Exhibit H - Traffic Analysis — Rialto City Council, July 26, 2022

Orbis Rialto II

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CITY OF RIALTO

PREPARED BY:

Aric Evatt, PTP
[email protected]

Charlene So, PE
[email protected]

JUNE 7, 2022

14369-03 TA Report

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ III LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................ VII 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Summary of Findings – Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service ........................................... 1

1.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Deficiencies ................................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.7 Truck Access and Circulation....................................................................................................... 11 2 METHODOLOGIES .................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 15

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 17

2.4 Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .......................................................................................... 18

2.5 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) ............................................................................. 19

2.6 Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 19

2.7 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 20 3 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 21

3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 21

3.2 City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element .......................................................................... 21

3.3 Renaissance Specific Plan Circulation Plan ................................................................................. 21

3.4 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................... 26

3.5 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 26

3.6 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 26

3.7 Existing (2021) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 31

3.8 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 33

3.9 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................................ 33 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 35

4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 35

4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 36

4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 39

4.4 Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 39

4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 39

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................................ 41

4.7 Near-Term Conditions ................................................................................................................. 41 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 45

5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 45

5.2 EAP (2023) Traffic Volume Forecasts .......................................................................................... 45

5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 45

5.4 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................................ 47 Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
ii
6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 49

6.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 49

6.2 EAPC (2023) Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................ 49

6.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 49

6.4 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................................ 51

6.5 Recommended Improvements ................................................................................................... 52 7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS ....................................................................... 53

7.1 City of Rialto Development Impact Fee Program ....................................................................... 53

7.2 Measure “I” Funds ...................................................................................................................... 53

7.3 Fair Share Contribution ............................................................................................................... 54 8 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ........................................................................................................ 55

8.1 Project Screening ........................................................................................................................ 55

8.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 57 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 59 Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
iii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX 1.2: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
APPENDIX 1.3: SITE ADJACENT QUEUES
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.2: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.2: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.3: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
iv
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 2 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 10 EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS ............................................................................................................... 13 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 22 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ................................................ 23 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RIALTO ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ................................................................. 24 EXHIBIT 3-4: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ........................ 25 EXHIBIT 3-5: CITY OF RIALTO TRUCK ROUTES ..................................................................................... 27 EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES ............................................................................................ 28 EXHIBIT 3-7: CITY OF RIALTO BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................................ 29 EXHIBIT 3-8: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................... 30 EXHIBIT 3-9: EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................... 32 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................ 37 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................. 38 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 40 EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................... 42 EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................... 43 EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 46 EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................................... 50

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 6 TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO ........................... 8 TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS ................... 12 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................... 16 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS .............................................................. 17 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS ............................................ 33 TABLE 3-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS 34 TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................................................................................... 35 TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................................ 36 TABLE 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 44 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS .................................................... 45 TABLE 5-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS ..... 47 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS................................................... 51 TABLE 6-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS ... 51 TABLE 6-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS .............. 52 TABLE 7-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS ................................................................................ 54

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CMP Congestion Management Program
DIF Development Impact Fee
EAP Existing Ambient Growth plus Project
EAPC Existing Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PCE Passenger Car Equivalents
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Orbis Rialto II
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBTAM San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model
sf Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TPA Transit Priority Area
v/c Volume to Capacity
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
vphgpl Vehicles per Hour Green per Lane

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
1 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Orbis Rialto II (“Project”), which is located on the northwest corner of Locust Avenue and Renaissance Parkway in the City of Rialto. The Project’s location in relation to the surrounding area is shown on Exhibit 1-1. The Project is located within the Renaissance Specific Plan in Planning Area 20 which is designated as Corporate Center.

The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and where necessary recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations consistent with General Plan level of service goals and policies.

This TA has been prepared in accordance with the City of Rialto’s Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements, County of San Bernardino Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (dated July 9, 2019), San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Reports (Appendix B, 2016 Update) , and consultation with City staff during the TA scoping process. (1) (2) (3) The Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA. The scoping agreement was provided to the City for review, however, has not yet been approved at the time this TA was prepared.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in the transition from LOS to VMT, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory). (1) It is our understanding that the City of Rialto is currently in development of their own VMT analysis guidelines and impact thresholds, therefore, the San Bernardino County Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (July 2019) ( County Guidelines) (2) are to be utilized until such time the City formally adopts their own. The VMT analysis is included in see Appendix 1.2.

The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with development of the site:
• Project to construct both driveways on Renaissance Parkway with stop controls for egress traffic from the Project with free flow traffic along Renaissance Parkway. • Project to construct driveway on Locust Avenue with stop controls for egress traffic from the Project with free flow traffic along Locust Avenue.

Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of this report.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
2 EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
3 The development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to require the construction of any off-site improvements, however, there are improvement needs identified at off-site intersections for future traffic analysis scenarios where the Project would contribute traffic (as measured by 50 or more peak hour trips). As such , the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards off-site intersection deficiencies is fulfilled through payment of fair share or participation in the pre -existing fee programs that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements. The Project Applicant would be required to pay requisite fair share contributions and fee paymen ts consistent with the County’s requirements (see Section 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms).

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the preliminary Project site plan. The Project is proposed to consist of a single 117,255 square foot warehous e building . It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2023. Access to the Project site will be provided to Renaissance Parkway via two proposed limited-access driveways and to Locust Avenue with one proposed limited-access driveway (all driveways restricted to right - in/right-out). Regional access to the Project site will be provided by the I-210 Freeway via Alder Avenue.

Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land use s have been estimated based on the trip generation trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) for Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150) were used.

The vehicle and truck mix were sourced from the City of Rialto’s Public Works Department’s Traffic Impact Analysis R eport Guidelines and Requirements (adopted February 4, 2014) .

Passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors were applied to the trip generation rates to convert trips made by heavy trucks (2-axle, 3-axle, and 4+-axle trucks) to PCE values. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 704 two-way passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips per day with 63 PCE AM peak hour trips and 67 PCE PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
4 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
5 1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this TA, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2021)
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2023) • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023)

1.3.1 EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2021) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared.

1.3.2 EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (E AP) conditions analysis determines traffic deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project traffic.

To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 2% is included for EAP ( 2023) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area within the City of Rialto.

1.3.3 EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) conditions analysis determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 2% is included for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area. This comprehensive list was compiled from information provided by the City of Rialto and other near-by agencies.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
6 1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Rialto’s requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a project TA scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology.

The following 8 study area intersection s shown on Exhibit 1 -2 and listed on Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Rialto staff. The “50 peak hour trip” criterion generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be affected by a given development proposal. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of influence (i.e., study area).

TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Jurisdiction CMP?
1 Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps Rialto, Caltrans No
2 Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps Rialto, Caltrans No
3 Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy. Rialto No
4 Laurel Av. & Renaissance Pkwy. Rialto No
5 Driveway 1 & Renaissance Pkwy. Rialto No
6 Driveway 2 & Renaissance Pkwy. Rialto No
7 Locust Av. & Driveway 3 Rialto No
8 Locust Av. & Renaissance Pkwy. Rialto No
The intent of a CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related deficiencies, and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. Study area intersections that are identified as CMP facilities in the County of San Bernardino per the SBCTA CMP are indicated on Table 1-1. (3)

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
7 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
8 1.5 DEFICIENCIES
This section provides a summary of deficiencies by analysis scenario . Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 5 EAP (2023) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 EAPC ( 2023) Traffic Conditions includes the detailed analysis. A summary of LOS results for all analysis scenarios is presented on Table 1-3.

TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO

1.5.1 EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
There are no study area intersection s that are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hours under EAP (2023) traffic conditions.

1.5.2 EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions:
• Alder Avenue & I-210 Westbound Ramps (#1) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Alder Avenue & I-210 Eastbound Ramps (#2) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Alder Avenue & Renaissance Parkway (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours It should be noted that based on the County’s deficiency criteria, the Project is not anticipated to adversely affect operations at the intersections of Laurel Avenue at Renaissance Parkway and Locust Avenue at Renaissance Parkway.

# Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
2 Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
3 Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.
4 Driveway 1 & Renaissance Pkwy.
5 Driveway 2 & Renaissance Pkwy. N/A N/A
6 Laurel Av. & Renaissance Pkwy. N/A N/A
7 Locust Av. & Driveway 3 N/A N/A
8 Locust Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.
= A - D = E = F
Existing EAPC 2023EAP 2023
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
9 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the improvements needed to accommodate site access. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1 -4. Queuing analysis results for th e Project driveways and site adjacent intersection of Lilac Avenue and Slover Avenue is provided in Appendix 1.2. No queuing issues are anticipated at the Project driveways based on the 95th percentile peak hour traffic flows under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions.

Recommendation 1.1 – Driveway 1 & Renaissance Parkway (#1) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop sign on the southbound approach and accommodate a southbound right turn lane.

Recommendation 2.1 – Driveway 2 & Renaissance Parkway (#2) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop sign on the southbound approach and accommodate a sou thbound right turn lane.

Recommendation 3 .1 – Locust Avenue & Driveway 3 (#3) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop sign on the eastbound approach and accommodate an eastbound right turn lane.

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
10 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
11 1.6.2 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended improvements needed to address the cumulative deficiencies identified under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions are summarized in Table 1-4. For those improvements listed in Table 1-4 and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through payment of fees or fair share that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements.

Table 1 -4 also summarize s the appli cable cost associated with each of the recommended improvements based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP in conjunction with a cost escalation factor of 1. 568 to reflect current costs. A rough order of magnitude cost has been prepared to determine the appropriate contribution value based upon the Project’s fair share of traffic as part of the project approval process. Based on the Project fair share percentages, the Project’s fair share cost is estimated at $228,145. These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for disclosure purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation.

Recommendation 4.1 – Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the Project’s fair share amount of $159,715 for the improvements identified in Table 1 -4 at intersections located within the City of Rialto, $68,430 for the improvements at inters ections located within the jurisdiction of Caltrans that have recommended improvements which are not covered by a pre -existing fee program. Developer shall be required to pay the amount shown above to the City of Rialto prior to the issuance of building permits. The Project Applicant shall provide proof of direct payment of fair share contribution to both Caltrans and to the County of San Bernardino.

1.7 TRUCK ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at the Project driveway anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers (see Exhibit 1-5).

