Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #8 (morning/evening peak hours)

iii

The proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions with improvements (see Table 12).

C. Off‐Site Mitigation Measures The proposed project shall contribute on a fair share basis through an adopted development impact fee program, or in dollar equivalent in lieu mitigation contributions, in the implementation of the improvements identified in Section VI and summarized in Table 13 and Table 15.

D. On‐Site/Access Recommendations Site‐specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Figure 32. The proposed project driveways shall be constructed in conformance with City of Rialto standards, including provisions for sight distance and truck turning path requirements. Locust Avenue along the project boundary shall be constructed at its ultimate half‐section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. Vineyard Avenue along the project boundary shall be constructed at its ultimate half‐section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. On‐site traffic signing and striping shall be submitted for City of Rialto approval in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Off‐street parking shall be provided to meet City of Rialto parking code requirements.

1

ChrisText Box

1

I. INTRODUCTION This section discusses the project location and proposed development and study area. Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan. A. Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of potential traffic impacts resulting from development of the proposed Locust Avenue & Vineyard Avenue project and to identify the traffic mitigation measures necessary to maintain the established level of service standard for the elements of the impacted roadway system. The traffic issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Rialto is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the traffic impact analysis, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act authorizing legislation. This report analyzes traffic impacts for the anticipated opening date with occupancy of the development in Opening Year 2019, at which time it will be generating trips at its full potential. This report also analyzes potential project traffic impacts for Long‐Range (Post‐2035) traffic conditions. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A.

B. Project Description The project site is located at the northeast corner of the Locust Avenue/Vineyard Avenue intersection in the City of Rialto. The 6.32 acre project site is proposed to consist of a 120,600 square foot warehouse facility. Access is proposed to be provided to Locust Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. For purposes of this analysis, the project is planned to be fully operational by year 2019.

C. Study Area Based on the City‐approved scoping agreement contained in Appendix B, the study area consists of the following intersections and roadway segments located in the City of Rialto: Study Intersections ■ Alder Avenue (NS) at Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW)1 ‐ #1 ■ Alder Avenue (NS) at SR‐210 Freeway Westbound Ramps (EW) ‐ #2 ■ Alder Avenue (NS) at SR‐210 Freeway Eastbound Ramps (EW) ‐ #3 ■ Locust Avenue (NS) at Bohnert Avenue Parkway (EW) ‐ #4 ■ Locust Avenue (NS) at North Project Driveway (EW) ‐ #5

1 NS = North‐South Roadway; EW = East‐West Roadway; SR = State Route

2

2

■ Locust Avenue (NS) at South Project Driveway (EW) - #6 ■ Locust Avenue (NS) at Vineyard Avenue (EW) - #7 ■ Locust Avenue (NS) at Casmalia Street (EW) - #8 ■ Locust Avenue (NS) at Renaissance Parkway (EW) - #9 ■ Cedar Avenue (NS) at Casmalia Street (EW) - #10 Study Roadway Segments ■ Locust Avenue between Bohnert Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ■ Locust Avenue between Vineyard Avenue and Casmalia Street ■ Casmalia Street between Locust Avenue and Linden Avenue

D. Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios are analyzed in accordance with City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (December 2013): (1) Existing Conditions; (2) Existing Plus Project Conditions2; (3) Project Completion (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project); (4) Cumulative Conditions (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative); (5) General Plan Buildout (With Project) Conditions.

2 The existing plus project conditions has been analyzed to comply with the Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association

v. City of Sunnyvale CEQA court case. This scenario assumes the full development of the proposed project and full absorption of the proposed project trips on the circulation system at the present time.

3

5

II. METHODOLOGY The scope of this traffic impact analysis is based on the guidance provided in the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (December 2013). A. Intersection Analysis Methodology

The technique used to assess the performance of an intersection is known as the intersection delay method based on the procedures contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). The methodology compares the volume of traffic using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection to calculate the delay associated with associated with the traffic control at the intersection. The intersection delay is then correlated to a performance measure known as Level of Service based on the following thresholds:

Level of

Service

Intersection Control Delay (Seconds / Vehicle) Signalized Intersection

Unsignalized Intersection

A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0

B > 10.0 to ≤ 20.0 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0

C > 20.0 to ≤ 35.0 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0

D > 35.0 to ≤ 55.0 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0

E > 55.0 to ≤ 80.0 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0

F > 80.0 > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010).

Level of Service is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from Level of Service A (free‐flow conditions) to Level of Service F (extreme congestion and system failure). Signalized intersection analysis input parameters for Highway Capacity Manual calculations were used in accordance with Exhibit C of the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (December 2013).

B. Roadway Segment Analysis Methodology Roadway segments are analyzed based on a volume to capacity analysis of average daily traffic volumes compared to the roadway capacities defined by the City of Rialto as follows:

6

6

Roadway Classification

Numberof

Lanes

Two‐Way Traffic Volume (ADT)1,2

LOS C LOS D LOS E

Local 2 2,500 ‐ 2,799 2,800 ‐ 3,099 3,100 +

Collector (60' or 64') 2 9,900 ‐ 11,199 11,200 ‐ 12,499 12,500+

Industrial (45') 2 9,900 ‐ 11,199 11,200 ‐ 12,499 12,500+

Arterial3 2 14,400 ‐ 16,199 16,200 ‐ 17,999 18,000+

Secondary Highway 4 16,900 ‐ 19,399 19,400 ‐ 21,999 22,000+

Modified Arterial (100') 4 26,200 ‐ 29,599 29,600 ‐ 32,999 33,000+

Arterial (120') 6 38,700 ‐ 44,099 44,100 ‐ 49,499 49,500+ 1 All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only.

