8.3-20
Timings Sycamore Hills Distribution Center TIA (JN 12014) 3: Private Driveway & Alessandro Bl. 08/11/2020
Horizon Year (2040) With Project (Alt. 3) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBR Ø4
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 3365 4 2879 8
Future Volume (vph) 4 3365 4 2879 8
Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 4
Permitted Phases 6
Detector Phase 52663
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 14.1 14.6
Total Split (s) 12.0 105.4 93.4 93.4 14.6 14.6
Total Split (%) 8.9% 78.3% 69.4% 69.4% 10.8% 11%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Min
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 134.6
Actuated Cycle Length: 122.5
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Private Driveway & Alessandro Bl.
8.3-21
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sycamore Hills Distribution Center TIA (JN 12014) 3: Private Driveway & Alessandro Bl. 08/11/2020
Horizon Year (2040) With Project (Alt. 3) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 3365 1 4 2879 0008000
Future Volume (veh/h) 4 3365 1 4 2879 0008000
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 4 3658 1 4 3129 0007000
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 10 5417 1 113 5107 0000020
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5698 2 41 5700 0 0 0 -87400 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 4 2439 1220 4 3129 0 0.0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1900 41 1900 0 0 1900 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 8.2 8.3 1.4 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 8.2 8.3 4.5 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 10 3612 1806 113 5107 0 0 2 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.68 0.68 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 4114 2057 115 5436 0 0 204 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.6 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAAA AAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 3663 3133 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.9 1.3 0.0
Approach LOS A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 93.1 0.0 5.1 88.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 100.8 10.0 7.4 88.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 0.0 2.2 13.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 78.3 0.0 0.0 59.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 1.1
HCM 6th LOS A
8.3-22
Timings Sycamore Hills Distribution Center TIA (JN 12014) 4: Vista Grande Dr. & Alessandro Bl. 08/11/2020
Horizon Year (2040) With Project (Alt. 3) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 3371 27 2878 2 0 37 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 3371 27 2878 2 0 37 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7438 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Detector Phase 74382266
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.1 11.5 9.6 11.5 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 Total Split (s) 9.1 77.0 9.9 77.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1
Total Split (%) 7.6% 64.2% 8.3% 64.3% 27.6% 27.6% 27.6% 27.6% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 5.5 3.6 5.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.1 6.5 4.6 6.5 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Min Min None None
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 103.6 (86%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Vista Grande Dr. & Alessandro Bl.
8.3-23
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Sycamore Hills Distribution Center TIA (JN 12014) 4: Vista Grande Dr. & Alessandro Bl. 08/11/2020
Horizon Year (2040) With Project (Alt. 3) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS Synchro 10 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 3371 14 27 2878 16 2 0 11 37 0 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 3371 14 27 2878 16 2 0 11 37 0 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 3664 15 29 3128 17 2 0 12 40 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 000000000000
Cap, veh/h 5 4070 17 47 4209 23 41 13 116 182 0 134
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.03 0.79 0.79 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5332 22 1810 5324 29 80 152 1391 1424 0 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 2374 1305 29 2030 1115 14 0 0 40 0 5 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1729 1896 1810 1729 1895 1623 0 0 1424 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 62.2 62.6 1.9 35.7 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 62.2 62.6 1.9 35.7 35.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.14 0.86 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 2640 1447 47 2734 1498 170 0 0 182 0 134 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.90 0.90 0.62 0.74 0.74 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 75 2640 1447 80 2734 1498 419 0 0 406 0 388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.32 0.32 0.32 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.7 10.7 10.8 57.9 6.4 6.4 50.8 0.0 0.0 51.7 0.0 50.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.9 3.0 5.4 1.6 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 15.8 18.4 0.9 7.6 8.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.6 13.8 16.1 59.5 7.0 7.5 51.1 0.0 0.0 52.3 0.0 50.7 LnGrp LOS F BBEAADAADAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 3681 3174 14 45
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 7.6 51.1 52.1
Approach LOS B A D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 7.7 98.1 14.2 4.4 101.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 4.6 6.5 * 4.2 4.1 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 29 5.3 70.5 * 29 5.0 70.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 3.9 64.6 4.9 2.1 37.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.1 0.0 28.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.3-24
Queuing and Blocking Report
Horizon Year (2040) With Project (Alt. 3) - AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS 08/11/2020 Sycamore Hills Distribution Center TIA (JN 12014) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection: 3: Private Driveway & Alessandro Bl.