As shown on Exhibit 1 -5, the following modifications should be made to accommodate the turning radius of heavy trucks (WB-67):
• Driveways 1 on Renaissance Parkway should be widened by an additional 6 -feet and accommodate a 50’ curb radius on the northwest corner with a 25’ curb radius on the northeast corner to accommodate inbound and outbound trucks at this driveway • Driveway 2 on Renaissance Parkway should accommodate a 50’ curb radius on the northwest and northeast corners to accommodate inbound and outbound trucks at this driveway

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
12 TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS

1 None None Re-stripe NB approach to add
NB Left-Turn lane3 No Fair Share $4,206,168 1.6% $66,712 Add 2nd WB Left-Turn Lane3 Fair Share
Add SB Right-Turn Lane3 Fair Share
2 None None Add EB Right-Turn Lane3 No Fair Share $4,206,168 1.7% $70,148 Add NB Right-Turn Lane3 Fair Share
3 None None Re-stripe SB approach to add SB
Left-Turn lane3,4 No Fair Share $4,206,168 2.2% $91,286 $12,618,504 $228,145
$159,715
$68,430
1 Improvements included in City of Rialto DIF or regional fee programs. 2 Identifies the Project's responsibility to construct an improvement or contribute fair share towards the implementation of the improvements shown. 3 4 Improvements including an increase of cycle length from 95 seconds to 125 seconds and no additional physical improvements are needed. 5 Source: Alder Avenue/SR-210 Interchange Feasibility Study Report and City Staff. 6 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. See Table 7-1 for fair share calculations. 7 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in the City of Rialto's DIF for those intersections wholly or partially within the City of Rialto. 8 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in a fee program for those intersections wholly or partially within Caltrans' jurisdiction. # Intersection Location Jurisdiction Existing
(2021) EAP 2023 Project
Responsibility2 Fair Share %6 Estimated Fair
Share CostTotal Cost5
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
RialtoAlder Av. & Renaissance
Pkwy.

Rialto,
Caltrans
Rialto,
Caltrans
EAPC 2023 Improvements in
Fee Program? 1
Source: Draft Feasibility Study Report: Alder Avenue at SR-210 Interchange (May, 2017). Note: The improvements to intersections #1 and #2 are apart of the larger Alder Avenue Improvement Project that calls for roadway widening and intersection improvements between Casmalia Street and Renaissance Parkway.

Total Costs for EAPC (2023) Improvements
Total Project Fair Share Contribution to Rialto 7
Total Project Fair Share Contribution to Caltrans 8
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
13 EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
14 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
15 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Rialto ’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from L OS A, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic contro l.

The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway.

The 6 th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection appr oaches. (5) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rialto and Caltrans require signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. (5) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial decelerat ion delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described on Table 2-1.

Consistent with Appendix B of the San Bernardino County CMP, the following saturation flow rates, in vehicles per hour green per lane (vphgpl), will be utilized in the traffic analysis for signalized intersections:

Existing, EAP, and EAPC Traffic Conditions:
• Exclusive through: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive left: 1700 vphgpl
• Exclusive right: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive dual left: 1600 vphgpl
• Exclusive triple left: 1500 vphgpl

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
16 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C ≤

1.0 Level of
Service, V/C >

1.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths.

80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM (6th Edition)
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has been utilized to analyze signalized intersections within the City of Rialto . Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized i ntersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and que ue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15- minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15 -minute rate of flow.

However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour . Existing PHF s have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (5)

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
17 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has also been utilized to analyze signalized intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, which include interchange to arterial ramps (i.e., I-10 Freeway ramps at Cedar Avenue, etc.). Signal timing for the freeway arterial -to-ramp intersections and the signalized intersections along the Cedar Avenue corridor have been obtained from the County and reflect the SBCTA coor dinated signal timing that has recently been implemented in 2020. It should be noted that for the purposes of this analysis, no optimization of signal timing has been performed for the LOS analysis unless noted otherwise (for improvements).

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rialto and County of San Bernardino require the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (5) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2).

TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Level of
Service, V/C
≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
> 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F Source: HCM (6th Edition)

At two -way or side -street stop -controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay i s computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all -way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay is reported for the worst single movement/lane (typically occurs on the side street).

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (6)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections a re based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
18 considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (6) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. , located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.

Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic si gnals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT -based signal warrant analysis worksheets. All unsignalized study area intersections are anticipated to be limited to right-in/right-out access only. Therefore , t raffic signal warrant analyses have not been conducted for these locations as restricted access intersections are not suitable for signalization.

2.4 FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
The study area for this TA includes the I-210 Freeway at Alder Avenue interchange. The 95 th percentile queuing of vehicles has been assessed at the off-ramps to determine potential queuing deficiencies at the freeway ramp intersections at the interchanges identified above. Specifically, the queuing analysis is utilized to identify any potential queuing and “spill back” onto the I-210 Freeway mainline from the off-ramps.

The traffic progression analysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro, has been used to assess the potential deficiencies/needs of the intersections with traffic added from the proposed Project. Storage (turn-pocket) length recommendations at the ramps have been based upon the 95th percentile queue resulting from the Synchro progression analysis. There are two footnotes which appear on the Synchro outputs. One footnote indicates if the 95 th percentile cycle exceeds capacity. Traffic is simulated for two complete cycles of the 95 th percentile traffic in Synchro in order to account for the effects of spillover betwee n cycles. In practice, the 95 th percentile queue shown will rarely be exceeded and the queues shown with the footnote are acceptable for the design of storage bays. The other footnote indicates whether or not the volume for the 95 th percentile queue is m etered by an upstream signal. If the upstream intersection is at or near capacity, the 50 th percentile queue represents the maximum queue experienced.