2 Maximum two‐way ADT values are based on the 1999 Modified Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Tables.

3 Two‐lane roads designated as future arterials that conform to arterial design standards for vertical and horizontal alignments are analyzed as arterials.

Source: City of Rialto Public Works Department, Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirement, December 2013.

C. Level of Service Standards The City of Rialto 2010 General Plan Update contains the following policies applicable to Level of Service standards within the City: ■ Policy 4‐1.20: Design City streets so that signalized intersections operate at Level of

Service (LOS) D or better during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level. The one exception will be Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks all the way to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E.

■ Policy 4‐1.21: Design City streets so that unsignalized intersections operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay greater than 120 seconds during the morning and evening peak hours, and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that increase delay above that level.

Based on the above thresholds, signalized study intersections and roadway segments operating at Level of Service E or F are considered deficient. Unsignalized study intersections operating at Level of Service F with greater than 120 seconds of delay are considered deficient.

D. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Exhibit F of the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (December 2013), a significant impact is deemed to occur if:

7

7

■ The project causes the worst vehicular movement at an unsignalized study intersection to exceed 120 seconds; or

■ The project causes a signalized study intersection or roadway segment to fall below Level of Service D (except Riverside Avenue from the Metrolink tracks to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E); or

■ The project causes the peak hour delay to increase as follows:

Level of Service Increase in Delay (seconds)

A/B 10.0 seconds

C 8.0 seconds

D 5.0 seconds

E 2.0 seconds

F 1.0 seconds

8

8

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Traffic Controls & Intersection Geometry

Figure 3 identifies the Existing number of through lanes, intersection traffic controls, and intersection geometry based on a field survey of the study area. Regional access to/from the project site is provided by the SR‐210 Freeway. North‐south local circulation in the project vicinity is primarily provided by Locust Avenue and Alder Avenue. East‐west roadways that provide local circulation in the project vicinity include Casmalia Street, Bohnert Avenue, and Renaissance Parkway.

B. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic volumes are based upon morning peak period and evening peak period intersection turning movement counts conducted in June 2017 and December 2016 and during typical weekday conditions. The morning peak period was counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the evening peak period was counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The actual peak hour within the peak period is the four consecutive 15‐minute periods with the highest total volume when all movements are added together. Thus, the weekday evening peak hour at one intersection may be 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM if those four consecutive 15‐minute periods have the highest combined volume. Intersection Turning Movement count worksheets are provided in Appendix C. The peak hour intersection turning movement counts were converted into passenger car equivalents in accordance with the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (1.5 passenger car equivalents for 2‐axle trucks, 2.0 passenger car equivalents for 3‐axle trucks, and 3.0 passenger car equivalents for trucks with 4 or more axles). The existing average daily traffic volumes have been directly measured or factored from peak hour volumes using the following formula for each intersection leg based on measured daily traffic counts at 3 representative locations in the study area:

PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 13.8 = Leg Volume. Figure 4 depicts the existing average daily traffic volumes. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the existing morning peak hour and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes (in passenger car equivalents), respectively.

C. Existing Levels of Service Existing roadway segment capacity analysis is shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the study area roadway segments currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service. The morning and evening peak hour intersection delay and Levels of Service for Existing traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the

9

9

study area intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing traffic conditions. Existing intersection delay and Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

D. General Plan General Plan/Renaissance Specific Plan Circulation Element The City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element is shown on Figure 7. Existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 7. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City of Rialto General Plan roadway cross‐sections are shown on Figure 8. The City of Rialto designated truck route map is illustrated on Figure 9. The Renaissance Specific Plan bicycle and pedestrian circulation plan is illustrated on Figure 10. Existing pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project site are shown on Figure 11.

E. Transit Service Figure 12 shows the City of Rialto transit/rail routes and service areas. As shown on Figure 12, Omnitrans Route 22 runs along Locust Avenue and Bohnert Avenue, providing transit connection between Rialto and the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton.

10

CapacityNumber for Deficient

of Roadway Level of Level ofFrom To Lanes Classification Service D Service?

Bohnert Avenue Vineyard Avenue 11,300 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 NoVineyard Avenue Casmalia Street 11,400 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 No

Casmalia Street

Sierra Lakes Parkway/ Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #1 Linden Avenue 6,500 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 No

1 Average Daily Traffic Volume in Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs).

Table 1

Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis

Segment

Average Daily Traffic Volume1Roadway

Locust Avenue

11

TrafficJurisdiction Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening

Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #1 Rialto TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 20.7‐C 25.9‐C

SR‐210 WB Ramps (EW) ‐ #2 Caltrans TS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 17.1‐B 18.0‐B

SR‐210 EB Ramps (EW) ‐ #3 Caltrans TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 14.9‐B 17.1‐B

Bohnert Avenue (EW) ‐ #4 Rialto CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.6‐B 18.2‐C

Vineyard Avenue (EW) ‐ #7 Rialto CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 13.4‐B 16.8‐C

Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #8 Rialto TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 d 1 1 d 20.1‐C 22.0‐C

Renaissance Parkway (EW) ‐ #9 Rialto TS 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 22.4‐C 22.5‐C

Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #10 Rialto AWS 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 7.9‐A 8.5‐A

1

2

3TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop

Alder Avenue (NS) at:

Delay and Level of Service has been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 4.00‐00. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, 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.