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 51 201 180 140 199 528 528 528 50
Average Queue (ft) 5 53 48 44 9 153 175 180 11
95th Queue (ft) 26 134 125 116 68 409 439 441 35
Link Distance (ft) 592 592 592 528 528 528 346
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 4: Vista Grande Dr. & Alessandro Bl.
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR LTR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 118 143 100 92 4021 4064 1234 54 47 30 Average Queue (ft) 6 23 31 28 22 439 723 209 19 16 1
95th Queue (ft) 22 68 90 84 56 2086 2899 745 47 39 10
Link Distance (ft) 528 528 528 4017 4017 4017 833 749
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 155 155 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 9
8.3-25
Queuing and Blocking Report
Horizon Year (2040) With Project (Alt. 3) - PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS 08/11/2020 Sycamore Hills Distribution Center TIA (JN 12014) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc. Page 1
Intersection: 3: Private Driveway & Alessandro Bl.
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 594 632 638 31 225 248 270 53
Average Queue (ft) 1 111 154 148 8 35 42 44 9
95th Queue (ft) 10 378 476 455 28 128 143 151 34
Link Distance (ft) 598 598 598 542 542 542 279
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 4: Vista Grande Dr. & Alessandro Bl.
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR LTR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 403 400 447 95 93 118 136 51 96 31 Average Queue (ft) 4 149 173 170 26 35 39 45 13 27 4
95th Queue (ft) 20 306 316 333 63 75 88 96 41 67 21
Link Distance (ft) 542 542 542 3997 3997 3997 827 778
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 155 155 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 3
8.3-26
12014-17 VMT REV2
October 1, 2020
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C310
Ontario, CA 91764
SUBJECT: SYCAMORE HILLS DISTRIBUTION CENTER VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED (VMT) ANALYSIS Dear Ms. Sonya Hooker:
The following Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis has been prepared for the proposed Sycamore Hills Distribution Center (Project), which is located north of Alessandro Boulevard and east of Barton Street and west of San Gorgonio Drive within the Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan (SP) located in the City of Riverside.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project proposes subdividing the site into two parcels (Parcels 1 and 2), and three lettered parcels (Parcels A, B, and C). Each parcel is proposed to be developed with a high cube transload short- term warehouse building (Buildings A and B). Building A, a 400,000 square foot warehouse, will be constructed on Parcel 1. Buildin g B, a 203,100 square foot warehouse, will be constructed on Parcel 2.
Associated improvements include parking, fire lanes, fencing and walls (including retaining walls), landscaping, and water quality treatment areas.
Parcels A and Parcel B consist of existing Restricted Property of natural land, with a supporting jurisdictional feature, totaling approximately 11.6 acres. A 0.67 -acre driveway will be constructed through the Restricted Property to provide street access from Alessandro Boulevard to Parce l 1, which would reduce the Restricted Property to 10.93 acres. However, 1.44 acres will be added to Parcel A to mitigate this loss, resulting in a total of 12.37 acres of Restricted Property (net gain of 0.77 acres). A Conservation Easement is proposed to be placed over the amended 12.37 acres of Restricted Property.
A trailhead parking lot is proposed on Parcel C, totaling 1.18 acres, for access to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. Improvements include a parking lot, sidewalk, shade structure, bike rack, drinking fountain, fencing, and a Fire Department and access gate. Parcel C will be dedicated to the City. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land use s have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transpo rtation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition, 2017.
(1) The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 847 vehicle trip-ends per day. (2) Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
BACKGROUND
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 201 8, 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 takes effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office o f Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). (3) Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) prepared a WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package (March 2019) to assist its member agencies with implementation tools necessary to adopt analysis methodology, impact thresholds and mitigation approaches for VMT. To add to the previous work effort, WRCOG in February 2020 released its Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (WRCOG Guidelines ), which provides recommendations for specific procedures for complying with the new CEQA requirements for VMT analysis to its member agencies . (4) Utilizing the WRCOG Guidelines, the City of Riverside recently adopted updated Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (City Guidelines). (5) The updated City Guidelines have been utilized to prepare this VMT analysis.
