Attachment 5d - Applicant Prepared Technical Studies - Copy — Riverside City Council, November 5, 2024

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Pinnacle Environmental
739 Black Point Place
PI111122-12
22-5709 / Riverside -Van Buren
Peter ClovenClayton, CA 94517 15-Nov-22 15:01
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes Factor
IA-1 (E211025-01) Vapor Sampled: 09-Nov-22 Received: 11-Nov-22 EPA TO-1514-Nov-22 14-Nov-22ug/m3 EK214091Bromoform 1.0ND "" "" ""1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.70ND
"" "" ""4-Ethyltoluene 0.50ND
"" "" ""1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.50ND
" " "" "1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene "0.500.80
"" "" ""1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.9ND
"" "" ""Hexachlorobutadiene 2.7ND
" " " "118 % 76-134Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
" " " "102 % 78-125Surrogate: Toluene-d8
" " " "83.8 % 77-127Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene
IA-2 (E211025-02) Vapor Sampled: 09-Nov-22 Received: 11-Nov-22 EK21409 14-Nov-22 14-Nov-22ug/m3 1Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) EPA TO-151.02.2 " " "" "Chloromethane "0.211.8
"" "" ""Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) 0.71ND
"" "" ""Vinyl chloride 0.13ND
"" "" ""Bromomethane 0.39ND
"" "" ""Chloroethane 0.27ND
" " "" "Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) "0.562.0
"" "" ""1,1-Dichloroethene 0.40ND
"" "" ""1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) 0.77ND
" " "" "Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) "0.350.42
"" "" ""Carbon disulfide 0.32ND
"" "" ""trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.40ND
"" "" ""1,1-Dichloroethane 0.41ND
"" "" ""2-Butanone (MEK) 0.60ND
"" "" ""cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.40ND
" " "" "Chloroform "0.251.2
"" "" ""1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.55ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 0.41ND
" " "" "Benzene "0.160.36
" " "" "Carbon tetrachloride "0.640.64
"" "" ""Trichloroethene 0.55ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichloropropane 0.47ND

Page 5 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes Factor
IA-2 (E211025-02) Vapor Sampled: 09-Nov-22 Received: 11-Nov-22 EPA TO-1514-Nov-22 14-Nov-22ug/m3 EK214091Bromodichloromethane 0.68ND "" "" ""cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.46ND
"" "" ""4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.83ND
"" "" ""trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.46ND
" " "" "Toluene "0.762.1
"" "" ""1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.55ND
"" "" ""2-Hexanone (MBK) 0.83ND
"" "" ""Dibromochloromethane 1.7ND
"" "" ""Tetrachloroethene 0.69ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.78ND
"" "" ""1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.70ND
"" "" ""Chlorobenzene 0.47ND
"" "" ""Ethylbenzene 0.44ND
" " "" "m,p-Xylene "0.441.0
"" "" ""Styrene 0.43ND
"" "" ""o-Xylene 0.44ND
"" "" ""Bromoform 1.0ND
"" "" ""1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.70ND
"" "" ""4-Ethyltoluene 0.50ND
"" "" ""1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.50ND
" " "" "1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene "0.500.75
"" "" ""1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.9ND
"" "" ""Hexachlorobutadiene 2.7ND
" " " "111 % 76-134Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
" " " "102 % 78-125Surrogate: Toluene-d8
" " " "83.2 % 77-127Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