When a right turn lane 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; d = De Facto Right Turn

Cedar Avenue (NS) at:


Locust Avenue (NS) at:





Table 2

Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Peak HourDelay‐LOS2Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Intersection

12

22

IV. PROJECT TRIPS A. Trip Generation

Trip generation rates were determined for daily trips, morning peak hour inbound and outbound trips, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound trips for the proposed land use. The number of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project are determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantity. Table 3 shows the project trip generation based upon rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. The project trip generation has been converted into passenger car equivalent trips in accordance with the truck percentages and PCE factors outlined in the City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (2014). As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 719 daily passenger car equivalent trips, 59 passenger car equivalent trips of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 64 passenger car equivalent trips of which will occur during the evening peak hour.

B. Trip Distribution Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the project trip distribution patterns for cars and trucks, respectively. The forecast project trip distributions are based on review of existing traffic data, surrounding land uses, and the local and regional roadway facilities in the project vicinity.

C. Trip Assignment Based on the identified trip generation and distributions, project average daily traffic volumes have been calculated and shown on Figure 15. Morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes expected from the project are shown on Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively.

D. Project Trip Contribution Test Figure 18 shows the forecast project trip contribution test used for identifying the study area. The City of Rialto requires the study area to include any intersection of streets on which at least one street is classified as Collector or above and the proposed project is forecast to contribute more than 50 peak hour trips. Figure 18 shows the project trip contribution test volumes on the roadways adjacent to the potential intersection analysis locations until the project volume has dropped below the 50 peak hour trip threshold.

23

Passenger 2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle TotalQuantity Units2 Car Truck Truck Truck Trucks Total

Land Use: Warehousing 120.600 TSF 60.0% 0.8% 11.2% 28.0% 40.0% 100%

Trip Generation Ratesin trips per TSF

Daily 2.136 0.029 0.399 0.997 1.424 3.56

Morning Peak Hour 0.180 0.002 0.034 0.084 0.120 0.30Evening Peak Hour 0.192 0.003 0.036 0.090 0.128 0.32

Trip Generation in Vehicles

Daily 258 3 48 120 171 429 Morning Peak Hour

Inbound 17 ‐ 3 8 11 28 Outbound 4 ‐ 1 2 3 7

Total 21 ‐ 4 10 14 35 Evening Peak Hour

Inbound 6 ‐ 1 3 4 10 Outbound 17 ‐ 3 8 11 28 Total 23 ‐ 4 11 15 38

Passenger Car Equivalent(PCE) Factor3 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00

Trip Generation in PCEsDaily 258 5 96 360 461 719 Morning Peak Hour

Inbound 17 ‐ 6 24 30 47 Outbound 4 ‐ 2 6 8 12 Total 21 ‐ 8 30 38 59

Evening Peak HourInbound 6 ‐ 2 9 11 17 Outbound 17 ‐ 6 24 30 47 Total 23 ‐ 8 33 41 64

1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012, Land Use Code 150 and City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis

Report Guidelines and Requirements, 2014.

2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet

3 Passenger Car Equivalent factors are from City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements, 2014.

Table 3

Type of Vehicle

Descriptor

Project Trip Generation1

24

30

V. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES A. Method of Projection

To assess future traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with project trips, ambient growth, and other development. The project completion year for analysis purposes in this report is 2019. 1. Ambient Growth

To account for ambient growth on roadways, existing traffic volumes were increased by two percent per year over a two year period.

2. Other Development A list of other pending or approved development projects were provided by City of Rialto staff. Table 4 shows the forecast trip generation for other developments forecast to add future traffic to the study area. Figure 19 shows the location of other developments.

3. General Plan Buildout Conditions General Plan Buildout traffic volumes are based on the “Year 2035 With RSPA Peak Hour Traffic Volumes” contained in the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment [RSPA] Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA, 2015). The forecast turning movements were reviewed for reasonableness and adjusted as necessary to ensure traffic growth over cumulative (Year 2019) traffic conditions.

B. Future Traffic Volumes

1. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes for Existing Plus Project conditions have been derived by adding the project generated trips to existing traffic volumes. Existing Plus Project average daily traffic volumes are shown on Figure 20. Existing Plus Project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 21 and Figure 22, respectively.

2. Project Completion (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project) Traffic Volumes To assess traffic conditions at project completion, ambient growth and project‐generated trips are added to existing traffic volumes. Project Completion average daily traffic volumes are shown on Figure 23. Project Completion morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 24 and Figure 25, respectively.

31

31

3. Cumulative Conditions (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative) Traffic Volumes To assess cumulative traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth, project generated trips, and trips generated by other development. Cumulative Conditions average daily traffic volumes are shown on Figure 26. Cumulative Conditions morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 27 and Figure 28, respectively.

4. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Traffic Volumes General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions represent full buildout of the City of Rialto according to the General Plan Land Use Element/Renaissance Specific Plan. As previously described, General Plan buildout traffic volumes are based on the traffic forecasts contained in the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment [RSPA] Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA, 2015). General Plan Buildout (With Project) average daily traffic volumes are shown on Figure 29. General Plan Buildout (With Project) morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 30 and Figure 31, respectively.

