Rialto City Council
October 10, 2023

RIALTO & LILAC CENTER
(MCN 2022-0002)

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
June 26, 2023 City of Rialto 14430-08 TA Report
PREPARED BY: Charlene So | [email protected] Aric Evatt | [email protected]

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. iv List of Exhibits .......................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviated Terms .................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 1

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

1.3 Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

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

1.5 Deficiencies .................................................................................................................................................................. 7

1.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 10

1.7 Truck Access ............................................................................................................................................................. 14

1.8 Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 14

1.9 Sight Distance Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 16 2 Methodologies ............................................................................................................................................. 20

2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 23

2.4 Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 24

2.5 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) ............................................................................................ 25

2.6 Deficiency Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 26

2.7 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................................. 28 3 Area Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 29

3.1 Existing Circulation Network ............................................................................................................................. 29

3.2 City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element ........................................................................................ 29

3.3 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

3.4 Bicycle, Equestrian, & Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................. 35

3.5 Transit Service .......................................................................................................................................................... 35

3.6 Existing (2022) Traffic Counts ........................................................................................................................... 41

3.7 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 43

3.8 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 44

3.9 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 44 4 Projected Future Traffic .............................................................................................................................. 45

4.1 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
iii

4.2 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 49

4.3 Modal Split ................................................................................................................................................................. 49

4.4 Project Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................................................... 50

4.5 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 50

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 54

4.7 Near-Term Conditions ......................................................................................................................................... 54

4.8 Horizon Year (2040) Volume Development ............................................................................................... 58 5 EA & EAP (2024) Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................... 61

5.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 61

5.2 EAP Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................................................... 61

5.3 EAP Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................................................... 61

5.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 61

5.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 64

5.6 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 65

5.7 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ...................................................................... 67 6 EAPC (2024) Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................. 68

6.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 68

6.2 EAPC (2024) Traffic Volume Forecasts ......................................................................................................... 68

6.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 68

6.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 70

6.5 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 70

6.6 Near-Term Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements .............................................................. 71 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 74

7.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 74

7.2 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ....................................................... 74

7.3 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .............................................................. 74

7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 77

7.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 78

7.6 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 79

7.7 Horizon Year (2040) Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements .......................................... 79 8 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms ................................................................................................ 82

8.1 City of Rialto Development Impact Fee Program ..................................................................................... 82

8.2 Measure “I” Funds ................................................................................................................................................... 82

8.3 Fair Share Contribution........................................................................................................................................ 82 9 Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................................................................................................................ 84

9.1 VMT Screening Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 84

9.2 VMT Analysis............................................................................................................................................................. 86

9.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 88 10 References .................................................................................................................................................... 90

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 1.2: Site Adjacent Queues
Appendix 3.1: Existing Traffic Counts
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2022) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Existing (2022) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.4: Existing (2022) Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets Appendix 4.1: Post Processing Volume Worksheets
Appendix 5.1: EA (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.2: EAP (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.3: EA (2024) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.4: EAP (2024) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.5: EAP (2024) Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets Appendix 5.6: EAP (2024) Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets Appendix 5.7: EAP (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements Appendix 6.1: EAPC (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.2: EAPC (2024) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.3: EAPC (2024) Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets Appendix 6.4: EAPC (2024) Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements Appendix 7.1: Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.2: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.3: Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.4: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.5: Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets Appendix 7.6: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets Appendix 7.7: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
Appendix 7.8: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis Worksehets With Improvements
Appendix 9.1: Vehicle miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Location Map ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 1-2: Preliminary Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 1-3: Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Exhibit 1-4: Site Access Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 1-5: Truck Access ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 1-6: Sight Distance .................................................................................................................................... 17 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls .................................................. 30 Exhibit 3-2: City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element ............................................................................ 32 Exhibit 3-3: City of Rialto General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ................................................................... 33 Exhibit 3-4: City of Rialto Truck Routes ............................................................................................................... 36 Exhibit 3-5: City of Rialto Decommisioned Truck Routes ................................................................................. 37 Exhibit 3-6: City of Rialto Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................... 38 Exhibit 3-7: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................... 39 Exhibit 3-8: Transit Routes ................................................................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 3-9: Existing (2022) Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 42 Exhibit 4-1: Project (Truck) Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................... 51 Exhibit 4-2: Project (Passenger Car) Trip Distribution ...................................................................................... 52 Exhibit 4-3: Project Only Traffic volumes ........................................................................................................... 53 Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Development Location Map ....................................................................................... 55 Exhibit 4-5: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 56 Exhibit 5-1: EA (2024) Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 62 Exhibit 5-2: EAP (2024) Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 63 Exhibit 6-1: EAPC (2024) Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 69 Exhibit 7-1: Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 75 Exhibit 7-2: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 76

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ........................................................................................................... 7 Table 1-2: Summary of LOS .................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 1-3: Summary of Improvements and Rough Order of Magnitude Costs ............................................ 13 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ........................................................................................... 22 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ...................................................................................... 23 Table 2-3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations ........................................................................................ 24 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2022) Conditions ...................................................................... 43 Table 3-2: Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Existing (2022) Conditions ........................................ 44 Table 4-1: Summary of Existing Driveway Counts ............................................................................................ 46 Table 4-2: Existing Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................... 47 Table 4-3: Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 4-4: Project Trip Generation Summary .................................................................................................... 48 Table 4-5: Trip Generation Comparison ............................................................................................................. 49 Table 4-8: Cumulative Development land use Summary ................................................................................ 57 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for EA & EAP (2024) Conditions .................................................................... 64 Table 5-2: Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for EA & EAP (2024) Conditions ..................................... 66 Table 5-3: Intersection Analysis for EAP (2024) Conditions With ImprovementsError! Bookmark not defined.

Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2024) Conditions ........................................................................... 70 Table 6-2: Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for EAPC (2024) Conditions ............................................ 71 Table 6-3: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2024) Conditions With Improvements ....................................... 72 Table 7-1: Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions ............................................................. 78 Table 7-2: Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions ........... 79 Table 7-3: Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions With Improvements ......................... 80 Table 7-4: Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions With Improvements ....................................................................................................................................................... 81 Table 8-1: Project Fair Share Calculations .......................................................................................................... 83 Table 9-1: Employment Estimates .............................................................................................................................. 86 Table 9-2: Project VMT per Employee ................................................................................................................. 87 Table 9-3: VMT per Employee Comparison ....................................................................................................... 87

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CAMUTCD 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
HBW Home-Based Work
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PA Production/Attraction
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Rialto & Lilac Center
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBTAM San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SED Socio-economic Data
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

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Traffic Analysis (TA) for Rialto & Lilac Center (“Project”), which is located at 436 W. Rialto Avenue in the City of Rialto, as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system de ficiencies 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 traffic study has been prepared in a ccordance with the City of Rialto ’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS) , the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Report s (Appendix B, 2016 Update), and consultation with City staff during the traffic study scoping process. (1) (2) The City approved Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with development of the site:
• Project to install stop control on the westbound and construct a westbound shared left-right turn lane (Project Driveway 1 and Project Driveway 3).
• Project to install stop control on the westbound and construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane (Project Driveway 2).
• Project to install stop control on the southbound and construct a southbound shared left-right turn lane (Project Driveway 4).
• Project to construct Lilac Avenue at its ultimate half -section width as a Collector (64 -foot right-of-way) from the Project’s northern boundary to Rialto Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.

Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of this report. The proposed Project is anticipated to require the construction /implementation of off- site improvements. In addition, the Project Applicant’s responsibilit y for the Project’s contributions towards deficient off -site intersections to address near -term and long -range cumulative traffic conditions is fulfilled through fair share contributions and/or payment into pre-existing fee programs (if applicable) that wo uld be assigned to the future construction of any future local/regional improvement needs. The Project Applicant would be required to pay requisite fees consistent with the City’s requirements (see Section 8 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms ). The Project was not found to meet any of the City’s described screening criteria and a project -level vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis was performed. The Project’s VMT analysis findings for project generated VMT per employee was found to not exceed the City’s threshold; therefore, the Project’s impact on VMT is less than significant.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
2 EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
3 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is proposed to consist of a single 300,304 square foot warehouse building. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2024 . A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-2. As indicated on Exhibit 1-2, the following driveways will be assumed to provide access to the Project site:
• Driveway 1 on Lilac Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars only) • Driveway 2 on Lilac Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars only) • Driveway 3 on Lilac Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars); Right-in/Left-out (trucks) • Driveway 4 on Rialto Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars); Left-in/Right-out (trucks) Regional access to the Project site is available from the I-10 Freeway via Cedar Avenue interchange or to the I-210 Freeway via Ayala Drive (no trucks) or Alder Avenue . Exhibit 1-3 depicts the location of the proposed Project in relation to the existing roadway network and the study area intersections. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Tr ansportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150) was used. (3) The vehicle and truck mix are consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines. The Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 1,072 trip-ends per day with 95 AM peak hour trips and 101 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. The existing site is currently occupied by a lumber retail and storage user which was still active at the time this TA was prepared.