Page 6 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes Factor
AA-1 (E211025-03) Vapor Sampled: 09-Nov-22 Received: 11-Nov-22 EK21409 14-Nov-22 14-Nov-22ug/m3 1Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) EPA TO-151.02.2 " " "" "Chloromethane "0.211.8
"" "" ""Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) 0.71ND
"" "" ""Vinyl chloride 0.13ND
"" "" ""Bromomethane 0.39ND
"" "" ""Chloroethane 0.27ND
" " "" "Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) "0.562.0
"" "" ""1,1-Dichloroethene 0.40ND
"" "" ""1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) 0.77ND
" " "" "Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) "0.350.39
"" "" ""Carbon disulfide 0.32ND
"" "" ""trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.40ND
"" "" ""1,1-Dichloroethane 0.41ND
"" "" ""2-Butanone (MEK) 0.60ND
"" "" ""cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.40ND
"" "" ""Chloroform 0.25ND
"" "" ""1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.55ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 0.41ND
" " "" "Benzene "0.160.32
" " "" "Carbon tetrachloride "0.640.64
"" "" ""Trichloroethene 0.55ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichloropropane 0.47ND
"" "" ""Bromodichloromethane 0.68ND
"" "" ""cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.46ND
"" "" ""4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.83ND
"" "" ""trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.46ND
" " "" "Toluene "0.760.95
"" "" ""1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.55ND
"" "" ""2-Hexanone (MBK) 0.83ND
"" "" ""Dibromochloromethane 1.7ND
"" "" ""Tetrachloroethene 0.69ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.78ND
"" "" ""1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.70ND
"" "" ""Chlorobenzene 0.47ND
"" "" ""Ethylbenzene 0.44ND
"" "" ""m,p-Xylene 0.44ND
"" "" ""Styrene 0.43ND
"" "" ""o-Xylene 0.44ND

Page 7 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes Factor
AA-1 (E211025-03) Vapor Sampled: 09-Nov-22 Received: 11-Nov-22 EPA TO-1514-Nov-22 14-Nov-22ug/m3 EK214091Bromoform 1.0ND "" "" ""1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.70ND
"" "" ""4-Ethyltoluene 0.50ND
"" "" ""1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.50ND
"" "" ""1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.50ND
"" "" ""1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.61ND
"" "" ""1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.9ND
"" "" ""Hexachlorobutadiene 2.7ND
" " " "112 % 76-134Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
" " " "102 % 78-125Surrogate: Toluene-d8
" " " "84.3 % 77-127Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

Page 8 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EK21409 - TO-15
Blank (EK21409-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Nov-22
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ug/m31.0ND
Chloromethane "0.21ND
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (F114) "0.71ND
Vinyl chloride "0.13ND
Bromomethane "0.39ND
Chloroethane "0.27ND
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) "0.56ND
1,1-Dichloroethene "0.40ND
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) "0.77ND
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) "0.35ND
Carbon disulfide "0.32ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene "0.40ND
1,1-Dichloroethane "0.41ND
2-Butanone (MEK) "0.60ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene "0.40ND
Chloroform "0.25ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane "0.55ND
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) "0.41ND
Benzene "0.16ND
Carbon tetrachloride "0.64ND
Trichloroethene "0.55ND
1,2-Dichloropropane "0.47ND
Bromodichloromethane "0.68ND
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene "0.46ND
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) "0.83ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene "0.46ND
Toluene "0.76ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane "0.55ND
2-Hexanone (MBK) "0.83ND
Dibromochloromethane "1.7ND
Tetrachloroethene "0.69ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) "0.78ND
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane "0.70ND
Chlorobenzene "0.47ND

Page 9 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EK21409 - TO-15
Blank (EK21409-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Nov-22
Ethylbenzene ug/m30.44ND
m,p-Xylene "0.44ND
Styrene "0.43ND
o-Xylene "0.44ND
Bromoform "1.0ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane "0.70ND
4-Ethyltoluene "0.50ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene "0.50ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene "0.50ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene "0.61ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene "0.61ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene "0.61ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene "1.9ND
Hexachlorobutadiene "2.7ND
" 214 76-134Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 116248
" 208 78-125Surrogate: Toluene-d8 102211
" 363 77-127Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 77.9283
LCS (EK21409-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Nov-22
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ug/m3 101 59-1281171.0118 Vinyl chloride " 52.0 64-1271250.1364.8
Chloroethane " 53.6 63-1271230.2766.2
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) " 113 62-1261180.56134
1,1-Dichloroethene " 80.8 61-13387.90.4071.0
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) " 155 66-12691.70.77142 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) " 70.8 62-1151030.3573.2 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene " 80.8 67-12481.50.4065.9
1,1-Dichloroethane " 82.4 68-12691.00.4175.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene " 80.0 70-12179.30.4063.4
Chloroform " 99.2 68-12398.90.2598.1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane " 111 68-1251020.55114
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) " 82.4 65-1281050.4186.8
Benzene " 64.8 69-11977.20.1650.0