32

1 of 2

Include? In Out Total In Out Total1 General Light Industrial Yes 618.400 TSF 636 85 721 94 667 761 5,4702 Alder Avenue Distribution Center Yes 630.000 TSF 249 67 316 84 253 337 3,7613 Warehouse Yes 300.800 TSF 94 24 118 32 94 126 1,4034 I-210 Gateway Center Yes 614.800 TSF 192 49 241 65 192 257 2,8685 B & B Plastics Yes 150.000 TSF 64 17 81 22 64 86 9636 Baseline Logistics Center Yes 725.000 TSF 227 57 284 75 227 302 3,3837 PA 108 Yes

- Monster Beverage 1,094.900 TSF 434 115 549 148 441 589 6,533- Building 5 614.848 TSF 571 73 644 458 584 1,042 6,353- Building 6 649.800 TSF 152 939 1,091 941 43 981 9,353- Remaining Warehouse 416.000 TSF 496 132 628 140 417 557 2,393

Subtotal 1,653 1,259 2,912 1,687 1,485 3,172 24,6328 Renaissance Marketplace Yes 302 166 468 661 821 1,482 17,7809 Pannatoni 5 Yes 200.000 TSF 77 22 99 26 78 104 1,193

10 Morin Warehouse Yes 200.000 TSF 77 22 99 26 78 104 1,19311 State Pipe Yes 43.357 TSF 42 12 54 18 34 52 277

Arco Center Yes

- Fast Food w/ Drive Through4 5.800 TSF 68 66 134 49 45 94 2,653- Car Wash5 1 Site 18 18 36 55 55 110 900- Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 2 Bay 4 2 6 6 5 11 80- Motel 77 RM 12 22 34 20 17 37 434

Subtotal 102 108 210 130 122 252 4,067NWC Alder/Renaissance Yes- Service Station w/ Convenience Market- Fast Food w/ Drive Through 4.500 TSF 53 51 104 38 35 73 2,059- Fast Food w/o Drive Through 1.000 TSF 26 18 44 13 13 26 716- High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant- Motel 100 RM 16 29 45 25 22 47 563

Subtotal 188 189 377 196 186 382 6,19614 Locust/Stonehurst Warehouse Yes 150.000 TSF 59 17 76 18 60 78 89615 Locust/Lowell Warehouse Yes 150.000 TSF 59 17 76 18 60 78 89616 Prologis Building 7 Yes 473.000 TSF 155 20 175 47 182 229 2,33917 Mobile Mini Yes

- Existing -30 -29 -59 -20 -19 -39 -389- Proposed Expansion 33 32 65 22 21 43 428

Subtotal 3 3 6 2 2 4 3918 Prologis Building 5 Yes 384.893 TSF 155 42 197 51 155 206 2,29719 I-210 Logistics Center III 730.000 TSF 294 72 366 97 294 391 4,35720 Shaw Development Warehouse 175.900 TSF 70 18 88 23 70 93 1,050

12

162

Table 4

Other Development Trip Generation1,2

Traffic Analysis

Zone Name/Land Use

Peak Hour

DailyMorning Evening

Quantity Units3

108 108 216 2,604

2.000 TSF 12 10

13

16 FP 81 81

22 12 8 20 254

33

2 of 2

Include? In Out Total In Out Total

Table 4

Other Development Trip Generation1,2

Traffic Analysis

Zone Name/Land Use

Peak Hour

DailyMorning Evening

Quantity Units3

21 Alder Avenue High-Cube Warehouse 123.000 TSF 18 4 22 6 18 24 26322 Truck Yard (Locust/Lowell) TSF 65 64 129 63 63 126 450

23 NEC Ayala/Renaissance Shopping Center 245 219 464 210 185 395 5,74224 I-210 Logistics Center IV 431.265 TSF 171 45 216 58 173 231 2,573

Total 5,129 2,532 7,661 3,660 5,518 9,178 91,435

1 Source: Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, December 3, 2015 and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual,

9th Edition, 2012, Land Use Codes 140, 150, 210, 320, 820, 854, 933, 934, 941, & 945.

5 Source: Evening Peak Hour rates from Appendix A of the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 168,999 Effective September 22, 1993. Morning Peak Hour and Daily rates from the San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002. Automatic Car Wash rates are used.

3 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms; FP = Fueling Positions

2 Trips are presented in Passenger Car Equivalents, where applicable.

4 Based on a field visit performed by Kunzman Associates, Inc. staff, development is currently occupied and fully operational according to the current tenant.

34

47

VI. FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE Detailed intersection delay and Level of Service calculation worksheets for each of the following analysis scenarios are provided in Appendix D. A. Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment & Intersection Level of Service

Table 5 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions based on the existing number of lanes. As shown in Table 5, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable Levels of Service for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. Table 6 shows intersection delay and Level of Service for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions based on existing lane geometry and project driveway improvements. As shown in Table 6, the study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. As also shown Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions.

B. Project Completion (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project) Roadway Segment & Intersection Levels of Service Table 7 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Project Completion traffic conditions based on the existing number of lanes. As shown in Table 7, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable Levels of Service for Project Completion traffic conditions. Table 8 shows intersection delay and Level of Service for Project Completion traffic conditions without and with improvements. As shown in Table 8, the study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Project Completion traffic conditions without improvements. As shown in Table 8, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Project Completion traffic conditions with improvements.