A vehicle is considered queued whenever it is traveling at less than 10 feet/second. A vehicle will only become queued when it is either at the stop bar or behind another queued vehicle. The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95 th percentile traffic volumes during the peak hour and is derived from the average (50th percentile) queue plus 1.65 standard deviations.

The queue length reported is for the lane with the highest queue in the lane group. The 95 th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed it is simply based on statistical calculations.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
19 2.5 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficienc ies has been obtained from each of the applicable surrounding jurisdictions.

2.5.1 CITY OF RIALTO
The following LOS will be utilized for study area intersections located within the City: The City of Rialto 2010 General Plan Update has established minimum LOS standards. Specifically, General Plan Policies 4 -1.20 and 4 -1.21 establish the minimum standards to be applied to any TIA, as follows:
• 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.
• 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 increa se delay above that level.

The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines identifies LOS D as the minimum LOS for intersections and roadway segments.

2.5.2 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CMP
The CMP definition of deficiency is based on maintaining a level of service standard of LOS E or better, where feasible , except where an existing LOS F condition is identified in the CMP document. However, for the purposes of this analysis, LOS D has been utilized for all study area intersections.

2.6 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies.

2.6.1 INTERSECTIONS
City of Rialto
This section outlines the methodol ogy used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies at intersections within the City of Rialto . Consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines, n ew development is required to improve traffic deficiencies exceeding these levels. Deficiencies are deemed to occur at any intersection in which the Project causes the LOS to fall below LOS D or the peak hour delay to increase as follows:
• LOS A/B = By 10.0 seconds
• LOS C = By 8.0 seconds
• LOS D = By 5.0 seconds
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
20 • LOS E = By 2.0 seconds
• LOS F = By 1.0 seconds

2.6.2 CALTRANS FACILITIES
To determine whether the addition of project traffic to the State Highway facilities would result in a deficiency, the following will be utilized:
• The TA finds that the LOS of a ramp-to-arterial intersection will degrade from D or better to E or F.

The TA finds that a project will exacerbate an already deficient condition if it contributes 50 or more one-way peak hour trips.

2.7 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic, and new traffic is total near- term future (EAPC) traffic less existing baseline traffic:

Project Fair Share % = Project AM/PM Traffic / (EAPC AM/PM Total Traffic – Existing AM/PM Traffic)
The project fair share percentage has been calculated for both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour and the highest of the two has been selected. The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Secti on 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this TA. The cost of implementing the improvements shown on Table 1-3 have been estimated based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP in conjunction with a total cost escalation factor of 1. 568 to more closely approximate current costs. These cost estimates have been utilized in conjunction with the Project fair share percentages to determine the Project’s fair share cost of the recommended improvem ents (see Table 7-1). These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or physical improvements.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
21 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and off- ramp queuing analyses.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Rialto staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 8 existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-3. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Rialto General Plan roadway cross-sections.

Major Arterial can accommodate six travel lanes and 14 to 18-foot raised medians within a 120- foot right-of-way. These facilities are intended to carry large volumes of rel atively high-speed traffic between the region to different parts of the City. Example of Major Arterial s within the study area include:
• Alder Avenue
• Renaissance Parkway
Secondary Arterials can accommodate four travel lanes and left turn lanes within a n 88-foot right-of-way. These facilities typically accommodate intermediate traffic speeds and link Local Streets with Major Arterials. Secondary arterials have narrower travel lanes as compared to the Major Arterial. An example of a Secondary Arterial within the study area includes:
• Locust Avenue

3.3 RENAISSANCE SPECIFIC PLAN CIRCULATION PLAN
The Project is located within the Renaissance Specific Plan in Planning Area 20. Exhibit 3-4 shows the Renaissance Specific Plan Circulation Plan. Renaissance Parkway is designated as a Major Arterial and Locust Avenue is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the Specific Plan.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
22 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
23 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
24 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RIALTO ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
25 EXHIBIT 3-4: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
26 3.4 TRUCK ROUTES
The City of Rialto’s truck routes are shown on Exhibit 3-5. The truck trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project have been developed based on these identified ruck routes and are consistent with other nearby studies.

3.5 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit age ncy serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along Linden Avenue via Route 22 and 312. The existing Omnitrans transit routes within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-6.

There are currently no routes that run adjace nt to the Project . Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs.

Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.

3.6 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Rialto’s bicycle facilities are shown on Exhibit 3-7. As shown, there is an existing Class II bike lane along Locust Avenue. Field observations indicate nominal pedestrian and bicycle activity within the study area. As shown on Exhibit 3 -8, pedestrian facilities are built out along portions Renaissance Parkway, Locust Avenue, Laurel Avenue, and Alder Avenue.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
27 EXHIBIT 3-5: CITY OF RIALTO TRUCK ROUTES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
28 EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
29 EXHIBIT 3-7: CITY OF RIALTO BICYCLE FACILITIES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
30 EXHIBIT 3-8: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
31 3.7 EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in December 2021. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix

3.1. The traffic counts include the following vehicle classifications: Passenger Cars, 2-Axle Trucks, 3-Axle Trucks, and 4 or More Axle Trucks. To represent the effects large trucks, buses and recreational vehicles have on traffic flow; all trucks were converted into PCE. By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate and slow -down is much longer than for passenger cars and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. For the purpose of this analysis, a PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks to estimate each turning movement. These factors are consistent with the values recommended for use in the CMP and the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

Two locations of 24-hour tube counts were collected ; first one was on Cedar Avenue north of Durst Drive; second one was on Valley Avenue east of Cedar Avenue. Where actual 24-hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg (see Exhibit 9):

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12.91 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak -to-daily relationship is approximately 7.74 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 13.88 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak -to-daily relationship of approximately 7. 74 percent (i.e., 1/0.0774 = 12.91) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning -level analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-9. Note volumes shown are in actual vehicles. The PCE volumes used for the peak hour operations analyses can be found in the applicable appendix with the intersection operations analysis worksheets.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
32 EXHIBIT 3-9: EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
33 3.8 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Signal timing for the Alder Avenue & I-210 Freeway Ramps have been obtained Caltrans to reflect the existing signal timing. It should be noted that for the purposes of this analysis, no optimization of signal timing has been performed for the LOS analysis unless noted otherwise (for improvements). Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized on Table 3- 1, which indicates all existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The intersection operations analysis works heets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS

3.9 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed for the off-ramps at the study area intersections along the I- 210 Freeway to assess vehicle queues for the off ramps that may potentially result in deficient peak hour operations at the ramp-to-arterial intersections and may potentially “spill back” onto the I-210 Freeway mainline s. Queuing analysis findings are presented on Ta ble 3-2. It is important to note that off-ramp lengths are consistent with the measured distance between the intersection and the freeway mainline. As shown on Table 3-2, there are no movements that are currently experiencing queuing issues during the we ekday AM or weekday PM peak 95 th percentile traffic flows. Worksheets for Existing traffic conditions off-ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 3.3.

# AM PM AM PM
1 TS 45.0 43.9 D D
2 TS 28.1 25.2 C C
3 TS 29.3 27.9 C C
4 TS 6.2 6.5 A A
5 --
6 --
7 --
8 TS 20.7 22.1 C C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Laurel Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Driveway 1 & Renaissance Pkwy.

Intersection
Traffic
Control2
Delay1 (Secs.) Level of
Service
Locust Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a 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.

Driveway 2 & Renaissance Pkwy.

Locust Av. & Driveway 3
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
34 TABLE 3-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS

AM PM
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps WBL 555 298 2 245 2 Yes Yes
WBT/R 1,475 42 38 Yes Yes
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps EBL/T 570 157 164 Yes Yes
EBR 1,510 388 2 116 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable.

Intersection Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue
(Feet)3 Acceptable? 1
AM Peak PM Peak
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
35 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is proposed to consist of a single 117,255 square foot warehouse building. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2023. For the purposes of this analysis, the following driveways will be assumed to provide access to the Project site:
• Driveway 1 on Renaissance Parkway – Right-in/Right-out access (passenger cars and trucks) • Driveway 2 on Renaissance Parkway – Right-in/Right-out access (passenger cars and trucks) • Driveway 3 on Locust Avenue – Right-in/Right-out access (passenger cars only) Regional access to the Project site will be provided by the I-210 Freeway via Alder Avenue.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. Trip generation rates u sed to estimate Project traffic are shown in Table 4 -1. The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) for Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150). (8) The vehicle and truck mix were sourced from the City of Rialto’s Public Works Department’s Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (adopted February 4, 2014).

TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES

ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Code Units2 In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicles:

Warehousing 3 150 TSF 0.240 0.060 0.300 0.080 0.240 0.320 3.560 Passenger Cars (60.0%) 0.144 0.036 0.180 0.048 0.144 0.192 2.136 2-Axle Trucks (0.8%) 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.029 3-Axle Trucks (11.2%) 0.027 0.007 0.034 0.009 0.027 0.036 0.399 4-Axle+ Trucks (28.0%) 0.067 0.016 0.083 0.022 0.067 0.089 0.996 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Warehousing 3 150 TSF 0.240 0.060 0.300 0.080 0.240 0.320 3.560 Passenger Cars (60.0%) 0.144 0.036 0.180 0.048 0.144 0.192 2.136 2-Axle Trucks (0.8%) (PCE = 1.5) 4 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.044 3-Axle Trucks (11.2%) (PCE = 2.0) 4 0.054 0.014 0.068 0.018 0.054 0.072 0.798 4-Axle+ Trucks (28.0%) (PCE = 3.0) 4 0.201 0.048 0.249 0.066 0.201 0.267 2.988 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation M anual, Ninth Edition (201 2). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle and Truck M ix Source: City of Rialto Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (201 3). 4 PCE rates are per City of Rialto Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (201 3).