Page 10 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA TO-15 - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EK21409 - TO-15
LCS (EK21409-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Nov-22
Carbon tetrachloride ug/m3 128 68-1321060.64136
Trichloroethene " 110 71-12390.50.5599.1
Toluene " 76.8 66-11987.70.7667.4
1,1,2-Trichloroethane " 111 73-11991.40.55102
Tetrachloroethene " 138 66-12488.70.69122
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane " 140 67-1291140.70159
Ethylbenzene " 88.4 70-12473.80.4465.2
m,p-Xylene " 88.4 61-13472.00.4463.6
o-Xylene " 88.4 67-12584.40.4474.6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane " 140 65-12799.50.70139
" 214 76-134Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 114244
" 208 78-125Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100208
" 363 77-127Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 87.1316

Page 11 of 12 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Notes and Definitions
Percent Recovery
Relative Percent DifferenceRPD
%REC
Method Detection LimitMDL
Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND
Leak Check CompoundLCC
Appendix
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc. is approved as an Environmental Testing Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in accordance with the DoD-ELAP Program and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 programs through PJLA, accreditation number 69070 for EPA Method TO-15, EPA Method 8260B and H&P 8260SV.

H&P is approved by the State of California as an Environmental Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in conformance with the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) for the category of V olatile and Semi-V olatile Organic Chemistry of Hazardous Waste, certification numbers 2740, 2741, 2743 & 2745.

H&P is approved by the State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certification number 04138
The complete list of stationary and mobile laboratory certifications along with the fields of testing (FOTs) and analyte lists are available at www.handpmg.com/about/certifications.

All soil results are reported in wet weight.

Page 12 of 12 ends

1667 Cross Bridge Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-62352369 Rutland Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services
Optimal Technology LH.indd 1 8/26/2008 2:46:55 PM

November 18, 2022

Peter Cloven
Pinnacle Environmental, Inc.

P.O. Box 904
Clayton, CA 94517

Dear Peter:

This letter presents the results of the soil vapor investigatio n conducted by Optimal Technology (Optimal), for Pinnacle Environmental, Inc. on November 17, 202 2. The study was performed at 3596 Van Buren Blvd., Riverside, California.

Optimal was contracted to perform a soil vapor survey at this s ite to screen for possible chlorinated solvents and aromatic hydrocarbons. The primary obj ective of this soil vapor investigation was to determine if soil vapor contamination is present in the subsurface soil.

Gas Sampling Method

Gas sampling was performed by h ydraulically pushing soil gas pr obes to a depth of 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). One-quarter inch Nylaflow tubing wa s installed at depth in a three- inch sand pack. Hydrated bentonite filled the hole from the top of the sand pack to the surface.

An electric rotary hammer drill was used to drill a 1.0-inch di ameter hole through the overlying surface to allow probe placement when required. The same electr ic hammer drill was used to push probes in areas of resistance during placement.

At each sampling location, an electric vacuum pump set to draw 0.2 liters per minute (L/min) of soil vapor was attached to the probe and purged prior to sample collection. Vapor samples were obtained in gas-tight syringes by drawing the sample through a luer-lock connection which connects the sampling probe and the vacuum pump. Samples were i mmediately injected into the gas chromatograph/purge and trap after collection. New tubing w as used at each sampling point to prevent cross contamination.

All analyses were performed on a laboratory grade Agilent model 6890N gas chromatograph equipped with an Agilent model 5973N Mass Spectra Detector and Tekmar LSC 3100 Purge and Trap. A Restek column using heliu m a s t h e c a r r i e r g a s w a s u s e d t o p e r f o r m a l l a n a l y s i s . A l l results were collected on a pers onal computer utilizing Agilent 's MS and chromatographic data collection and handling system.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Quality Assurance

5-Point Calibration
The initial five-point calibration consisted of 20, 50, 100, 20 0 and 500 ul injections of the calibration standard. A calibrati on factor on each analyte was generated using a best fit line method using the Agilent data system. If the r
2 factor generated from this line was not greater
than 0.990, an additional five-point calibration would have bee n performed. Method reporting limits were calculated to be 1-1000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) for the individual compounds.

A daily calibration check was performed using a pre-mixed stand ard supplied by Scotty Analyzed Gases. The standard cont ained common halogenated solve nts and aromatic hydrocarbons (see Table 1). The i ndividual compound concentrati ons in the standards ranged between 0.025 nanograms per microliter (ng/ul) and 0.25 ng/ul.