C. Cumulative Conditions (Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative)

Roadway Segment & Intersection Levels of Service Table 9 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Cumulative traffic conditions based on the existing number of lanes. As shown in Table 9, the following study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at deficient Levels of Service (E or F) for Cumulative traffic conditions without improvements: ■ Locust Avenue from Bohnert Avenue to Vineyard Avenue ■ Locust Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Casmalia Street

48

48

The following roadway segment improvements are recommended for Cumulative traffic conditions: ■ Locust Avenue from Bohnert Avenue to Vineyard Avenue

o Widen from a two lane secondary arterial to four lane modified arterial ■ Locust Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Casmalia Street

o Widen from a two lane secondary arterial to four lane modified arterial As shown in Table 9, the study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Cumulative traffic conditions with improvements. Table 10 shows intersection delay and Level of Service for Cumulative traffic conditions without and with improvements. As shown in Table 10, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at a deficient Level of Service (E or F) during the peak hours for Cumulative traffic conditions without improvements:

Alder Avenue (NS) at: Sierra Lakes Pkwy/Casmalia St (EW) - #1 (morning and evening peak hour) SR-210 Westbound Ramps (EW) - #2 (morning and evening peak hour) SR-210 Eastbound Ramps (EW) - #3 (morning and evening peak hour)

As also shown in Table 10, the proposed project is forecast to result in a significant traffic impact at the following study intersections based on the net change in delay for Cumulative traffic conditions without improvements:

Alder Avenue (NS) at: Sierra Lakes Pkwy/Casmalia St (EW) - #1 (morning and evening peak hour) SR-210 Westbound Ramps (EW) - #2 (evening peak hour only)

As shown in Table 10, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for Cumulative traffic conditions with improvements.

D. General Plan Buildout (With Project) Roadway Segment & Intersection Levels of Service Table 11 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions. As shown in Table 11, the study area roadway segments are projected to provide sufficient capacity for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions, with the exception of Alder Avenue from SR-210 to Renaissance Parkway. As also shown in Table 11, the following study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at deficient Levels of Service (E or F) for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions without improvements: ■ Locust Avenue from Bohnert Avenue to Vineyard Avenue ■ Locust Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Casmalia Street The following roadway segment improvements are recommended for Cumulative traffic conditions:

49

49

■ Locust Avenue from Bohnert Avenue to Vineyard Avenue

o Widen from a two lane secondary arterial to four lane modified arterial ■ Locust Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Casmalia Street

o Widen from a two lane secondary arterial to four lane modified arterial As shown in Table 11, the study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions with improvements. Table 12 shows intersection delay and Level of Service for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions. As shown in Table 12, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at a deficient Level of Service (E or F) during the peak hours for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions:

Alder Avenue (NS) at: Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1 (morning/evening peak hours) SR-210 Freeway Westbound Ramps (EW) - #2 (morning/evening peak hours) SR-210 Freeway Eastbound Ramps (EW) - #3 (morning/evening peak hours)

Locust Avenue (NS) at: Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4 (morning/evening peak hours) Vineyard Avenue (EW) - #7 (evening peak hour) Casmalia Street (EW) - #8 (morning/evening peak hours) Renaissance Parkway (EW) - #9 (evening peak hour)

As also shown in Table 12, the proposed project is forecast to result in a significant traffic impact at the following study intersections based on the net change in delay for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions without improvements:

Alder Avenue (NS) at: Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1 (morning/evening peak hours) SR-210 Freeway Westbound Ramps (EW) - #2 (evening peak hour)

Locust Avenue (NS) at: Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4 (morning/evening peak hours) Casmalia Street (EW) - #8 (morning/evening peak hours)

As shown in Table 12, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts at the study intersections for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions with improvements.

50




Casmalia Street Locust Avenue Linden Avenue 6,800 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 No

Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis

Table 5


RoadwaySegment

Average Daily

Traffic Volume1

Without Improvements

Locust Avenue

51

TrafficJurisdiction Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening

Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1 Rialto TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 20.7-C 25.9-C 21.0-C 26.9-C +0.3 +1.0 No

AldSierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1SR-210 WB Ramps (EW) - #2 Caltrans TS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 17.1-B 18.0-B 18.3-B 18.2-B +1.2 +0.2 No

SR-210 EB Ramps (EW) - #3 Caltrans TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 14.9-B 17.1-B 16.0-B 17.2-B +1.1 +0.1 No

Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4 Rialto CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.6-B 18.2-C 14.7-B 18.4-C +0.1 +0.2 No

North Project Driveway (EW) - #5 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 12.8-B 15.6-C - - n/a

South Project Driveway (EW) - #6 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 12.7-B 15.5-C - - n/a

Vineyard Avenue (EW) - #7 Rialto CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 13.4-B 16.8-C 14.0-B 18.2-C +0.6 +1.4 No

Casmalia Street (EW) - #8 Rialto TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 d 1 1 d 20.1-C 22.0-C 20.9-C 22.6-C +0.8 +0.6 No

Renaissance Parkway (EW) - #9 Rialto TS 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 22.4-C 22.5-C 22.4-C 22.5-C 0.0 0.0 No

Casmalia Street (EW) - #10 Rialto AWS 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 7.9-A 8.5-A 8.0-A 8.6-A +0.1 +0.1 No

1

2


When a right turn lane 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; d = De Facto Right Turn; BOLD = Improvement

Delay and Level of Service has been calculated using the following analysis software: Vistro, Version 5.00-00. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, 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.