PROJECT SCREENING
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. The City of Riverside utilizes the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool ( Screening Tool) to evaluate the following Project Screening Thresholds:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
As noted in the City Guidelines, a land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.
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 stop along a “high- quality
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.”).
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
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); • 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.
Based on the Screening Tool results presented in Attachment A, the Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor.
The TPA screening threshold is not met.
LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
As described 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.”
3 The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the City. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number is input into the Screening Tool to determine project - generated VMT as compared to the City threshold. Based on the Screening Tool results (see Attachment A), the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone.
The Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met.
PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail or other types of local serving land use projects that are consistent with the current Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan are presumed to have a less than significant impact. City Guidelines also states projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day are assumed to cause a less than significant impact. As previously noted, t he Project is estimated to generate in excess of 110 daily trips and would therefore not be eligible for the project type screening threshold.
The Project Type screening threshold is not met.
Since the Project does not meet the City’s project-level VMT screening thresholds, a VMT analysis has been prepared consistent with City Guidelines.
2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 3 Page 24 of the City Guidelines
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
VMT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
VMT thresholds adopted by City Council on June 16, 2020 have been used to prepare this analysis. Based on the adopted VMT thresholds applicable to the Project, a significant impact for VMT would occur if the following condition is met:
• For new office and industrial projects, utilizing a threshold consistent with 15% below the City’s current baseline VMT Per Worker.
PROJECT GENERATED VMT PER EMPLOYEE
The Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) 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. RIVTAM is a travel forecasting model that represents a sub- area of the SCAG model.
The model was originally completed in 2009 and was later updated to include a 2012 base year and 2040 forecast horizon year. The model was designed to provide a greater level of detail and sensitivity in the Riverside County area as compared to the regional SCAG model. The City Guidelines identifies RIVTAM as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City of Riverside.
Project VMT has been calculated using the most current version of RIVTAM, which includes a 2012 base year model and a 2040 horizon year model. Adjustments in socio-economic data (SED) (i.e., employment) for the Project have been made to a separate traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within the RIVTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed land use (i.e., industrial/warehouse type use). A separate TAZ has been utilized in order to isolate trips to/from the Project. Table 1 summarizes the employment fact ors and employment estimates for the Project.
T
ABLE 1: EMPLOYMENT DENSITY FACTORS
Project
Building Square Footage 603,100
Employment Density Factor4 1 employee/1,030 SF
Employment 586
Adjustments to employment for the Project’s TAZ were made to both the RIVTAM base year model (2012) and the cumulative year model (2040). Project -generated home- based work VMT was then calculated for the base year model (2012) and cumulative year model (2040). The VMT is then normalized by dividing by the number of Project employees. As shown in Table 2, the Project base year (2012) VMT per employee is 15.71 and the Project cumulative year (2040) VMT per employee is 17.34.
4 Employee Density Factor was obtained from the County of Riverside General Plan Appendix E-2: Socioeconomic Build-Out Assumptions and Methodology (see Table E-5, Commercial Employment Factors, Page 3).
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
TABLE 2: PROJECT VMT PER EMPLOYEE
2012 Project 2040 Project
VMT 9,206 10,159
Employment 586 586
VMT / Employee 15.71 17.34
CITY OF RIVERSIDE VMT PER EMPLOYEE
The City of Riverside’s current baseline VMT per employee for current baseline conditions is 13.24. As noted in the City Guidelines this information is available through the WRCOG Screening Tool and is shown in Attachment A of this report.
PROJECT LEVEL VMT ASSESSMENT
Table 3 illustrates the comparison between the Project generated VMT per employee to the City of Riverside’s current baseline VMT per employee. As shown, the Project would exceed the threshold of 15% below the current baseline City of Riverside VMT per employee for both the baseline and cumulative Project generated VMT. As such, the Project’s impact is potentially significant.