Daily
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
36 As shown in Table 4-2, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 422 two-way trips per day with 39 AM peak hour trips and 42 PM peak hour trips. In comparison, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 704 PCE trip-ends per day with 63 PCE AM peak hour trips and 67 PCE PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distributi on represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. Truck distribution patterns are based on truck routes, the site’s proximity to the regional freeway syste m and likely distribution of traffic if a future tenant is known. Passenger car distribution patterns are based on existing and planned land uses in the area along with the planned circulation system. Exhibit 4-1 illustrates the truck trip distribution patterns for the Project and Exhibit 4-2 illustrates the passenger car trip distribution patterns.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Units1 In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicles:

Warehouse 117.255 TSF
Passenger Cars: 17 5 22 6 17 23 252
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 1 1 2 4
3-axle Trucks: 4 1 5 2 4 6 48
4+-axle Trucks: 8 2 10 3 8 11 118
Total Trucks: 13 4 17 6 13 19 170
Total Net Trips (Actual Vehicles) 30 9 39 12 30 42 422
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Warehouse 117.255 TSF
Passenger Cars: 17 5 22 6 17 23 252
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 1 1 2 6
3-axle Trucks: 7 2 9 3 7 10 94
4+-axle Trucks: 24 6 30 8 24 32 352
Total Trucks (PCE): 32 9 41 12 32 44 452
Total Net Trips (PCE) 49 14 63 18 49 67 704
1 TSF = thousand square feet
Project Land Use Quantity Daily
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
37 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
38 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
39 4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips (non-truck) to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation . Essentially, the Project’s traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes (non-truck trips only).

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-3.

4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2.0% per year. The total ambient growt h is 4.04% for 2023 traffic conditions (growth over 2 years). The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area -wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which d evelopment applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. The traffic generated by the proposed Project is manually added to the base volume to determine EAP/EAPC forecasts.

The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• EAP (2023)
o Existing 2021 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (2.0% per year)
o Project Traffic
• EAPC (2023)
o Existing 2021 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (2.0% per year)
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Traffic

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
40 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
41 4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rialto . The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections.

Cumulative projects from the neighboring jurisdictions of Fontana and County of San Bernardino have also been included. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-3. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the EAPC (2023) forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-3 are reflected as part of the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic. Cumulative ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-5 for near-term traffic conditions.

4.7 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach has b een utilized which combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast the EAP (2023) and EAPC (2023) traffic conditions.

An ambient growth factor of 4.04% accounts for background (area -wide) traffic increases that occur o ver time up to the year 2023 from the year 2021 (two percent over a 2-year period).

Project traffic is added to assess EAP ( 2023) and EAPC ( 2023) traffic conditions , respectively .

Traffic volumes generated by cumulative development projects are included to assess the EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. The 2023 roadway network s are similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future roadways and intersections proposed to be developed by the Project. It should be noted that Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (EAC) traffic forecasts were also developed for applicable County of San Bernardino study area intersections only to determine the change in delay and identify whether the Project has an adverse effect on a pre-project deficiency.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
42 EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
43 EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
44 TABLE 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY

ID Project Name Land Use Quantity Units1
1 Stater Bros. Shopping Center Hotel 100 Rooms
High-Turnover Restaurant 2.000 TSF
Fast Food w/o Drive-thru 1.000 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive-thru 5.440 TSF
Gasoline Station w/ Market 16 VFP
2 Lytle Creek Specific Plan (10%) Single Family Residential 504 DU Multifamily (Low-Rise) 336 DU
3 Emaar Enterprise Homes Single Family Residential 20 DU 4 B+B Plastics Warehouse 150.27 DU
5 Prologis (Locust/Stonehurst) Warehouse 473 DU
6 Prologis (Tamarind/Walnut) Warehouse 384.000 TSF
7 PA 108 Building 6 Warehouse 855.000 TSF
Hotel 108 RM
Specialty Retail 9.100 TSF
High-Turnover Restaurant 9.170 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive-thru 7.620 TSF
9 PA 108 Building 4-B Warehouse 411.330 TSF
10 Hotel (SWC Linden and Renaissance) Hotel 135 Rooms
11 Locust/Vineyard Warehouse Warehouse 120.600 TSF
12 Morin Warehouse Warehouse 200.000 TSF
13 Buildings 7, 8, and 9 Warehouse Warehouse 540.427 TSF 14 SEC Casmalia/Linden Warehouse 136.220 TSF
15 SWC of Casmalia/Ayala Gas Station w/ Fast Food 7.000 TSF 16 SEC of Casmalia/Alder Diesel Fuel Expansion 7.300 TSF 17 NWC Baseline/Alder Warehouse Warehouse 255.655 TSF
18 NWC Baseline/Tamarind Warehouse Warehouse 156.500 TSF 19 Baseline/Palmetto Warehouse Warehouse 99.999 TSF
20 Warehouse Warehouse 78.680 TSF
21 Warehouse Warehouse 87.189 TSF
22 Warehouse Warehouse 116.429 TSF
23 Warehouse Warehouse 67.465 TSF
24 Animal Hospital Animal Hospital 8.732 TSF
25 Fuel, Fast Food and Market2
26 Fuel, Market and Donut2
27 Housing2
28 Shopping / Fast Food2
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions 2 Quantity and land use unknown. Trip generation obtained from another adjacent traffic study. 8 Renaissance East
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
45 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and off-ramp queuing analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assum ed to be in place for E AP conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for E AP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).

5.2 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 2.0% and the addition of Project traffic . The weekday ADT, weekday AM, and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAP (2023) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP (2023) peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized on Table 5-1 for EAP (2023) traffic conditions, which shows none of the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP (2023) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.

TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS

# AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 TS 45.0 43.9 D D 49.9 54.5 D D
2 TS 28.1 25.2 C C 30.3 27.5 C C
3 TS 29.3 27.9 C C 33.6 32.9 C C
4 TS 6.2 6.5 A A 6.2 6.6 A A
5 CSS 9.5 10.0 A B
6 CSS 9.6 10.0 A B
7 CSS 9.4 9.6 A A
8 TS 20.7 22.1 C C 21.3 22.9 C C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
3 LOS = Level of Service
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Laurel Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Driveway 1 & Renaissance Pkwy.

Driveway 2 & Renaissance Pkwy.

Locust Av. & Driveway 3
Locust Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Existing EAP 2023
Traffic
Control2Intersection
Delay1 (Secs.) LOS3 Delay1 (Secs.) LOS3
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
46 EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
47 5.4 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for EAP (2023) are presented on Table 5-3. As shown on Table 5-3, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95 th percentile traffic flows with the addition of Project traffic.

Worksheets for EAP (2023) traffic conditions off-ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendix

5.2. TABLE 5-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS

AM PM AM PM
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps WBL 555 298 2 245 2 Yes Yes 328 2 260 2 Yes Yes WBT/R 1,475 42 38 Yes Yes 46 40 Yes Yes
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps EBL/T 570 157 164 Yes Yes 174 177 Yes Yes EBR 1,510 388 2 116 Yes Yes 426 2 140 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
Existing (2021) EAP (2023)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
48 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
49 6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and off- ramp queuing analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC (2023) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways). • Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only.

6.2 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plu s an ambient growth factor of 4.04% in conjunction with the addition of cumulative project development and Project traffic. The weekday ADT, weekday AM, and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.

6.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section

6.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown on Table 6-1, the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions:
• Alder Avenue & I-210 WB Ramps (#1) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Alder Avenue & I-210 EB Ramps (#2) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Alder Avenue & Renaissance Parkway (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
50 EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
51 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS

6.4 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions are shown on Table 6-2. As shown on Table 6-3, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95 th percentile traffic flows under EAPC ( 2023) traffic conditions. Worksheets for EAPC ( 2023) traffic conditions off -ramp queuing ana lysis are provided in Appendix 6.2.

TABLE 6-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS

# AM PM AM PM
1 TS 187.2 >200.0 F F
2 TS 126.5 189.8 E F
3 TS >200.0 >200.0 F F
4 TS 10.5 13.4 B B
5 CSS 11.5 11.0 B B
6 CSS 11.6 11.1 B B
7 CSS 9.4 9.6 A A
8 TS 25.3 31.1 C C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
3 LOS = Level of Service
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Laurel Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Driveway 1 & Renaissance Pkwy.

Driveway 2 & Renaissance Pkwy.

Locust Av. & Driveway 3
Locust Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

Intersection
Traffic
Control2
EAPC 2023
Delay1 (Secs.) LOS3
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a 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) AM PM
Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps WBL 555 642 2,3 383 2 Yes Yes WBT/R 1,475 86 48 Yes Yes
Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps EBL/T 570 447 2 316 2 Yes Yes EBR 1,510 860 2 695 2 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the I-15 Freeway mainline.

Intersection Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue
(Feet)3 Acceptable? 1
AM Peak PM Peak
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
52 6.5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
This section provides a summary of Project deficiencies and recommended improvements. Based on the City of Rialto and County of San Bernardino deficiency criteria discussed in Section 2. 7 Deficiency Criteria, the following intersections were found to be deficient.

6.5.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address EAPC (2023) traffic deficiencies are presented on Table 6-3. The Project Applicant shall contribute to these improvements through payment of regional DIF fees or fair share contribution as identified on Table 1 -3. Worksheets for EAPC ( 2023) conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix 6.3.

TABLE 6-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS

6.5.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON OFF-RAMP QUEUES As shown previously on Table 6-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended.

Delay2 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
- Without Improvements TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 187.2 >200.0 F F - With Improvements 4 TS 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 29.8 48.3 C D 2 Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
- Without Improvements TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 126.5 189.8 E F - With Improvements 4 TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 38.4 49.9 D D 3 Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.
- Without Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 >200.0 >200.0 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 51.4 51.5 D D * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 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.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a 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.
3 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement 4 Improvements are consistent with the SR-210 Freeway/Alder Avenue interchange project.

Intersection Approach Lanes1
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
53 7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Rialto are funded through a combination of direct project mitigation, development impact fee program s or fair share contributions, such as the City of Rialto Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.

7.1 CITY OF RIALTO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
In 2006, the City of Rialto adopted their DIF program incorporating the regional component of Measure I. The fee schedule was updated in June 2020. Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund Measure I complian t regional facilities. Under the City’s DIF program, the City may grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF program.

After the City’s DIF fees are collected, they are placed in a separate interest -bearing account pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. The timing to use the DIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs which are overseen by the City’s Public Works Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents, and a review of traffic trends throughout the City are also periodically performed by City staff and consultants. The City uses this data to determine the timing of the improvements listed in its facilities list.

7.2 MEASURE “I” FUNDS
In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30 -year extension of Measure “I”, a one-half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. The Measure “I” extension requires that a regional traffic impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was prepared by the SBCTA and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the Measure “I” requiremen t. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated in November 2011. Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with Measure “I” funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study. While Measure “I” is a self-executing sales tax administered by SBCTA, it bears discussion here because the funds raised through Measure “I” have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
54 7.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project improvements may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combinat ion of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).