1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth (EA) (2024) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2024) Conditions • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) Conditions • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
• Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions

1.3.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2022) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. For a detailed discussion on the existing traffic counts, see Section 3.6 Existing Traffic Counts.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
4 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
5 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
6 1.3.2 EA & EAP (2024) CONDITIONS
A comparison of the Existing plus Ambient Growth (EA) and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis scenarios determines traffic deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system due to the addition of Project traffic. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2% per year, compounded annually over 2 years) is included for EAP (2024) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area within the City of Rialto . T raffic associated with other known cumulative development projects is not included in these analysis scenarios.

1.3.3 EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Project plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (EA PC) (2024) traffic 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 4.04% is included for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. The list of cumulative development projects was compiled from information provided by the City of Rialto and other near-by agencies.

1.3.4 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions were derived from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) and Project traffic was then manually added to develop Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic forecasts . The Horizon Year (2040) conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through regional transportation fee programs, such as the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanisms can accommodate the long -range cumulative traffic at the target level of service (LOS) identified by the City (lead agency). Other improvements needed beyond the “funded” improvements (such as localized improvements to non-DIF facilities) are identified as such.

1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Rialto’s traffic study requirements, Urban Cro ssroads, Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by City of Rialto staff prior to the preparation of this report. This agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis met hodology. The agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

The 17 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1 -3 and listed in Table 1 -1 were selected for evaluation in this TA based on consultation with City of Rialto staff. At a minimum, t he study area includes intersections where the Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips per the City’s traffic study guidelines. (1) The “50 peak hour trip” criterion represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be affected by a given development proposal. The 50 peak hour trip criterion is a traffic engineering rule of thumb that is accepted and widely used within San Bernardino County (including the City of Rialto) for estimating a potential area of influence (i.e., study area).

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
7 The intent of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to more 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.

The County of San Bernardino CMP became effective with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 and last updated in 2016 with an updated Nexus Study completed in 2020. (2) The San Bernardino County CMP intersections are identified in Table 1-1 below.

TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS

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 EA and EAP (2024) Traffic Conditions, Section 6 EAPC (2024) Traffic Conditions, and Section 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions include the detailed analysis. A summary of LOS results for all analysis scenarios is presented on Table 1-2.

ID Intersection Jurisdiction CMP?
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto No
2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr. Rialto No
3 Cedar Av. & Merrill Av. Rialto No
4 Cedar Av. & Randall Av. Rialto No
5 Cedar Av. & San Bernardino Av. Rialto No
6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. County of San Bernardino Yes 7 Cedar Av. & Valley Bl. County of San Bernardino No
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps County of San Bernardino, Caltrans Yes 9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps County of San Bernardino, Caltrans Yes 10 Larch Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto No
11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto No
12 Cactus Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto No
13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1 Rialto No
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St. Rialto No
15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3 Rialto No
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto No
17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av. Rialto No
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
8 TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF LOS

1.5.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersection currently operates at an unacceptable LOS during the weekday AM peak hour only:
• Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. (#1) – LOS E AM peak hour only Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis was performed for the I-10 Freeway off-ramps at Cedar Avenue for Existing (2022) traffic conditions. The analysis indicates there are currently no queuing issues that may potentially “spill back” onto the I-10 Freeway mainline at the study area interchange.

1.5.2 EA AND EAP (2024) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The intersection of Cedar Avenue at Rialto Avenue is anticipated to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EA (2024) traffic conditions. There are no additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAP (2024) traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic.

Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis
There are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for EA and EAP (2024) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2022) traffic conditions.
# Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av.
2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr.
3 Cedar Av. & Merrill Av.
4 Cedar Av. & Randall Av.
5 Cedar Av. & San Bernardino Av.
6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av.
7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd.
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB
10 Larch Av. & Rialto Av.
11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av.
12 Cactus Av. & Rialto Av.
13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St.
15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av.
17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av.

LOS=A-D LOS=E LOS=F
2040 WPExisting EAP (2024) EAPC (2024) 2040 NPEA (2024) Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
9 1.5.3 EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or both peak hours under EAPC (2024) traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. (#1) – LOS E AM peak hour only • Cedar Av. & Valley Bl. (#7) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps (#8) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps (#9) – LOS F AM and PM Peak hours Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis
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 (2024) traffic conditions.

1.5.4 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or both peak hours under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. (#1) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Cedar Av. & Valley Bl. (#7) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps (#8) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps (#9) – LOS F AM and PM Peak hours • Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. (#16) – LOS E AM peak hour only The following additional study area intersection is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS, in addition to the intersections identified for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. (#6) – LOS E PM peak hour only

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
10 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis
The following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps (#8): westbound left-through-right turn lane (AM peak hour only), westbound right turn lane (AM and PM peak hours)
• Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps (#9): eastbound left turn lane (AM and PM peak hours)

1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the proposed Project. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1 -4. Queuing analysis results for the Project driveways and site adjacent intersection of Lilac Avenue and Rialto Avenue is provided in Appendix 1. 2. No site adjacent queues are anticipated with the proposed improvements.

Recommendation 1 – Lilac Avenue & Driveway 1 (#13) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install stop control on the westbound and construct a westbound shared left-right turn lane (Project Driveway 1).

Recommendation 2 – Lilac Avenue & Driveway 2 (#14) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Driveway 2 should align with the existing driveway on the west side creating a new 4-leg intersection. • Project to install stop control on the westbound and construct a w estbound shared left -through-right turn lane (Project Driveway 2).

Recommendation 3 – Lilac Avenue & Driveway 3 (#15) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install stop control on the westbound and construct a westbound shared left-right turn lane (Project Driveway 3).

Recommendation 4 – Lilac Avenue & Rialto Avenue (#16) – The Project should maintain existing lane and intersection control.

Recommendation 5 – Driveway 4 & Rialto Avenue (#17) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install stop control on the southbound and construct a southbound shared left-right turn lane (Project Driveway 4).

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
11 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
12 Recommendation 6 – Lilac Avenue is a north -south oriented roadway located along the Project ’s western boundary. Project to construct Lilac Avenue at its ultimate half -section width as a Collector (64-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s northern boundary to Rialto Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.

Recommendation 7 – Rialto Avenue is an east -west oriented roadway located along the Project ’s southern boundary. Rialto Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial (120-foot right-of-way) from Lilac Avenue to the Project’s eastbound boundary . A 10-foot dedication is proposed along the Project’s frontage making the centerline-to-centerline distance 60-feet, consistent with City standards. At this time the existing curb along the Project’s frontage is not being proposed for reconstruction, but ultimately should be set at 48-feet from the centerline (currently set at 36-feet from the centerline).

On-site tra ffic 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.

1.6.2 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended improvements needed to address the cumulative deficiencies identified under Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions are summarized in Table 1-3. For those improvements listed in Table 1 -3 and not constructed as part of the Project, the Projec t 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 -3 also summarizes the applicable 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. 674 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 $270,403. 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 8 – Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the Project’s fair share amount of $228,933 for the improvements at intersections located within the City.

The Developer’s fair-share amount for the intersections that either share a mutual border with or are wholly located within the County of San Bernardino that have recommended improvements which are not covered by a pre -existing fee program is $ 34,404 and for the intersections within the jurisdiction of Caltrans that have recommended imp rovements which are not covered by a pre - existing fee program is $12,633. 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 the County of San Bernardino and Caltrans.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
13 TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS

# Intersection Jurisdiction EAP (2024) EAPC (2024) 2040 With Project Improvements in
City DIF or
County DIF?1
Project
Responsibility2 Total Cost
Fair
Share %5
Fair Share
Cost6
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. No Construct -- -- --
Total: $0 $0
6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av.3,4 County of San
Bernardino
None None No Fair Share $12,555 5.2% $658
Total: $12,555 $658
7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd3,4 None Same No Fair Share $12,555 3.6% $448 No Fair Share $41,850 $1,494
No Fair Share $41,850 $1,494
Total: $96,255 $3,436
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps10 None Add a 2nd NB left turn lane Same No Fair Share $858,000 2.5% $21,276 WB left turn lane No Fair Share $350,000 $8,679
Total: $1,208,000 $29,955
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps10 None Add a 2nd SB left turn lane Same No Fair Share $858,000 1.1% $9,693 Add an EB right turn lane Same No Fair Share $350,000 $3,954 Total: $1,208,000 $13,647
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av.11 City of Rialto None None Add an EB left turn lane No Fair Share 37.1% Add a WB left turn lane Fair Share
Install a Traffic Signal Fair Share $600,000 $222,707
Total: $615,000 $228,275
Total Costs for Horizon Year (2040) Improvements $3,139,810 $275,970 Total Project Fair Share Contribution to the City of Rialto7 Total Project Fair Share Contribution to the County of San Bernardino8 Total Project Fair Share Contribution to Caltrans9
1 Improvements included in County of San Bernardino DIF or City DIF programs for local and regional components. 2 Identifies the Project's responsibility to construct/implement an improvement or contribute fair share or fee payment towards the implementation of the improvement shown. 3 Costs have been estimated using the data provided in Appendix "G" of the CMP (2003) for preliminary construction costs. 4 Appendix "G" costs escalated by a factor of 1.674 except Traffic Signals. 5 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. See Table 8-1 for Fair Share Calculations. 6 Rough order of magnitude cost estimate.
7 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 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 the County of San Bernardino. 9 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. 10 Source of costs: engineering cost estimates based on the SBCTA I-10 Freeway interchange improvement project. 11 Source of costs: engineering cost estimates based on the concept plan. $15,000 $5,568
Modify TS timing to implement
110-second AM peak hour and
120-second PM peak hour
cycle lengths
Modify TS timing to implement
120-second AM and PM peak
hour cycle lengths
Modify TS timing to implement
120-second AM and PM peak
hour cycle lengths
City of Rialto
$34,404
$12,633
County of San
Bernardino
$228,933
Caltrans, County of San
Bernardino
Caltrans, County of San
Bernardino
None
Modify TS timing to implement
110-second AM peak hour and
120-second PM peak hour
cycle lengths Restripe an EB right turn lane as
EB through lane
Restripe NB right turn lane as NB
shared through-right turn lane
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
14 1.7 TRUCK ACCESS
Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at each applicable 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). A WB-67 truck (53-foot trailer) has been utilized for the purposes of this analysis. As shown on Exhibit 1 -5, the proposed driveways as currently designed are anticipate d to accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks.

1.8 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted for the Project driveways and the site adjacent intersection of Lilac Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue for Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometric necessary to accommodate long-range (horizon year) 95th percentile queues and recommend storage lengths for the turn ing movements shown on Exhibit 1 -4. The analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours using the SimTraffic modeling software. The Horizon Year (2040) With Project queuing results are provided in Appendix

1.2 of this TA.

SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections, with the primary purpose of checking and fine-tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses the input parameters from Synchro (Version 11) to generate random simulations. The 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed; it is simply based on statistical calculations (or Average Queue plus 1.65 standard deviations). The random simulations generated by SimTraffic have been utilized to determine the 95th percentile queue lengths observed for each turn lane. A SimTraffic simulation has been recorded 5 times, during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, and has been seeded for 15-minute periods with 60-minute recording intervals.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
15 EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
16 1.9 SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
Horizontal sight distance has been evaluated for all Project driveways along Lilac Avenue and Rialto Avenue based on the City’s guidelines. As defined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, sight distance is the continuous length of highway ahead visible to the driver. At unsignalized intersections, corner sight distance must provide a substantially clear line of sight between the driver of the vehicle waiting on the minor road (driveway) and the driver of an approaching vehicle. For the purposes of this analysis, a 7 ½ second criterion has been applied to the outside travel lanes in either direction to provide the most conservative sight distance. The 7 ½ second criterion allows waiting vehicles to either cross all lanes of through traffic by turning left or cross the near lanes by turning right without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. Vertical sight distance has been evaluated utilizing a 3.5 -foot eye height and a 4.25 -foot object height. The sight distance is based on the posted speed limit.

Adequate visibility for vehicular and pedestrian t raffic can be provided at each Project driveway by limiting sight obstructions within the limited use area. Any landscaping/hardscape within the limited use area should not exceed 30 -inches (2.5-feet) in height. The limited use area should be kept clear of any landscaping or any other obstructions that may impede the visibility of the driver, including on- street parking. Minimum horizontal sight distances for the Project driveways are illustrated on Exhibit 1-6 for all Project driveways , however, sight distance should be re -evaluated in the field once the driveway has been constructed. It is anticipated that the following minimum sight distances can be accommodated at all driveways based on the posted speed limits for each roadway: 495-feet on Lilac Avenue based on a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour and 440-feet on Rialto Avenue based on a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour . The sight distance lines, limited use area, and clear sight triangles per City’s standards are illustrated on Exhibit 1-6. As noted, obstructions within the denoted limited use areas are to be limited to 30-inches in height.

1.10 LILAC AVENUE & RIALTO AVENUE CONCEPT PLAN
At the request of the City of Rialto, a concept plan has been prepared for the intersection of L ilac Avenue & Rialto Avenue, as shown on Exhibit 1 -7. The concept striping plan includes the identified Horizon Year (2045) intersection improvements, as described in Table 1-3.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
17 EXHIBIT 1-6: SIGHT DISTANCE

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
18 Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
19 EXHIBIT 1-7: LILAC AVENUE & RIALTO AVENUE CONCEPT PLAN

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
20 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
21 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies describe d 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 facto rs, such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS 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 existen ce of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (4) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rialto and County of San Bernardino require signalized intersection operations analysis based on the met hodology described in the HCM. (4) Intersection LOS operations are ba sed on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described on Table 2-1.

The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has been utilized to analyze signalized intersections. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection 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 e ffectiveness such as delay and queue 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. Customary 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 Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
22 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. (4)
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rialto requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (4) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2 -2). 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 is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two -way stop-controlled intersection. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay).

Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

10.01 to 20.00 B
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
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
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
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
23 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

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 determine 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). (5) 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 considered if one or more of the signal w arrants are met. (5) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume -based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions and for all future analysis scena rios for existing unsignalized intersections . Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for det ermining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Urban warrants have been used as posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections are 40 miles per hour or below and rural warrants have been used on roadways with speeds greater than 40 miles per hour.

Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Similarly, the speed limit has been used as the basis for determining the use of Urban and Rural warrants. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following study area intersection shown on Table 2-3.

The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 EA and EAP (2024) Traffic Conditions, Section 6 EAPC (2024) Traffic Conditions, and Section 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions of this report. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signa l might be warranted. Meeting Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
24 this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is tru ly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS

2.4 FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
The study area for this TA includes the I-10 Freeway at Cedar Avenue interchange. The 95th 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-10 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 analy sis. 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 95th percentile traffic in Synchro in order to account for the effects of spillover between cycles. In practice, the 95th 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 9 5th percentile queue is metered 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 95th 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 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed it is simply based on statistical calculations.

ID Intersection Jurisdiction
2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr. Rialto
11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto
13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1 Rialto
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St. Rialto
15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3 Rialto
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. Rialto
17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av. Rialto
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
25 2.5 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficiencies 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 increase delay above that level. (1) The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines identifies LOS D as the minimum LOS for intersections and roadway segments, with the exception of Riverside Drive south of the Metrolink tracks to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E.

2.5.2 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Per the County of San Bernardino’s TA Guidelines, the following LOS will be utilized for study area intersections located within the County: Require development to achieve a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) D or better. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis.

2.5.3 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.

2.5.4 CALTRANS
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), approved in 2013, endeavors to change the way transportation impacts will be determined according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). T he Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has recommended the use of VMT as the replaceme nt for automobile delay - based LOS. Caltrans acknowledges automobile delay will no longer be considered a CEQA impact for development projects and will use VMT as the metric for determining impacts on the State Highway System (SHS). However, LOS D has been utilized as the target LOS for Caltrans facilities, consistent with the County of Riverside.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
26 2.6 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies.

Per the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines: In accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, at intersections where the LOS falls below, or is expected to fall below an acceptable threshold with or without the addition of the project, fea sible measures shall be identified to mitigate the project's impacts for all project scenario conditions. In all cases, the feasibility of the proposed improvements must be demonstrated, and the availability of right-of-way must be verified. Each mitigation measure shall include an estimated cost to design and construct the improvement. The TA will also calculate the project’s fair share towards each mitigation measure.

2.6.1 INTERSECTIONS
City of Rialto
This section outlines the methodology used in this a nalysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies at intersections within the City of Rialto. Consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines, new development is required to improve traffic deficiencies exceeding these levels. Deficienci es 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
• LOS E = By 2.0 seconds
• LOS F = By 1.0 seconds
County of San Bernardino: Signalized Intersections
Per the County’s TA Guidelines, the following LOS will be utilized for signalized study area intersections located within the Desert, Valley and Mountain regions of the County:
• Any signalized study intersection in the Valley or Mountain regions that is operating at an acceptable LOS D or better without project traffic in which the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to degrade to an LOS E or F shall identify improvements to improve operations to LOS D or better. • Any signalized study intersection in the Desert region that is operating at an LOS C or better without project traffic in which the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to degrade to an LOS D, E, or F shall identify improvements to improve operations to LOS C. • Any signalized study intersection in the Valley or Mountain regions that is operating at LOS E or F without project traffic where the project increases delay by 5.0 or more seconds shall identify impro vements to offset the increase in delay.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
27 • Any signalized study intersection in the Desert region that is operating at LOS D, E, or F without project traffic where the project increases delay by 5.0 or more seconds shall identify improvements to offset the increase in delay.