TABLE 1
Acetone Benzene Bromoben zene Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec-Butylbenzene t ert-Butylbenzene Carbon Tetrac hloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane
2-Chlorotoluene 4-Chlorotoluene Cyclohexane Dibromochloromethan e 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dibromoethane Dibromomethane 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene tr ans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 1,1 -Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Freon 113 Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropylbenzene p-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Naph thalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetra chloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlor obenzene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Trichloroethene Tri chlorofluoromethane 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbe nzene Vinyl Chloride m/p-Xylene o-Xylene Diisopropyl Ether Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether MTBE Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcoh ol Isobutane

Sample Replicates
A replicate analysis (duplicate) was run to evaluate the reprod ucibility of the sampling system and instrument. The difference between samples did not vary more than 20%.

Equipment Blanks
Blanks were run at the beginning of each workday and after cali brations. The blanks were collected using an ambient air sample. These blanks checked the septum, syringe, GC column, GC detector and the ambient ai r. Contamination was not found in any of the blanks analyzed during this investigation. Blank results are given along with the sample results.

Purge Volume
The standard purge volume of three volumes was purged in accord ance with the July 2015 DTSC/RWQCB Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Tracer Gas Leak Test
A tracer gas was applied to the soil gas probes at each point o f connection in which ambient air could enter the sampling system. These points include the top o f the sampling probe where the tubing meets the probe connection and the surface bentonite sea ls. Isobutane was used as the tracer gas. No Isobutane was found in any of the samples collected.

Shut-in Test
A shut-in test was conducted prio r to purging or sampling each location to check for leaks in the above-ground sampling system. The system was evaluated to a min imum measured vacuum of 100 inches of water. The vacuum gauge was calibrated and sensit ive enough to indicate a water pressure change of at least 0.5 inches.

Scope of Work

To achieve the objective of this investigation a total of 5 vap or samples were collected from 4 locations at the site. Sampling depths, vacuum readings, purge volume and sampling volumes are given on the analytical results page. All the collected vapor s amples were analyzed on-site using Optimal’s mobile laboratory.

Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface soil conditions offered sampling flows at 0” water vacuum.

Results

During this vapor investigation, three samples contained levels of Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ranging from 17 ug/m
3 to 18 ug/m 3. One sample contained 125 ug/m 3 of Chloroform. None of the other compounds listed in T able 1 above were detected above the listed reporting limits. A complete table of analytical results is included with this report.

Disclaimer

All conclusions presented in this letter are based solely on th e information collected by the soil vapor survey conducted by Optimal Technology. Soil vapor testin g is only a subsurface screening tool and does not repre sent actual contaminant concen trations in either the soil and/or groundwater. We enjoyed working with you on this project and lo ok forward to future projects.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (877) 764-5427.

Sincerely,

John Rice
Project Manager

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services
Optimal Technology LH.indd 1 8/26/2008 2:46:55 PM

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 3596 Van Buren Blvd., Riverside, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 11/17/22 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 1 of 2 BLANK-1 SS1 SS1 Dup SS2 SS3 SS4
Sampling Depth (Ft.) N/A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Purge Volume (ml) N/A 100 100 100 100 100
Vacuum (in. of Water) N/A 00000
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 111111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) Acetone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzene 3 N DN DN DN DN DN D Bromobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Bromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane 2 N DN DN DN DN DN D
Bromoform 80 ND ND ND ND ND ND Bromomethane 150 ND ND ND ND ND ND
2-Butanone (MEK) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
n-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND sec-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND tert-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Carbon Tetrachloride 2 N DN DN DN DN DN D
Chlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Chloroform 4 N DN DN DN DN D 125
Chloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Cyclohexane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1 N DN DN DN DN DN D
1,2-Dibromoethane 1 N DN DN DN DN DN D
Dibromomethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 N DN DN DN DN DN D Dichlorodifluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 N DN DN DN DN DN D
1,1-Dichloroethane 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 200 ND ND ND ND ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 9 N DN DN DN DN DN D
2,2-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

SAMPLE ID
1667 Cross Bridge Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-62352369 Rutland Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services
Optimal Technology LH.indd 1 8/26/2008 2:46:55 PM