When off -site improvements are identified with a minor sh are of responsibility assigned to proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, has been provided on Table 7-1 for the applicable deficient study area intersections.

As discussed previously in Section 1.6 Recommendations, b ased on the Project fair share percentages shown in Table 7-1, the Project shall pay the following fair share for the improvements identified in Table 1-4:
• City of Rialto: $147,428
• Caltrans: $68,430
TABLE 7-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS

# Intersection Existing
(2021) Project EAPC 2023 Net New
Traffic
Project % of
New Traffic
1 Alder Av. & I-210 WB Ramps
AM: 1,492 22 2,948 1,456 1.5%
PM: 1,653 20 2,914 1,261 1.6%
2 Alder Av. & I-210 EB Ramps
AM: 1,850 18 3,519 1,669 1.1%
PM: 1,964 26 3,523 1,559 1.7%
3 Alder Av. & Renaissance Pkwy.

AM: 2,074 12 3,622 1,548 0.8%
PM: 2,642 26 3,840 1,198 2.2%
BOLD = Denotes highest fair share percentage.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
55 8 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which r equires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay - based LOS as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in the transition from LOS to VMT, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory). (1) It is our understanding that the City of Rialto is currently in development of their own VMT analysis guidelines and impact thresholds, therefore, the San Bernardino County Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (July 2019) (County Guidelines) (2) are to be utilized until such time the City formally adopts their own.

8.1 PROJECT SCREENING
The County Guidelines provides details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less -than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis. Screening thresholds are broken in to the following three types:
• Project Type Screening
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

8.1.1 PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
Consistent with County Guidelines and the Technical Advisory, local serving uses such as day care centers, retail uses under 50,000 sf, community institutions, affordable housing, and projects that generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. (8)
Trip generation estimates for the approved uses were c alculated based on Table 2-A and 2-B of the RSPA TIA. The RSPA assumed 62,815 sf of Office Park for the project site. Daily, morning, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates are summarized in Appendix 1.2. • It is estimated that the previous approved use generated approximately 780 daily trips, with 117 trips in the morning peak hour, and 101 trips in the evening peak hour. • It is estimated that the proposed project will generate 704 trips daily, with 63 trips in the morning peak hour, and 67 trips in the evening peak hour (see Table 4-2). • Compared to the previous approved use, the proposed project is estimated to generate 76 fewer daily vehicle trip ends, with 54 fewer trips in the morning peak hour and 34 fewer trips in the evening peak hour.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
56 The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net reduction of 76 vehicle trip -ends per day, below the 110 daily vehicle trips threshold.

Project Type screening criteria is met.

8.1.2 TPA SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Ad visory, County Guidelines note that projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” 1 or an existing stop along a “high -quality transit corridor” 2) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces aff ordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate - or high -income residential units.

The Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high - quality transit corridor (see Appendix 1.2).

TPA screening threshold is not met.

8.1.3 LOW VMT SCREENING
As noted in the County Guidelines , “ Projects located within a low VMT generating area as determined by the analyst (e.g., development in efficient areas of the County will reduce VMT per person/employee and is beneficial to the region.”3 The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the region. The Project’s physical location, based on parcel location, is inpu t into the Screening Tool to determine project generated VMT. The Project was found to reside in TAZ 5375501. A review of the socio -economic data contained within TAZ 5375501 was found to include employment consistent with the proposed Project .

County guidelines state that employment projects are to utilize VMT per employee for all home- based-work trips (attractions).4 The County Guidelines continues “A project should be considered to have a significant impact if the project VMT per employee is greater than 4% below the existing

1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”).
2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 3 County Guidelines; Page 19
4 County Guidelines; Page 19
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
57 VMT per employee for the County”.5 Based on screening tool results the Project’s TAZ does not appear to have a value of VMT per employee. Therefore, an appropriate determination of a low VMT area screening cannot be made (see Appendix 1.2).

Low VMT Area screening criteria is not met.

8.2 CONCLUSION
The Project was found to meet the Project Type screening criteria. As previously mentioned, the Project is estimated to generate trips below the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold and is not anticipated to increase congestion along major corridors. The Project’s VMT impact is therefore anticipated to be less than significant. Further VMT analysis is not required based on the current San Bernardino County guidance. As the City of Rialto is currently developing agency specific VMT guidelines and thresholds. These findings may be subject to change once the City adopts its own VMT methodology and thresholds.

5 County Guidelines; Page 21
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
58 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
59 9 REFERENCES

1. City of Rialto Public Works Department. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements.

City of Rialto : s.n., December 2013 (Adopted February 5, 2014).

2. County of San Bernardino. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. County of San Bernardino : s.n., July 9, 2019.

3. San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino : s.n., Updated June 2016.

4. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportatio n Impacts in CEQA.

State of California : s.n., December 2018.

5. San Bernardino County. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. July 2019.

6. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.

7. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014.

8. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition. 2012.

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
60 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 1.1:

DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 1.2:

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 1.3:

SITE ADJACENT QUEUES

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 3.1:

EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 3.2:

EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 3.3:

EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 5.1:

EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 5.2:

EAP (2023) CONDITIONS OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 6.1:

EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 6.2:

EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 6.3:

EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Orbis Rialto II Traffic Analysis
14369-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Rialto City CouncilJuly 26, 2022

Rialto City Council
July 26, 2022