County of San Bernardino: Unsignalized Intersections
Per the County’s TA Guidelines, the following LOS will be utilized for unsignalized study area intersections located within the Desert, Valley and Mountain regions of the County:
• The addition of project related traffic causes the intersection to degrade from an LOS D or better to a LOS E or worse in the Valley and Mountain regions or from an LOS C or better to an LOS D or worse in the Desert region.

OR
• The project adds 5.0 seconds or mo re of delay to an intersection that is already projected to operate without project traffic at an LOS E or F in the Valley and Mountain regions or at an LOS D, E, or F in the Desert region (per Section 10.5.2 b))
AND
• One or both of the following conditions are met:
o The project adds ten (10) or more trips to any approach o The intersection meets the peak hour traffic signal warrant after the addition of project traffic (per Section 10.5.2 c)).

The proposed significance thresholds will be applied at study area intersections for the purposes of determining project-related deficiencies. Per the County of San Bernardino traffic study guidelines, improvements for Project level deficiencies should fo cus on providing operations that offset the Project deficiency to achieve a “no Project” LOS.

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.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
28 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 long-range (Horizon Year) traffic less existing baseline traffic:

Project Fair Share % = Project AM/PM Traffic / (Horizon Year 2040 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 f air share contribution calculations are presented in Section 8 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 1.674 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 improvements (see Table 8-1). 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.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
29 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulat ion network, the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, freeway off -ramp queuing, and traffic signal warrant 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 16 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 num ber of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
As noted previously, t he Project site is located within the City of Rialto. The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross -sections of the major roadways within the study area, as identified on the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element, are described subsequently. 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.

The study area roadway that is classified as a Major Arterial is identified as having a 120-foot right-of- way and 94 to 96-foot curb-to-curb measurement. Major Arterials include three lanes of travel in each direction and a 14 to 16-foot curbed and/or landscaped median. The following study area roadways within the City of Rialto are classified as a Major Arterial:
• Bloomington Avenue (Major Arterial Highway)
• Cedar Avenue
• Rialto Avenue
• Cactus Avenue
The study area roadway that is classified as a Secondary Arterial is identified as having a n 88-foot right-of-way and 64-foot curb-to-curb measurement. Secondary Arterial includes two lanes of travel in each direction with 8-foot shoulders. The following study area roadway s within the City of Rialto are classified as a Secondary Arterial:
• Merrill Avenue
• San Bernardino Avenue
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
30 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
31 Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
32 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
33 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
34 Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
35 The study area roadway that is classified as a Collector is identified as having a 64-foot right-of-way and 40-foot curb-to-curb measurement. Collector includes one lane of travel in each direction. The following study area roadways within the City of Rialto are classified as a Collector:
• Lilac Avenue
• Randall Avenue

3.3 TRUCK ROUTES
Exhibit 3-4 shows the City of Rialto truck routes. As shown, Cedar Avenue and Valley Boulevard are identified as truck routes. These truck routes have been utilized to route truck traffic associated with the proposed Project and future cumulative development projects for the purposes of this TA. An Interim Urgency Ordinance (No. 1673) was adopted by the City on December 13, 2022, which establishes a moratorium to prohibit truck traffic on all other streets within the City of Rialto except as otherwise noted on Exhibit 3-5 or as provided by law. Specifically, Exhibit 3-5 identifies the allowable truck routes and the previous truck routes that have been removed by the Interim Urgency Ordinance.

3.4 BICYCLE, EQUESTRIAN, & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Exhibit 3 -6 illustrates the City of Rialto existing and future planned bicycle facilities per the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2016), which shows an existing Class I (off-road) bike path along the Pacific Electric Trail just north of the site and along the San Bernardino County Flood Channel to the east of Cactus Avenue. An on-street Class II (striped) bike path along Bloomington Avenue is proposed east of Cactus Avenue. There are Class II bike lanes striped along Rialto Avenue and Cactus Avenue in close proximity to the site. Existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-7. Field observations in May 2022 indicate moderate pedestrian and bicycle activity within the study area.

3.5 TRANSIT SERVICE
The City of Rialto is served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. Based on a review of the transit routes within the vicinity of the Project, Route 15 currently runs along Merrill Avenue and Route 19 runs along Valley Boulevard, however, there are currently no routes that operate adjacent to the Project (see Exhibit 3-8). 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. As such, it is recommended that the Project Applicant work in conjunction with Omnitrans to potentially provide bus service to the site.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
36 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF RIALTO TRUCK ROUTES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
37 EXHIBIT 3-5: CITY OF RIALTO DECOMMISIONED TRUCK ROUTES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
38 EXHIBIT 3-6: CITY OF RIALTO BICYCLE FACILITIES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
39 EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
40 EXHIBIT 3-8: TRANSIT ROUTES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
41 3.6 EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in May 2022. 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.

Existing weekday ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-9. 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:

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 14.5 = 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 6.9 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 14.5 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 6.9 percent (i.e., 1/0.069 = 14.5) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning -level analyses.

Existing weekday peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-9 (in actual vehicles).

The traffic volumes shown on the exhibits within the TA are expressed in actual vehicles while the peak hour intersection operations analysis is based on the PCE traffic volumes per the City’s guidelines. The traffic counts include the following vehicle cl assifications: 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. The PCE volumes are included in the appendices, where applicable.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
42 EXHIBIT 3-9: EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
43 3.7 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
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 that all existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the exception of the following intersection:
• Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. (#1) – LOS E AM peak hour
The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS

Delay2 Level of
Traffic (secs.) Service
# Intersection Control1 AM PM AM PM
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. TS 64.2 29.2 E C
2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr. CSS 12.6 14.6 B B
3 Cedar Av. & Merrill Av. TS 13.9 18.8 B B
4 Cedar Av. & Randall Av. TS 11.2 9.4 B A
5 Cedar Av. & San Bernardino Av. TS 24.3 23.7 C C
6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. TS 5.9 22.2 A C
7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd. TS 43.5 50.1 D D
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB TS 26.4 29.4 C C
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB TS 36.6 32.4 D C
10 Larch Av. & Rialto Av. TS 9.8 5.6 A A
11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av. CSS 13.1 10.7 B B
12 Cactus Av. & Rialto Av. TS 11.7 8.9 B A
13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St. CSS 9.8 10.1 A B
15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. AWS 24.4 11.6 C B
17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av. CSS 11.1 9.7 B A
* BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop; CSS = Improvement 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.

Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
44 3.8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existi ng peak hour intersection turning volumes. The intersection of Cedar Avenue and Durst Drive currently warrants a traffic signal for Existing traffic conditions . Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 3.3.

3.9 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed for the off-ramps at the study area intersections along the I -10 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-10 Freeway mainlines. Queuing analysis findings are presented on Table 3-2. It is important to note that off-ramp lengths are consistent with the measured distance between t he intersection and the freeway mainline. As shown on Table 3 -2, there are no movements that are currently experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95 th percentile traffic flows . Worksheets for Existing traffic conditions off-ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 3.4.

TABLE 3-2: FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS

# Intersection AM PM
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL/T/R 1270 584 2 508 2 Yes Yes WBR 480 334 403 2 Yes Yes
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 475 516 2,3 522 2,3 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1900 489 2 424 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 25 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-10 Freeway mainline.

Movement
Available
Stacking
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
45 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 300,304 square foot warehouse building. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2024. The following driveways will be assumed to provide access to the Project site:
• Driveway 1 on Lilac Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars only) • Driveway 2 on Lilac Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars only) • Driveway 3 on Lilac Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars); Right-in/Left-out (trucks) • Driveway 4 on Rialto Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars); Left-in/Right-out (trucks) Regional access to the Project site is available from the I-10 Freeway via Cedar Avenue interchange or to the I-210 Freeway via Ayala Drive (no trucks) or Alder Avenue.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of tra ffic 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.

4.1.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC
The existing site is currently occupied by a lumber retail and storage user that is currently active.

There is truck activity associated with the existing use and rail activity. However, the rail activity primarily occurs on the weekends (Saturdays). In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the driveways for 436 W. Rialto Avenue in Rialto, California on September 14 and 15, 2021 (Tuesday and Wednesday). A summary of the count data collected is shown on Table 4-1. Table 4-1 provides a detailed summary of the counts collected at all driveway locations, by day. See Appendix 1.1 for driveway count data worksheets.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
46 TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY COUNTS

Table 4-2 below summarizes the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over two consecutive days. The existing site currently generates an average of 137 two-way trips per day, with 14 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour. The morning peak hour between 7 -9 AM occurred between 7 -8 AM and the evening peak hour between 4 -5 PM. Trip generation for the existing use has been reflected in both actual vehicles and passenger car equivalent (PCE).