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 3596 Van Buren Blvd., Riverside, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 11/17/22 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 2 of 2 BLANK-1 SS1 SS1 Dup SS2 SS3 SS4
Sampling Depth (Ft.) N/A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Purge Volume (ml) N/A 100 100 100 100 100
Vacuum (in. of Water) N/A 00000
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 111111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) CONC (ug/m 3) 1,1-Dichloropropene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Freon 113 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Hexachlorobutadiene 4 N DN DN DN DN DN D
Isopropylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND p-Isopropyltoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Methylene Chloride 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Naphthalene 2 N DN DN DN DN DN D n-Propylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Styrene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 N DN DN DN DN DN D
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 10 ND 17 17 18 ND ND Toluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 60 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 N DN DN DN DN DN D
Trichloroethene (TCE) 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Vinyl Chloride 1 N DN DN DN DN DN D
m/p-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND o-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND Diisopropyl Ether (DIPE) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MTBE 350 ND ND ND ND ND ND Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services
Optimal Technology LH.indd 1 8/26/2008 2:46:55 PM

CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
Page: 1 of 1
Site Name/Number PO# / Project Ref#
Site Address 3596 Van Buren Blvd., Riverside, CA

Company Name
Contact Person(s): Phone# Email:

Comments:

TESTS REQUIRED (please mark with an "X")
Sample Sampling Date Time Soil Gas Soil Gas Soil Gas
Identification Device Collected Collected Mod 8260B Mod 8021B Mod 8015 BLANK-1 Syringe 11/17/22 10:10 AM x
SS1 Syringe 11/17/22 10:33 AM x
SS1 Dup Syringe 11/17/22 10:33 AM x
SS2 Syringe 11/17/22 11:00 AM x
SS3 Syringe 11/17/22 11:20 AM x
SS4 Syringe 11/17/22 11:38 AM x
Collected & Tested by:

Notes

Offices In: California • Nevada

PO Box 904, Clayton, CA 94517 ● (925) 673-5500 / (925) 673-5507 fax

August 14, 2024 PEI Project #22-5709B

Mr. Mike Sadeghian
President and CEO
Van Buren Land & Investment Inc.
9670 Magnolia Ave., #207
Riverside CA, 92503

RE: Limited Vapor Screening Assessment (Phase II) dated November 30, 2022 Commercial Property - 3570 and 3596 Van Buren Blvd, Riverside, California

Dear Mr. Sadghian:

Per our conversation, I have read the email from Ms. Candice Assadzedeh of the city of Riverside, which states, “The Phase II ESA recommends either soil vapor samples from beneath the building or indoor air samples (see below). Please let me know the status and when the indoor air samples' results will be available, as staff needs these results to make a CEQA determination.” As a former Planning Commissioner, I understand what Ms. Assadzedeh is requesting and appreciate her question.

The question appears to be associated with the last two “bullets” associated with the Pinnacle Environmental, Inc (PEI) November 30, 2022 report in which we state the following (directly excerpted):

1) Concentrations exceeding ESLs, do not necessarily represent an immediate threat to human health, but rather, that additional investigation may be warranted. However, since benzene and chloroform were not detected in subslab data proximal to the sample location, both benzene and chloroform concentrations may be from external ambient sources rather than subsurface impact.

2) Based on the data collected, a current vapor intrusion concern does not appear to exist related to the current commercial use of the 3570 and 3596 Van Buren Boulevard structures. However, should the property be redeveloped, additional assessment or mitigation measures may be required to address future vapor concerns that were identified in shallow vapor in the September 2022 assessment.

The underlined and bolded two sections appear to challenge Ms. Assadzadeh’s CEQA determination.

This email provides additional insight that should suffice for her review, and each bullet is discussed below in more detail.

Bullet 1) – The statement “Concentrations exceeding ESLs, do not necessarily represent an immediate threat to human health, but rather, that additional investigation may be warranted” comes directly from the definition of what an environmental screening level (ESL) is. PEI notes that the indoor air impacts detected were NOT associated with subslab vapor concentration found proximal to the indoor air sample. Therefore, the detected benzene and chloroform concentrations appear to be associated with exterior (or ambient) sources (e.g., engine exhaust) and are not a significant environmental concern that requires additional assessment.