Delay

Change in

Sign

ifica

ntIm

pact

?










Existing Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service

Table 6

Intersection Approach Lanes1

Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Existing

Intersection

Peak Hour Delay-LOS2

Existing Plus Project

52





Project Completion Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis

Table 7


RoadwaySegment

Average Daily

Traffic Volumes1


Locust Avenue

53


Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1 Rialto TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 21.1-C 26.3-C 21.3-C 27.0-C +0.2 +0.7 No

SR-210 WB Ramps (EW) - #2 Caltrans TS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 17.6-B 18.5-B 17.6-B 18.7-B 0.0 +0.2 No

SR-210 EB Ramps (EW) - #3 Caltrans TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 15.3-B 17.4-B 15.3-B 17.4-B 0.0 0.0 No

Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4 Rialto CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.8-B 18.5-C 14.9-B 18.8-C +0.1 +0.3 No

North Project Driveway (EW) - #5 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 12.9-B 15.8-C - - n/a

South Project Driveway (EW) - #6 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 12.8-B 15.7-C - - n/a

Vineyard Avenue (EW) - #7 Rialto CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 13.6-B 17.1-C 14.1-B 18.5-C +0.5 +1.4 No

Casmalia Street (EW) - #8 Rialto TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 d 1 1 d 20.2-C 22.3-C 20.9-C 22.9-C +0.7 +0.6 No


Casmalia Street (EW) - #10 Rialto AWS 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 7.9-A 8.6-A 8.0-A 8.7-A +0.1 +0.1 No

1

2



When a right turn lane 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; d = De Facto Right Turn; BOLD = Improvement






Table 8

Project Completion Intersection Delay and Level of Service

Change in

Intersection

Intersection Approach Lanes1Project Completion

Peak Hour Delay-LOS2

Sign

ifica

ntIm

pact

?

Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Without Project With Project Delay






54

Capacity CapacityNumber for Deficient Number for Deficient

of Roadway Level of Level of of Roadway Level of Level ofFrom To Lanes Classification Service D Service? Lanes Classification Service D Service?

Bohnert Avenue Vineyard Avenue 20,200 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 Yes 4 Modified Arterial 32,999 NoVineyard Avenue Casmalia Street 20,800 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 Yes 4 Modified Arterial 32,999 No


Table 9

Cumulative Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis

With Improvements


RoadwaySegment

Average Daily

Traffic Volume1


Locust Avenue

55

Traffic

Jurisdiction Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening

Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1

- Without Improvements Rialto TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 59.8-E 125.1-F 63.0-E 126.8-F +3.2 +1.7 Yes- With Improvements Rialto TS 1 2 1> 1 2 0.5 1 1 1> 2 0.5 0.5 - - 20.0-C 36.4-D -39.8 -88.7 No

SR-210 WB Ramps (EW) - #2- Without Improvements Caltrans TS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 143.4-F 290.6-F 144.3-F 292.0-F +0.9 +1.4 Yes- With Improvements Caltrans TS 2 2 0 0 2 1>> 0 0 0 2 0.5 0.5 - - 26.0-C 26.2-C -117.4 -264.4 No

SR-210 EB Ramps (EW) - #3- Without Improvements Caltrans TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 164.7-F 264.8-F 165.4-F 264.8-F +0.7 0.0 No- With Improvements Caltrans TS 0 2 d 2 2 0 1.5 0.5 2> 0 0 0 - - 18.6-C 24.3-C -146.1 -240.5 No

Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4- Without Improvements Rialto CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 49.5-E 77.5-F 51.3-F 80.5-F +1.8 +3.0 No- With Improvements Rialto TS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 - - 4.7-A 4.2-A -44.8 -73.3 No

North Project Driveway (EW) - #5 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 27.8-D 41.1-E - - No

South Project Driveway (EW) - #6 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 27.2-D 39.7-E - - No

Vineyard Avenue (EW) - #7 Rialto CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 33.1-D 49.4-E 35.5-E 65.4-F +2.4 +16.0 No

Casmalia Street (EW) - #8 Rialto TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 d 1 1 d 34.3-C 34.3-C 36.8-D 35.9-D +2.5 +1.6 No


Casmalia Street (EW) - #10 Rialto AWS 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 25.5-D 42.9-E 27.7-D 46.8-E +2.2 +3.9 No

1

2


When a right turn lane 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; d = De Facto Right Turn; > =Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; BOLD = Improvement







Table 10

Cumulative Conditions Intersection Delay and Level of Service

Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Delay-LOS2Intersection Approach Lanes1

Intersection Sign

ifica

ntIm

pact

?

Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Without Project With Project Delay

Change in






56

Capacity CapacityNumber for Deficient Number for Deficient

of Roadway Level of Level of of Roadway Level of Level ofFrom To Lanes Classification Service D Service? Lanes Classification Service D Service?

Bohnert Avenue Vineyard Avenue 22,200 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 Yes 4 Modified Arterial 32,999 NoVineyard Avenue Casmalia Street 22,900 2 Secondary Arterial 17,999 Yes 4 Modified Arterial 32,999 No


1 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Locust Avenue have been calculated by applying 10% growth over Cumulative traffic conditions. Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Casmalia Street were determined by selecting the

higher of the following two volumes: that included in the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis and those calculated for Cumulative traffic conditions.