TABLE 3: VMT PER EMPLOYEE COMPARISON
2012 VMT/Employee 2040 VMT/Employee
City of Riverside Current VMT/Employee 13.24 13.24
Project VMT/Employee 15.71 17.34
Percent Change +18.66% +30.97%
Potentially Significant? Yes Yes
PROJECT’S EFFECT ON VMT
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that are found to have a potential ly significant impact using efficiency-based metrics (such as VMT per employee ) should also provide an additional assessment to evaluate a project’s effect on VMT. As noted in the City Guidelines, this analysis is performed using the boundary method, which includes all vehicle trips with one or both trip-ends within a specific geographic area of interest (i.e., the City of Riverside). As shown on Table 4, the Project is anticipated to result in a base year (2012) net decrease of 0.200 VMT per employee and a cumulative year (2040) net decrease of
0.091 VMT per employee. The Project’s effect on VMT is less than significant.
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
TABLE 4: PROJECT’S EFFECT ON CITY OF RIVERSIDE VMT
2012 Without Project 2012 With Project 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project VMT 5,730,358 5,734,341 8,723,408 8,724,916
Employment 119,544 120,130 228,619 229,205
VMT/Employee 47.935 47.735 38.157 38.066
Change in VMT -0.200 -0.091
Potentially
Significant? No No
POTENTIAL VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies have been evaluated for the purpose of reducing VMT. The purpose of TDM strategies is to reduce the need for single occupancy automobile trips . The effectiveness of TDM strategies available to individual land use projects in Riverside County was thoroughly evaluated by the SB 743 Implementation TDM Strategy Assessment (February 26, 2019, Fehr & Peers) (WRCOG Report) prepared for WRCOG, which evaluated the TDM measures identified in the Quantifying Greenhous e Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA, 2010) (CAPCOA) for their relevance to projects in the WRCOG area.
The WRCOG Report indicates that of the 50 transportation measures presented by CAPCOA, only 41 are applicable at a building and site level. The remaining 9 measures are functions of, or depend on, site location and/or actions by local and regional agencies or funders. Based on a review of the 41 transportation measures identified by CAPCOA, the WRCOG Report identifies that only a few of those measures have the potential to be effective at the project level in the predominantly suburban context of the WRCOG area. Evaluation of potentially applicable TDM strategies in the context of the proposed Project is summarized below.
• Measure 1: Increase Diversity of Land Uses (LUT-3). Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport ation. For example, when resi dential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs.
Remarks: The Project proposes the construction of two high-cube short-term transload warehouse buildings, totaling 603,100 square feet. In order for the above measure to apply, at least three of the following will be located on-site, or off-site within ¼ mile of the Project: Residential Development, Retail Development, Park, Open Space, or Office. There is residential and limited retail located off-site within ¼ mile south of the Project, and park/open space (Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park) within a ¼ mile north of the Project. As the proposed Project does not include a mix of land uses within the development site, but is instead located within a sphere of influence to a mix residential and retail uses (i.e., ¼ mile radius), this particular TDM measure would provide a low reduction and is therefore not evaluated further as a means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
• Measure 2: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements (SDT-1). Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk inst ead of drive assuming that desirable destinations are within walking distance of the Project. This mode shift results in people driving less and a reduction in VMT.
Remarks: There are existing sidewalks along Alessandro Boulevard and Barton Street. The Project is proposing to improve the pedestrian network along the Project frontage and at the intersection of Vista Del Grande & Alessandro Boulevard. As noted in the WRCOG Report and by CAPCOA, this measure would provide a nominal reduction in Project VMT due to the limited new pedestrian connections created. • Measure 3: Provide Traffic Calming Measure (SDT-2). Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. This mode shift will result in a decrease in VMT. Traffic calming features may include: marked crosswalks, count -down signal timers, curb extensions, speed ta bles, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini -circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others.
Remarks: The Alessandro Boulevard corridor provides for sidew alk and bike lane enhancements. Th ere is limited opportunity for the Project to implement meaningful enhanced mitigation in this area . This measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT. • Measure 4: Implement C ar-Sharing Program (TRT-9). Implementing a car -sharing program would allow individuals to have on -demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as- needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees.
Remarks: It is possible that employers within the Project site could implement car-sharing programs. This may provide car access for employees on an as-needed basis, and thereby alleviate some of the costs and responsibilities of individual car ownership. The effectiveness of this measure is dependent on the ultimate building tenant(s) which are unknown currently. As such, t his measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
• Measure 5: I ncrease Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-4). This measure serves to reduce transit - passenger travel time through more reduced headways and increased speed and reliability. This makes transit service more attractive and may result in a mode shift from auto to transit which reduces VMT.