PCE factors were applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3-axles, 4+-axles).

PCEs allow the typical “real -world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses.

The PCE factors are consistent with the recommended PCE factors in the City’s Guidelines.

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Tuesday: September 14, 2021
Passenger Cars: 7 4 11 0 5 5 110
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 12
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Total Truck Trips: 1 1 2 0 0 0 32
Total Trips1 8 5 13 0 5 5 142
Wednesday: September 15, 2021
Passenger Cars: 5 4 9 0 3 3 103
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 16
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4+-axle Trucks: 1 2 3 0 0 0 13
Total Truck Trips: 2 3 5 0 0 0 29
Total Trips1 7 7 14 0 3 3 132
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

Total Driveways
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
47 TABLE 4-2: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION

4.1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
In order to d evelop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip -generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150) were used. The vehicle and truck mix were sourced from the City’s Guidelines. Table 4-3 presents the trip generation rates. Table 4-4 shows the resulting Project trip generation summary, which shows the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 518 two-way vehicle trip-ends per day with 56 AM peak hour trips and 60 PM peak hour trips (actual vehicles).

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Passenger Cars: 6 4 10 0 4 4 107
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 14
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4+-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 16
Total Truck Trips: 2 2 4 0 0 0 31
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)1 8 6 14 0 4 4 137
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Passenger Cars: 6 4 10 0 4 4 107
2-axle Trucks: 2 2 3 0 0 0 21
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4+-axle Trucks: 2 3 5 0 0 0 48
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 3 5 8 0 0 0 71
Total Trips (PCE)1 9 9 18 0 4 4 178
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.
2 Average trip generation based on actual count data surveyed on 9/14/21 and 9/15/21.

Average Trip Generation2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
48 TABLE 4-3: TRIP GENERATION RATES

TABLE 4-4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

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

Warehousing3 150 TSF 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 1.710 Passenger Cars (60.0%) 0.095 0.007 0.102 0.013 0.095 0.108 1.026 2-Axle Trucks (0.8%) 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.014 3-Axle Trucks (11.2%) 0.010 0.009 0.019 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.192 4+-Axle Trucks (28.0%) 0.025 0.023 0.048 0.026 0.024 0.050 0.479 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Warehousing3 150 TSF 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 1.710 Passenger Cars (60.0%) 0.095 0.007 0.102 0.013 0.095 0.108 1.026 2-Axle Trucks (0.8%) (PCE = 1.5)4 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.021 3-Axle Trucks (11.2%) (PCE = 2.0)4 0.020 0.018 0.038 0.020 0.020 0.040 0.383 4+-Axle Trucks (28.0%) (PCE = 3.0)4 0.075 0.068 0.143 0.078 0.073 0.151 1.436 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle and Truck Mix Source: City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and LOS Assessment (October 2021). 4 PCE rates are per City of Rialto's Traffic Study Guidelines.

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

Warehouse 300.304 TSF
Passenger Cars: 29 3 32 5 29 34 310
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 1 1 2 6
3-axle Trucks: 4 3 7 4 4 8 58
4+-axle Trucks: 8 7 15 8 8 16 144
Total Trucks: 13 11 24 13 13 26 208
Total Net Trips (Actual Vehicles) 42 14 56 18 42 60 518 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Warehouse 300.304 TSF
Passenger Cars: 29 3 32 5 29 34 310
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 1 1 2 8
3-axle Trucks: 7 6 13 7 7 14 116
4+-axle Trucks: 23 21 44 24 22 46 432
Total Trucks (PCE): 31 28 59 32 30 62 556
Total Net Trips (PCE) 60 31 91 37 59 96 866
1 TSF = thousand square feet
Project Land Use Quantity Daily
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
49 4.1.3 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table 4-5 shows the trip generation comparison between the existing use and the proposed warehouse project. The resulting net new trips are identified on Table 4-5. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 689 net new PCE two -way trips per day with 74 net new PCE AM peak hour trips and 92 net new PCE PM peak hour trips. The trip generation comparison shown in Table 4-5 has been utilized for the purposes of this TA.

TABLE 4-5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and t he proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 4-1 and Exhibit 4-2 illustrate the truck and passenger car trip distribution patterns for the Project, respectively.

4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips (non -truck) to be reduced by the use o f 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.

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 29 3 32 5 29 34 310
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 31 28 59 32 30 62 556
Total Trips (PCE)1 60 31 91 37 59 96 866
Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 6 4 10 0 4 4 107
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 3 5 8 0 0 0 71
Total Trips (PCE)1 9 9 18 0 4 4 178
Variance
Passenger Cars: 23 -1 22 5 25 30 204
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 28 24 52 32 30 62 485
Total Trips (PCE)1 51 23 74 37 55 92 689
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
50 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 i n place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT and weekday 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% per year for 2024 traffic conditions. The total ambient growth is 4.04% for 2024 traffic conditions. 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 conjunction with traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. Opening Year Cumulative (2024) traffic volumes are provided in Section 4.6 of this report. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base volume to determine EA/EAP/EAPC forecasts.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
51 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
52 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
53 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
54 The near -term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• EA (2024)
o Existing (2022) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
• EAP (2024)
o Existing (2022) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
o Project Traffic
• EAPC (2024)
o Existing (2022) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
o Project Traffic
o Cumulative Development traffic

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 -8. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the O pening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-8 are reflected as part of the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are adde d 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.

4.7 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach has been utilized which combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast the EA (2024), EAP (2024), and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of 4.04% accounts for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur over time u p to the year 2024 from the year 2022 (2.0% per year, compounded over a 2-year period).

Project traffic is added to assess EA (2024), EAP (2024), and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. Traffic volumes generated by cumulative development projects are included to assess the EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. The 2024 roadway networks are similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future roadways and intersections proposed to be developed by the Project.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
55 EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
56 EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
57 TABLE 4-8: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY

ID Project Name Land Use Quantity Units1
City of Rialto:

RIA1 South of Santa Ana Av., East of Riverside Av. Warehouse 370.000 TSF RIA2 SEC of Riverside Av. and Industrial Dr. Trucking 3.580 AC RIA3 NWC of Riverside Av. and Industrial Dr. Truck Drop 3.360 AC Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 16 VFP
Diesel Station 2 VFP
RIA5 SWC of Riverside Av. & Slover Av. Fast Food w/ Drive-Thru 5.200 TSF RIA6 Flyers Energy Addition Warehouse 9.350 TSF
RIA7 Valley/Willow Warehouse Warehousing 492.410 TSF
RIA8 Old Dominion Expansion Parking Lot (407 spaces) 17.780 AC RIA9 SC Fuels Fuel Storage/Service 54.460 TSF
RIA10 Lynn Trucking Truck Parking Yard 3.070 AC
Car Wash/Repair 8.827 TSF
RIA11 Riverside Pallet Yard Pallet Yard 3.580 AC
RIA12 Onyx Paving Contractor's Yard 0.770 AC
RIA13 Angelus Black - Concrete Block Manufacturing 178.475 TSF RIA14 Bakery Addition Bakery 14.000 TSF
RIA15 Lilac Avenue Warehouse Truck Terminal 47.609 TSF
RIA16 Cedar Villas Single Family Residential 22.000 DU
RIA17 Olive Avenue Development Project Warehouse 679.607 TSF RIA18 Fitzgerald Avenue Warehouse Warehouse 45.659 TSF
RIA19 165 S. Spruce Avenue Warehouse 86.050 TSF
RIA20 Tract 20199 – The Depot Single Family Residential 56 DU RIA21 Tract 20237 – Seasons at Acacia Single Family Residential 52 DU RIA22 Tract 20108 – Sycamore Glen Single Family Residential 30 DU RIA23 Willow Avenue Warehouse Project Warehouse 128.819 TSF RIA24 Rialto/Gateway Phase 2 3 drive-thrus, 1 car wash, retail 120 TSF RIA25 Durst Warehouse Warehouse 235 TSF
RIA4 SEC of Riverside Av. and Santa Ana Av.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
58 4.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2040) without Project conditions were derived from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) using accepted pro cedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing for study area intersections located within the County of San Bernardino.

The current version of the SBTAM reflects the local input in the adopted 2016 SCAG RTP within the County of San Bernardino. The post processing volume worksheets are provided in Appendix 4.1 of this TA.