With Improvements

Table 11

General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis1


RoadwaySegment

Average Daily

Traffic Volume2


Locust Avenue

57


Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) - #1- Without Improvements Rialto TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 115.0-F 176.9-F 119.2-F 181.9-F +4.2 +5.0 Yes- With Improvements Rialto TS 1 2 1> 1 2 0.5 1 1 1> 2 0.5 0.5 - - 28.8-C 41.3-D -86.2 -135.6 No

SR-210 WB Ramps (EW) - #2- Without Improvements Caltrans TS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 149.0-E 306.9-F 149.5-F 310.0-F +0.5 +3.1 Yes- With Improvements Caltrans TS 2 2 0 0 2 1>> 0 0 0 2 0.5 0.5 - - 21.8-C 31.0-C -127.2 -275.9 No

SR-210 EB Ramps (EW) - #3- Without Improvements Caltrans TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 162.1-E 246.5-F 162.8-F 246.6-F +0.7 +0.1 No- With Improvements Caltrans TS 0 2 d 2 2 0 1.5 0.5 2> 0 0 0 - - 14.6-C 19.3-B -147.5 -227.2 No

Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4- Without Improvements Rialto CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 1,958.2-F 996.2-F 1,999.3-F 1,025.7-F +41.1 +29.5 Yes- With Improvements Rialto TS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 - - 19.3-B 9.2-A -1938.9 -987.0 No

North Project Driveway (EW) - #5 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 61.6-F 78.2-F - - No

South Project Driveway (EW) - #6 Rialto CSS 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - - 57.5-F 71.4-F - - No

Vineyard Avenue (EW) - #7 Rialto CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.2-B 93.8-F 93.5-F 163.4-F +79.3 +69.6 No4

Casmalia Street (EW) - #8- Without Improvements Rialto TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1 d 1 1 d 71.6-E 81.3-F 74.4-E 85.1-F +2.8 +3.8 Yes- With Improvements Rialto TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1.5 2 1 d 2 1 d 0.0- 0.0- 49.3-D 53.1-D -22.3 -28.2 No

Renaissance Parkway (EW) - #9- Without Improvements Rialto TS 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 54.2-D 77.3-E 54.2-D 77.4-E 0.0 +0.1 No- With Improvements Rialto TS5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 0.0- 0.0- 33.5-C 45.6-D -20.7 -31.7 No

Casmalia Street (EW) - #10 Rialto AWS 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 55.3-F 71.9-F 60.3-F 77.1-F +5.0 +5.2 No

1

2


4

5Install Protected-Permitted Phasing at the east and west approaches.

Table 12

General Plan Buildout Intersection Delay and Level of Service





Intersection

Intersection Approach Lanes1General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Delay-LOS2

Sign

ifica

ntIm

pact

?Change inNorthbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Without Project With Project Delay

Though this intersection experiences a delay of over 120 seconds at one of its approaches,there is no impact because only vehicles exiting the proposed project will experience this delay. Vineyard Avenue does not extend past the eastern project boundary and there are currently no plans to do so.


When a right turn lane 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; d = De Facto Right Turn; > =Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; BOLD = Improvement







58

58

VII. MITIGATION MEASURES AND COST ESTIMATES Improvements that will eliminate all anticipated roadway operational deficiencies throughout the study area have been identified for General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic conditions. The improvements were determined through the operations analysis of Section VI. The approximate costs for the General Plan Buildout (With Project) improvements have either been taken from the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis or have been estimated using cost guidelines in the Congestion Management Program Handbook (see Appendix E). It should be noted that any dollar figures are rough order of magnitude estimates only. They are intended only for the discussion purposes of this traffic impact analysis, and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. A. Intersection Improvements

The needed intersection improvements and resulting costs are summarized in Table 13 for the study area intersections. The total cost of needed and unfunded intersection improvements for the existing roadway network is $1,037,858. The project fair share contributions have also been calculated for General Plan Buildout (With Project) intersection improvement locations. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic volume. Table 14 presents a summary of improvement cost and project cost shares at the General Plan Buildout (With Project) intersection improvement locations. The intersection fair share cost calculations are typically based on the higher of the morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes. As shown in Table 14, the project’s fair share of identified intersection costs is $68,244. As mitigation for the potential traffic impacts to intersections, the proposed project shall contribute through an adopted traffic impact fee program in addition to any fair share contributions shown within the traffic study which is not covered within this fee program.

B. Roadway Segment Improvements The needed study area roadway segment improvements and resulting costs are summarized in Table 15. The total cost of needed and unfunded intersection improvements for the existing roadway network is $140,637. The project fair share contributions have also been calculated for General Plan Buildout (With Project) roadway segment improvement locations. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of project daily traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new daily General Plan Buildout (With Project) traffic volume.

59

59

Table 15 also includes project cost shares at the General Plan Buildout (With Project) roadway segment improvements. As shown in Table 15, the project’s fair share of identified roadway segment improvement costs is $2,050. As mitigation for the potential traffic impacts to roadway segments, the proposed project shall contribute through an adopted traffic impact fee program in addition to any fair share contributions shown within the traffic study which is not covered within this fee program.