Remarks: The study area is currently served by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within Riverside County. RTA Routes 20 and 26 currently provide proximate service (within one-quarter mile) of the Project site. Transit service is reviewed and updated by RTA 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. It is recommended that the Applicant work in conjunction with the Lead Agency and RTA to coordinate potential bus service to the Project site. Since implementation of this strategy would require agency implementation it is not applicable for individual development projects.
This measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
• Measure 6: Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedule (TRT-6). Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks.
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
Remarks: The effectiveness of this measure is dependent on the ultimate building tenant(s) which are unknown currently. As such, this measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
• Measure 7: Provide Ride -Sharing Programs (TRT-3). This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling but its ultimate implementation is limited as Measure 6 above.
Remarks: The effectiveness of this measure is dependent on the ultimate building tenant(s) which are unknown currently. As such, this measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
The effectiveness of the above-noted TDM measures would be dependent in large part on future Project occupancies, which are unknown at this time. Bey ond Project tenancy considerations, land use context is a major factor relevant to the potential application and effectiveness of TDM measures. More specifically, the land use context of the Project is characteristically suburban center. Of itself, the Project’s suburban center context acts to limit the range of feasible TDM measures and moderates their potential effectiveness. Relevant discussion in this regard is presented in WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package (Fehr & Peers [for WRCOG]) March 2019, excerpted in pertinent part below:
The Technical Advisory relies on the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, (CAPCOA) 2010 resource document to help justify the 15 percent reduction in VMT threshold stating, “ . . . fifteen percent reduction in VMT are achievable at the project level in a variety of place types . . . ”. A more accurate reading of the CAPCOA docu ment is that a fifteen percent is the maximum reduction when combining multiple mitigation strategies for the suburban center
5 place type. For suburban 6 place types 10 percent is
the maximum and requires a project to contain a diverse land use mix, workforce housing, and project -specific transit. It is also important to note that the maximum percent reductions were not based on data or research comparing the actual performance of VMT reduction strategies in these place types. Instead, the percentages were derived from a limited comparison of aggregate citywide VMT performance for Sebastopol, San Rafael, and San Mateo where VMT performance ranged from 0 to 17 percent below the statewide VMT/capita average based on data collected prior to 2002. Little evidence exists about the long -term performance of similar TDM strategies in different land use contexts. As such, VMT reductions from TDM strategies cannot be guaranteed in most cases (WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package, pp. 65 – 66).
As indicated in the preceding discussion, even under the most favorable circumstances, projects located
5 Suburban Center: A project typically involving a cluster of multi-use development within dispersed, low-density, automobile dependent land use patterns (a suburb). The center may be an historic downtown of a smaller community that has become surrounded by its region’s suburban growth pattern in the latter half of the 20th Century. The suburban center serves the population of the suburb with office, retail and housing which is denser than the surrounding suburb (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 60). 6 Suburban: A project characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside.
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
within a suburban center context, such as the proposed Project evaluated here, could realize a maximum 15 percent reduction in VMT through implementation of feasible TDM measures. The Project is estimated to exceed the current City of Riverside VMT per employee by 18.66% in base year (2012) and
30.97% in cumulative year (2040). Given that the maximum percent reduction is 15% through feasible TDM measures, the Project cannot reduce the Project- generated VMT to below the threshold of 15% below the current City of Riverside VMT per employee.
The Project VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable.
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5978.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
Aric Evatt, PTP Robert Vu, PE
President Transportation Engineer
Ms. Sonya Hooker
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
October 1, 2020
12014-17 VMT REV2
REFERENCES
1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. 2017.
2. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Sycamore Hills Distribution Traffic Impact Analysis. August 2020.
3. Office of Planning and Res earch. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
State of California : s.n., December 2018.
4. Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. February 13, 2020.
5. City of Riverside Public Works Department. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. City of Riverside : s.n., July 2020.
12014-17 VMT REV2
ATTACHMENT A
SCREENING TOOL RESULTS
12014-17 VMT REV2