The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing (2022) conditions and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions. In most instances the traffic model zo ne structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements along arterial roadways unless refinement and reasonableness checking is performed. Therefore, the Horizon Year (2040) peak hour forecasts were refined using the model derived long range f orecasts, base (validation) year model forecasts, along with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at each analysis location in May 2022. The SBTAM has a base (validation) year of 2016 and a horizon (future forecast) year of 2040. The differenc e in model volumes (2040-2016) defines the growth in traffic over the 24-year period.

The refined future peak hour approach and departure volumes obtained from the model output data are then entered into a spreadsheet program consistent with the NCHRP Report 765, along with initial estimates of turning movement proportions. A linear progra mming algorithm is used to calculate ID Project Name Land Use Quantity Units1
County of San Bernardino:

Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-Thru 3.265 TSF
Retail Store 7.200 TSF
Warehouse 20.750 TSF
SB2 SEC of Linden Av. and Valley Bl. Fast Food Restaurant 1.500 TSF SB3 Valley Bl., West of Linden Av. Office Building 0.250 AC SB4 Linden Av., north of Slover Av. Tire Store 3.000 TSF SB5 Slover Av. between Locust Av. and Laurel Av. High-Cube Warehouse 344.000 TSF SB6 Locust Av. and 7th St. Single Family Residential 198 DU SB7 NEC and NWC of Cedar Av. and Orange St. Warehouse 395.000 TSF SB8 NWC of Cedar Av. and Jurupa Av. High-Cube Warehouse 677.000 TSF SB9 Cedar Truck Yard Truck Storage 8.940 AC
Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 12 VFP
Automated Car Wash 1.000 Tunnel
Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-Thru 9.907 TSF
SB11 Cedar Avenue Technology Center Warehouse 184.770 TSF SB12 Cactus and Slover Warehouse Warehouse 257.855 TSF
City of Fontana:

High-Cube Transload & Short-Term Storage 3183.100TSF
Warehouse 290.590 TSF
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions F1 West Valley Logistics Center
SB10 Cedar / Slover Retail
SB1 NWC of Slover Av. and Locust Av.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
59 individual turning movements which match the known directional roadway segment forecast volumes computed in the previous step. This program computes a likely set of intersection turning movements from intersection approach counts and the initial turning proportions from each approach leg.

The SBTAM uses an AM peak period -to-peak hour factor of 0.35 and a PM peak period -to-peak hour factor of 0.2 7. These factors represent the relationship of the highest single AM peak h our to the modeled 3-hour AM peak period (an even distribution would result in a factor of 0.33) and the highest single PM peak hour to the modeled 4 -hour PM peak period (an even distribution would result in a factor of 0.25).

Typically, the model growth i s prorated and is subsequently added to the existing (base validation) traffic volumes to represent Horizon Year traffic conditions. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, reductions to traffic forecasts from either Existing or EAPC traffic cond itions were not assumed as part of this analysis. As such, in conjunction with the addition of cumulative projects that are not consistent with the General Plan, additional growth has also been applied on a movement-by- movement basis, where applicable, to estimate reasonable Horizon Year (2040) forecasts. Horizon Year (2040) turning volumes were compared to EAPC (2024) volumes in order to ensure a minimum growth as a part of the refinement process. The minimum growth includes any additional growth between EAPC (2024) and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions that is not accounted for by the traffic generated by cumulative development projects and ambient growth rates assumed between Existing (2022) and EAPC (2024) conditions. Future estimated peak hour traffic data was used for new intersections and intersections with an anticipated change in travel patterns to further refine the Horizon Year (2040) peak hour forecasts.

The future Horizon Year (2040) Without Project peak hour turning movements were then reviewed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for reasonableness, and in some cases, were adjusted to achieve flow conservation, reasonable growth, and reasonable diversion between parallel routes. Flow conservation checks ensure that traffic flow between two closely spaced intersections, such as two adjacent driveway locations, is verified in order to make certain that vehicles leaving one intersection are entering the adjacent intersection and that there is no unexplained loss of vehicles. The result of this traffic forecasting procedure is a series of traffic volumes which are suitable for traffic operations analysis.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
60 This page intentionally left blank
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
61 5 EA & EAP (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Ambient Growth s(EA) and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions and the resulting intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and freeway off-ramp queuing analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in pla ce for EA (2024) and EAP (2024) 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 assum ed to be in place for EAP (2024) conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).

5.2 EA TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04%. The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which can be expected for EA (2024) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.3 EAP TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% and the addition of Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which can be expected for EAP (2024) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-2.

5.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EA and EAP (2024) 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 EA and EAP (2024) traffic conditions, which indicates the intersection of Cedar Avenue at Rialto Avenue is anticipated to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EA (2024) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EA and EAP (2024) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 and Appendix 5.2 of this TA, respectively.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
62 EXHIBIT 5-1: EA (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
63 EXHIBIT 5-2: EAP (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
64 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EA & EAP (2024) CONDITIONS

5.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for EA and EAP (2024) traffic conditions are based on the peak hour volumes or planning level ADT volume -based traffic signal warrants. No additional study area intersections are anticipated to meet either peak hour volume or ADT volume-based warrants under EA or EAP (2024) traffic conditions in addition to the location currently warranted under Existing traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.3 and Appendix 5.4).

Delay1 Delay1
Traffic (secs.) (secs.)
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. TS 68.3 27.9 E C 69.4 31.1 E C 2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr. CSS 12.9 15.5 B C 13.1 15.5 B C 3 Cedar Av. & Merrill Av. TS 14.0 24.5 B C 14.6 25.1 B C 4 Cedar Av. & Randall Av. TS 11.3 9.5 B A 11.9 9.0 B A
5 Cedar Av. & San Bernardino Av. TS 24.9 24.4 C C 28.2 24.4 C C 6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. TS 5.9 22.6 A C 6.0 24.1 A C 7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd. TS 47.5 54.4 D D 48.5 54.8 D D 8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB TS 27.6 30.9 C C 30.7 31.4 C C
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB TS 39.0 34.0 D C 40.5 35.0 D C
10 Larch Av. & Rialto Av. TS 10.3 5.7 A A 10.3 5.9 B A 11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av. CSS 13.3 10.8 B B 13.5 10.8 B B 12 Cactus Av. & Rialto Av. TS 12.3 9.0 B A 12.5 9.2 B A 13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 0.0 11.3 A B
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St. CSS 9.9 10.2 A B 9.9 12.4 A B 15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3 CSS 11.6 11.8 B B
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. AWS 27.6 12.0 D B 31.9 13.0 D B 17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av. CSS 11.3 9.7 B A 13.5 10.5 B B * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement Future Intersection
Future Intersection
EA (2024)
Level of
Service
Level of
Service
EAP (2024)
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.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
65 5.6 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for EA and EAP (2024) are presented on Table 5-2. As shown on Table 5-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95 th percentile traffic flows for either EA or EAP (2024) traffic c onditions.

Worksheets for EA and EAP (2024) traffic conditions off -ramp queuing ana lysis are provided in Appendix 5.5 and Appendix 5.6, respectively.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
66 TABLE 5-2: FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EA & EAP (2024) CONDITIONS

# Intersection AM PM AM PM
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL/T/R 1270 621 2 543 2 Yes Yes 622 2 547 2 Yes Yes WBR 480 361 2 449 2 Yes Yes 415 2 463 2 Yes Yes
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 475 545 2,3 555 2,3 Yes Yes 624 2,3 580 2,3 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1900 527 2 476 Yes Yes 536 2 486 Yes Yes
BOLD = 95th percentile queue exceeds the available storage. 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 25 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-10 Freeway mainline.
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourMovement
Available
Stacking
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
EA (2024) EAP (2024)
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
67 5.7 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

5.7.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The addition of Project traffic to the intersection of Cedar Avenue at Rialto Avenue is not anticipated to exceed t he City’s thresholds for the net increase in delay. All other study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under EAP (2024) traffic conditions.

As such, no improvements have been recommended at this location for EAP traffic conditions.

5.7.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON OFF-RAMP QUEUES As shown previously on Table 5-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for EA and EAP (2024) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
68 6 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (202 4) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations , traffic signal warrant, and freeway off-ramp queuing analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC (2024) 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).
• If applicable, 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 (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area along with the addition of Project traffic . The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAPC (2024) 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 (2024) 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 (2024) traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. (#1) – LOS E AM peak hour only • Cedar Av. & Valley Bl. (#7) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps (#8) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps (#9) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC (202 4) traffic conditions are inc luded in Appendix 6.1 of this TA.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
69 EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
70 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS

6.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions are based on the peak hour volumes or planning level ADT volume-based traffic signal warrants. No study area intersections are anticipated to meet either peak hour volume or ADT volume -based warrants for EAPC traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.2).

6.5 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for EAPC (202 4) traffic conditions are shown on Table 6 -2. As shown 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 under EAPC (202 4) traffic conditions.