60

Restripe to Provide Additional WB Left Turn Lane and WB Through/Right Turn Lane 10,000$ ‐ 10,000$ Construct NB Right Turn Lane w/ Overlap Phasing 182,245$ $157,150 25,095$ Construct EB Right Turn Lane w/ Overlap Phasing 182,245$ ‐ 182,245$

Restripe to Provide Additional NB Left Turn Lane $ 125,000 $29,875 95,125$

Restripe to Provide Additional WB Left Turn Lane and WB Through/Right Turn Lane $ 125,000 $29,875 95,125$ Widen SB Approach OC to Provide Channelized, Dedicated Right Turn Lane 125,000$ $29,875 95,125$

Bohnert Avenue (EW) ‐ #4 Rialto Install Traffic Signal 250,000$ ‐ 250,000$ Construct Additional WB Left Turn Lane 72,898$ ‐ 72,898$ Construct Additional EB Left Turn Lane 72,898$ $76,475 ‐ Construct Additional SB Right Turn Lane 72,898$ ‐ 72,898$ Restripe to Provide One SB Right Turn Lane and On SB Through/Right Turn Lane 10,000$ ‐ 10,000$ Re‐stripe SB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through/ Right Turn Lane 10,000$ ‐ 10,000$

Re‐stripe to provide One NB Through Lane and One Shared NB Through/Right Turn Lane 10,000$ ‐ 10,000$ Install Protected‐Permitted Phasing at the East and West Approaches 109,347$ ‐ 109,347$

Total 1,357,531$ 1,037,858$

1 Cost estimates based on Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis, LSA (December 2015).

Rialto

Caltrans2


Sierra Lakes Parkway/Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #1


Casmalia Street (EW) ‐ #8

Renaissance Parkway (EW) ‐ #9

SR‐210 Freeway WB Ramps (EW) ‐ #2

Rialto

Caltrans2

Table 13

Summary of Intersection Improvements and Costs

Intersection Jurisdiction Improvement Total Cost

Included in Renaissance Specific Plan Fee Program

Unfunded Cost

61

Year 2035 (Buildout) Project

With Total % ofExisting Project Project New New Project

Total Peak Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic CostJurisdiction Cost Hour Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes Share

Morning 1,342 4,269 93 2,927 3.2%Evening 1,654 4,434 96 2,780 3.5%Morning 1,693 4,740 87 3,047 2.9%Evening 1,885 5,333 92 3,448 2.7%

Rialto Morning 602 2,124 170 1,522 11.2%Evening 829 2,136 177 1,307 13.5%

Rialto Morning 797 3,730 164 2,933 5.6%Evening 1,322 4,048 173 2,726 6.3%

Rialto Morning 1,063 3,487 164 2,424 6.8%Evening 874 4,525 173 3,651 4.7%

Total 1,037,858$ 68,244$

Table 14

Project Fair Share Intersection Contribution

Intersection

Rialto 217,340$ 7,607$

Caltrans

8,796$ 129,347$

155,796$

250,000$ 33,750$

285,375$ 8,276$

9,815$ Locust Avenue (NS) at:

Bohnert Avenue (EW) - #4

Casmalia Street (EW) - #8

Renaissance Parkway (EW) - #9


Casmalia Street (EW) - #1

SR-210 Freeway WB Ramps (EW) - #2

62

Per Lane Per Mile Total

Roadway Jurisdiction From To Miles Cost1 Cost Percentage Cost

Rialto 0.04 2 1,457,960$ 116,637$ 0.9% 1,032$ 0.12 02 n/a 6,000$ 0.9% 53$

Rialto Vineyard Avenue Casmalia Street 0.36 02 n/a 18,000$ 5.4% 964$ Total 140,637$ 2,050$

2 This roadway segment needs to be restriped to provide 4 travel lanes. A conservative cost of $50,000 per mile was assumed.

1 Cost estimates based on Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis, LSA (December 2015).

Bohnert Avenue Vineyard Avenue

Table 15

Project Fair Share Roadway Segment Contribution

Added Lanes

Project Fair ShareSegment

Locust Avenue

63

63

VIII. CONCLUSIONS A. Off‐Site Mitigation Measures

The proposed project shall contribute on a fair share basis through an adopted development impact fee program, or in dollar equivalent in lieu mitigation contributions, in the implementation of the improvements identified in Section VI and summarized in Table 13 and Table 15.

B. On‐Site/Access Recommendations Site‐specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Figure 32.

The proposed project driveways shall be constructed in conformance with City of Rialto standards, including provisions for sight distance and truck turning path requirements. Locust Avenue along the project boundary shall be constructed at its ultimate half‐section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. Vineyard Avenue along the project boundary shall be constructed at its ultimate half‐section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. On‐site traffic signing and striping shall be submitted for City of Rialto approval in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Off‐street parking shall be provided to meet City of Rialto parking code requirements.

64

APPENDICES Appendix A – Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B – Scoping Agreement Appendix C – Intersection Turning Movement Count Worksheets Appendix D – Intersection Delay and Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E – Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for Congestion Management Program

Apx-1

APPENDIX A

Glossary of Transportation Terms

Apx-2

GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS COMMON ABBREVIATIONS AC: Acres ADT: Average Daily Traffic Caltrans: California Department of Transportation DU: Dwelling Unit ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS: Level of Service TSF: Thousand Square Feet V/C: Volume/Capacity VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance

Documents

LOCUST AVENUE & VINEYARD AVENUE PROJECT TRAFFIC … · LOCUST AVENUE & VINEYARD AVENUE PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED) November 2, 2017 Prepared by: Chris Pylant Carl Ballard,