Worksheets for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions off-ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 6.3.

Delay1
Traffic (secs.)
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. TS 71.3 31.9 E C
2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr. CSS 17.0 23.3 C C
3 Cedar Av. & Merrill Av. TS 14.7 30.1 B C
4 Cedar Av. & Randall Av. TS 13.4 12.4 B B
5 Cedar Av. & San Bernardino Av. TS 29.7 24.0 C C
6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. TS 4.9 25.9 A C
7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd. TS 61.4 82.7 E F
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB TS 68.6 80.8 E F
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB TS 96.2 112.1 F F
10 Larch Av. & Rialto Av. TS 10.4 5.6 B A
11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av. CSS 13.8 10.9 B B
12 Cactus Av. & Rialto Av. TS 12.7 9.2 B A
13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 0.0 11.3 A B
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St. CSS 9.9 12.4 A B
15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3 CSS 11.6 11.8 B B
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. AWS 31.9 13.0 D B
17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av. CSS 13.5 10.5 B B
* BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement Level of
Service
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.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
71 TABLE 6-2: FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS

6.6 NEAR-TERM DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

6.6.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address EAPC (202 4) 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 (2024) conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix

6.4. 6.6.2 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 (2024) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended.

# Intersection AM PM
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL/T/R 1270 1129 2 989 2 Yes Yes WBR 480 452 2 606 2,3 Yes Yes
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 475 872 2,3 802 2,3 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1900 1013 2 715 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

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 25 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-10 Freeway mainline.

Movement
Available
Stacking
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
72 TABLE 6-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS

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 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av.

Without Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 71.3 31.9 E C With Improvements4 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 45.8 34.4 D D 7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd.

Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 3 0 2 1 2> 2 2 0 61.4 82.7 E F With Improvements4 TS 2 2 1> 2 3 0 2 1 2> 2 2 0 32.9 41.1 C D 8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB
Without Improvements TS 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 68.6 80.8 E F With Improvements TS 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 46.1 46.0 D D 9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB
Without Improvements TS 0 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 96.2 112.1 F F With Improvements TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 26.6 31.0 C C * 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; AWS = All-Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement 4 No physical improvement. Traffic signal timing should be modified to 110-seconds in the AM peak hour and 120-seconds in the PM peak hour.

This improvement requires modification of all other Tier 3/4 signals along Cedar Avenue that are coordinated).

Intersection Approach Lanes1
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; 1 = Improvement Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
73 This page intentionally left blank
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
74 7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations , traffic signal warrant, and off -ramp queuing analyses.

7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Horizon Year (2040) 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 constru cted by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Horizon Year 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 Horizon Year conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways). • Other parallel facilities, that although not evaluated for the purposes of this analysis, are anticipated to be in place for Horizon Year traffic conditions and would affect the travel patterns within the study area.

One future connection includes but is not limited to a future planned int erchange at Alder Avenue and the I-10 Freeway which may result in reduced through traffic along other parallel routes, such as Cedar Avenue.

7.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post -process volumes obtained from the SBTAM (see Section 4. 8 Horizon Year ( 2040) Volume Development of this TA for a detailed discussion on the post -processing methodology). The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-1.

7.3 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post -process volumes obtained from the SBTAM, plus the traffic generated by the proposed Project. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-

2. Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
75 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
76 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
77 7.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

7.4.1 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 7.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown on Table 7-1, the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Yea r (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. (#1) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Cedar Av. & Valley Bl. (#7) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps (#8) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps (#9) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. (#16) – LOS E AM peak hour only The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.1 of this TA.

7.4.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As shown on Table 7-1, the following additional study area intersection is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS, in addition to the intersections identified for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. (#6) – LOS E PM peak hour only The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.2 of this TA.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
78 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS

7.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The unsignalized study area intersection of Lilac Avenue & Rialto Avenue (#16) is anticipated to meet a planning level (ADT) traffic signal warrant under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions (see Appendices 7.3 and 7.4, respectively).

Delay1 Delay1
Traffic (secs.) (secs.)
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av. TS 83.4 49.2 F D 85.0 50.0 F D 2 Cedar Av. & Durst Dr. CSS 22.1 30.0 C D 22.6 33.3 C D 3 Cedar Av. & Merrill Av. TS 17.0 45.6 B D 18.0 48.5 B D 4 Cedar Av. & Randall Av. TS 12.6 16.4 B B 13.1 16.8 B B 5 Cedar Av. & San Bernardino Av. TS 32.6 39.2 C D 32.9 38.8 C D 6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av. TS 5.7 50.4 A D 6.3 56.2 A E 7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd. TS 76.4 124.2 E F 85.4 126.6 F F 8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB TS 124.0 144.8 F F 126.8 148.9 F F 9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB TS 160.7 176.7 F F 164.2 178.1 F F 10 Larch Av. & Rialto Av. TS 11.8 5.8 B A 11.8 6.1 B A 11 Spruce Av. & Rialto Av. CSS 14.1 11.1 B B 14.3 11.1 B B 12 Cactus Av. & Rialto Av. TS 15.5 9.9 B A 15.5 10.2 B B 13 Lilac Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 0.0 11.7 A B
14 Lilac Av. & Driveway 2/1st St. CSS 10.0 10.5 B B 10.1 12.9 B B 15 Lilac Av. & Driveway 3 CSS 12.0 12.2 B B
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av. AWS 43.2 13.3 E B 46.9 14.4 F C 17 Driveway 4 & Rialto Av. CSS 11.7 8.2 B A 14.5 10.8 B B * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement Level of
Service
Level of
Service
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
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. 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
79 7.6 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions are shown on Table 7-2. As shown on Table 7-2, the following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions:
• Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps (#8): westbound left-through-right turn lane (AM peak hour only), westbound right turn lane (AM and PM peak hours)
• Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps (#9): eastbound left turn lane (AM and PM peak hours) Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions off -ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendices 7.5 and 7.6, respectively.

TABLE 7-2: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040)

CONDITIONS

7.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address Horizon Year (2040) traffic deficiencies are presented on Table 7-3.

7.7.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address Horizon Year (2040) traffic deficiencies are presented on Table 7-3. If not constructed by the Project, the Project Applicant shall contribute to these improvements through payment of City DIF fees or fair share contribution as identified on Table 1 -3. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) With Project conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix 7.7.

# Intersection AM PM AM PM
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL/T/R 1270 1373 2 1233 2 No Yes 1373 2 1236 2 No Yes WBR 480 492 2 676 2 No No 507 2 694 2 No No
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 475 942 2 971 2 No No 975 2 997 2 No No EBL/T/R 1900 1338 2 906 2 Yes Yes 1341 2 909 2 Yes Yes
BOLD = 95th percentile queue exceeds the available storage. 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 25 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-10 Freeway mainline. 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
Movement
Available
Stacking
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
80 TABLE 7-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

7.7.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON OFF-RAMP QUEUES Table 7-4 summarizes the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile queues with the proposed intersection improvements shown on Table 7 -3 for Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions. As shown on Table 7.4, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions with the improvements identified in Table 7-3. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions, with improvements, off -ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendices 7.8.

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 Cedar Av. & Rialto Av.

Without Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 85.0 50.0 F D With Improvements4 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 50.7 42.0 D D 6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av.

Without Improvements TS 0 2 1>> 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 6.3 56.2 A E With Improvements4 TS 0 2 1>> 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 11.2 20.8 B C 7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd.

Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 3 0 2 1 2> 2 2 0 85.4 126.6 F F With Improvements4 TS 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1> 2 2 0 54.1 36.4 D D 8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB
Without Improvements TS 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 126.8 148.9 F F With Improvements TS 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 35.7 43.5 D D 9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB
Without Improvements TS 0 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 164.2 178.1 F F With Improvements TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 49.7 50.1 D D 16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av.

Without Improvements AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 d 0 2 1 46.9 14.4 F C With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 8.7 7.5 A A * 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; AWS = All-Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement 4 No physical improvement. Traffic signal timing should be modified to 120-seconds in the AM and PM peak hours.

This improvement requires modification of all other Tier 3/4 signals along Cedar Avenue that are coordinated).

Intersection Approach Lanes1
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
81 TABLE 7-4: PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040)

CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS

# Intersection AM PM
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL 600 464 592 2 Yes Yes
WBL/T/R 1270 481 608 2 Yes Yes
WBR 480 373 473 2 Yes Yes
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 475 716 2,3 549 2,3 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1900 774 2 582 2 Yes Yes
EBR 700 626 2 446 2 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

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 25 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-10 Freeway mainline.

Movement
Available
Stacking
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
82 8 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Rialto are funded through a combination of project mitigation, development impact fee programs 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.

8.1 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 2021. Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund Measure I compliant 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 r eview 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.

8.2 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, publi c 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 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the Measure “I” requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated in November 2021. 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.

8.3 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 combination 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).

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
83 When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed development, the approving ju risdiction 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 8-1 for the applicable deficient study area intersections.

TABLE 8-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS

# Intersection Existing Project
2040 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project % of
New Traffic
6 Cedar Av. & Bloomington Av.

AM: 2,431 48 3,407 976 4.9%
PM: 2,853 59 3,979 1,126 5.2%
7 Cedar Av. & Valley Blvd.

AM: 4,286 48 5,721 1,435 3.3%
PM: 4,739 59 6,392 1,653 3.6%
8 Cedar Av. & I-10 WB
AM: 4,457 47 6,552 2,095 2.2%
PM: 4,414 58 6,753 2,339 2.5%
9 Cedar Av. & I-10 EB
AM: 3,994 29 6,561 2,567 1.1%
PM: 3,917 26 6,613 2,696 1.0%
16 Lilac Av. & Rialto Av.

AM: 1,232 69 1,479 247 27.9%
PM: 990 85 1,219 229 37.1%
BOLD = Denotes highest fair share percentage.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
84 9 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which requires all lead agencies to adopt 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 O ffice of Planning and Research (OPR) published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA ( Technical Advisory) (6). Based on the Technical Advisory, the City of Rialto has adopted their Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS) (October 2021) (1) (City Guidelines), which iden tifies methodologies and thresholds used to evaluate VMT in the City. The City Guidelines have been utilized to prepare this VMT analysis.

9.1 VMT SCREENING EVALUATION
The City 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. It is our understanding the City of Rialto utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authorit y (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool). The Screening Tool allows users to select an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of the screening thresholds for land use projects identified in the City Guidelines. Screening thresholds are broken into the following three types:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Project Type Screening
A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

9.1.1 TPA SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” 1 or an existing st op along a “high - quality transit corridor”2) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, 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);

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.”).

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
85 • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate - or high-income residential units.

The Project site is located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor. However, the Project would not meet secondary criteria of the Project’s FAR being 0.75 or greater (see Appendix 9.1).

TPA screening threshold is not met.

9.1.2 LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
As noted in the City Guidelines, “Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment related uses and mixed use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the lo w VMT area.” 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 number is selected in the Screening Tool to determine the TAZ in which the Project will reside. The Project’s TAZ VMT per employee was compared to the County of San Bernardino baseline average VMT per employee. The parcel containing the proposed Project was selected and the Screening Tool was run for Production/Attraction (PA) home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee (See Attachment B), the Project is located within a low VMT generati ng zone (See Attachment B). A further consistency evaluation was performed within the SBTAM traffic model of Project’s TAZ. The TAZ 53748401 contained employment types that are not consistent with the Proposed Project intended land use.

Low VMT Area screening criteria is not met.

9.1.3 PROJECT TYPE SCREENING CRITERIA
The City Guideli nes describe that local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition to local serving retail, the City Guidelines also provides a list of land use projects that may be presumed to cause a less than significant impact based on size or quantity:
• 11 single family housing units
• 16 multi-family housing units
• 10,000 sf of office
• 15,000 sf of light industrial
• 63,000 sf of warehousing
• 79,000 sf of high cube transload short-term storage warehouse The Project proposes to develop a warehouse distribution building totaling of 294,304 sf which exceeds the 63,000 square feet project type screening size identified by the City Guidelines.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
86 Project Type screening criteria is not met.

As the Project was not found to meet any of the aforementioned VMT screening criteria, a project level VMT analysis is prepared to assess the Project’s potential impact to VMT.

9.2 VMT ANALYSIS

9.2.1 VMT MODELING
City Guidelines identify SBTAM as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in San Bernardino County. SBTAM is a useful tool to estimate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio -economic data such as population, households, and employment. The calculation of VMT for land use projects is based on the total number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle. SBTAM is also consistent with the model used to develop the City’s VMT impact thresholds listed by the City Guidelines. Therefore, the vehicle trips and average daily trip length for project-related vehicle trips are model derived from SBTAM.

9.2.2 VMT METRIC AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD
Through consultation with City Staff, it was identified that the appropriate VMT metric for employment generating industrial land uses to be utilized for the purposes of this VMT Analysis is VMT per employee3. As noted in the City Guidelines, the Project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions is met for industrial projects:
• Baseline project generated VMT per employee exceeds the County of San Bernardino VMT per employee, or
• Cumulative project generated VMT per employee exceeds the County of San Bernardino VMT per employee.

9.2.3 PROJECT LAND USE CONVERSION
In order to evaluate Project VMT, standard land use information must first be converted into a SBTAM compatible dataset. The SBTAM model utilizes socio -economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, employment, etc.) instead of land use information for the purposes of vehicle trip estimation. Project land use information such as building square footage must first be conv erted to SED for input into SBTAM. Adjustments in SED have been made to the appropriate TAZ within the SBTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses (i.e., warehouse). Table 9-1 summarizes the employment estimates for the Project. It should be no ted that the employment estimates are consistent with the employment density factors identified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment Density Study (October 2001) (7).

TABLE 9-1: EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
Land Use Building Area Estimated Employees
Industrial Warehouse 300,304 sf 252

3 J. Schlaefli (personal communication, November 18,2021) Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
87 9.2.4 PROJECT VMT CALCULATION
Adjustments to employment for the Project’s TAZ were made to the SBTAM base year (2016) and cumulative year (2040) traffic models, and each model was then run inclusive of the SED factors. The ability to capture commute trips can be achieved with the SBTAM model by using the Production/Attraction (PA) trip matrices exclusive of truck trips4. Using these matrices, the HBW VMT was calculated for both the base year (2016) and cumulative year (2040) conditions. The HBW VMT is then normalized by dividing by the Project employees. The results of the base year and cumulative year conditions was calculated for baseline (2022) conditions using straight -line interpolation. As shown in Table 9-2, the Project’s baseline VMT per employee is 13.36 and cumulative VMT per employee is 12.91.

TABLE 9-2: PROJECT VMT PER EMPLOYEE
Base Year (2016) Cumulative Year (2040) Baseline (2021) Employees 252 252 252
VMT 3,406 3,254 3,368
VMT / Employee 13.52 12.91 13.36

9.2.5 PROJECT COMPARISON TO SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD
Table 9-3 illustrates the comparison between Project’s baseline and cumulative VMT per employee to the City’s recommended impact threshold . SBCTA provides published VMT values for its member agencies for the baseline County of San Bernardino the VMT per employee is 17.33. The Project would not exceed the City’s recommended impact thresholds for either in the Baseline or Cumulative Project conditions. Therefore, the Project’s impact on VMT is less than significant.

TABLE 9-3: VMT PER EMPLOYEE COMPARISON
Baseline Cumulative
Impact Threshold 17.33 17.33
Project 13.36 12.91
Percent Below Threshold -22.91% -25.50%
Potentially Significant? No No

9.2.6 PROJECT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON VMT
The City Guidelines consistent with the Technical Advisory states that cumulative impacts on VMT “… metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office proj ects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency -based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.

4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (a) states “For purposes of this section “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project”. The OPR’s Technical Advisory indicates that, although heavy t ruck traffic can be included for analysis convenience, the provided analysis requirements are specific to passenger-vehicles and light duty trucks. While it may be appropriate to consider heavy vehicle traffic (HDT) if directed by the lead agency, it is generally understood that Interstate commerce and related heavy vehicle traffic are regulated by the Federal government as it relates to commerce. Irrespective of this and considering that the end-user may not be known at this time, it is reasonable to assume that the ultimate end user will select locations, at least in part, as to how it effects their transportation costs. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that industrial buildings are often located in a manner to reduce VMT given that it is in the interest of the business. In most cases, Consistent with other CEQA technical studies, HDT VMT will be reflected in other applicable technical studies (e.g. Air Quality Impact Analysis, Greenhouse Gas Analysis etc.) Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
88 Accordingly, a finding of a less -than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impacts that utilize plan compliance a s a threshold of significance.” The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan underlying land use assumptions and the Project was found to have a less than significant impact at the project level. The Project is therefore, also considered to be less than significant cumulative impact as well.

9.3 CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project was not found to meet any of the City’s described screening criteria and a project level VMT analysis was performed. The Project’s VMT analysis findings for project gen erated VMT per employee was found to not exceed the City’s threshold, and therefore the Project’s impact on VMT is presumed to be less than significant.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
89 This page intentionally left blank
Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
90 10 REFERENCES

1. City of Rialto. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS),. Rialto : s.n., October 2021.

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

3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.

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

5. 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, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).

6. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

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

7. Southern California Association of Governments. Employment Density Study. October 2001.

Rialto & Lilac Center Traffic Analysis

14430-08 TA Report
91 This page intentionally left blank