3570 and 3596 Van Buren Blvd
Riverside, California

Page 2 of 2 ends

Bullet 2) - At the time of the assessment, the building was an old gas service station used as a tire business. PEI concluded, “Based on the data collected, a current vapor intrusion concern does not appear to exist related to the current commercial use of the 3570 and 3596 Van Buren Boulevard structures”. At that time, PEI did not know what the intended future use would be. PEI has since reviewed plans for future commercial development of the property with a 7-11 and fueling operations.

The convenience store is proposed to be located at the northeastern corner away from the existing building and former underground storage tanks (USTs), and the future fuel pumps/islands are proposed to be in the location of the existing buildings. PEI concluded, “additional assessment or mitigation measures may be required to address future vapor concerns that were identified in shallow vapor in the September 2022 assessment”. However, PEI notes it was not able to replicate the PCE concentrations noted in the September 2022 assessment. In addition, PEI notes that “occupiable” structures are being constructed on the northern portion of the subject property rather than the southern portion of the parcel where prior impacts were detected (and pump islands and USTs are proposed). Therefore, based on the continued proposed commercial use of the property as a convenience store/gas station versus a residential or some other sensitive use (e.g., day care), further assessment does not appear warranted based on the data collected by PEI in its November 30, 2022 assessment.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,
Pinnacle Environmental, Inc.

Peter K. Cloven, EP, CEM
Principal Assessor/Environmental Professional

VAN BUREN 7-ELEVEN
(PR-2024-001665)

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
October 1, 2024 City of Riverside 16095-04 TA Report
PREPARED BY: Jose Alire, PE | [email protected] Robert Vu, PE | [email protected]
Aric Evatt | [email protected]

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
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 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Deficiencies .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.7 Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.7 Truck Access ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 2 Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................ 17

2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 19

2.4 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................ 20

2.5 Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.6 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) ............................................................................................ 21

2.7 Deficiency Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 21 3 Area Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Existing Circulation Network ............................................................................................................................. 23

3.2 City of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element ................................................................................. 23

3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 23

3.4 Transit Service .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

3.5 Existing Traffic Counts .......................................................................................................................................... 29

3.6 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32

3.7 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 32

3.8 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 32 4 Projected Future Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 35

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

4.2 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 35

4.3 Modal Split ................................................................................................................................................................. 36

4.4 Project Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................................................... 36

4.5 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 36

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39

4.7 Cumulative (2045) Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 43 5 Background (2026) Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................. 45 Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
iii

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

5.2 Background (2026) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ......................................................... 45

5.3 Background (2026) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ................................................................. 45

5.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 45

5.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 48

5.6 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 48 6 Cumulative (2045) Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................... 49

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

6.2 Cumulative (2045) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................... 49

6.3 Cumulative (2045) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .................................................................. 49

6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 49

6.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 52

6.6 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 52 7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 53

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 1.2: Queuing Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 4.1: Post Processing Worksheets
Appendix 5.1: Background (2026) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 5.2: Background (2026) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 5.3: Background (2026) With Project Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: Cumulative (2045) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.2: Cumulative (2045) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets

Appendix 6.3: Cumulative (2045) With Project Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Location Map .................................................................................................................................. 2 Exhibit 1-2: Preliminary Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 1-3: Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 1-4: Site Access Recommendations ................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 1-5: Conceptual Plan ............................................................................................................................ 9 Exhibit 1-6: Truck Turning Templates (1 of 3) ............................................................................................... 14 Exhibit 1-7: Truck Turning Templates (2 of 3) ............................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 1-8: Truck Turning Templates (3 of 3) ............................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ............................................. 24 Exhibit 3-2: City of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element ................................................................ 25 Exhibit 3-3: City of Riverside General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ........................................................ 26 Exhibit 3-4: City of Riverside Master Plan of Trails and Bikeway ............................................................... 27 Exhibit 3-5: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................... 28 Exhibit 3-6: City of Riverside Transit Map...................................................................................................... 30 Exhibit 3-7: Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 31 Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 37 Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic volumes ...................................................................................................... 38 Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location MaP .................................................................................. 41 Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 42 Exhibit 5-1: Background (2026) Without Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 46 Exhibit 5-2: Background (2026) With Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 47 Exhibit 6-1: Cumulative (2045) Without Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 50 Exhibit 6-2: Cumulative (2045) With Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 51

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ...................................................................................................... 6 Table 1-2: Roadway Segment Analysis Locations .......................................................................................... 6 Table 1-3: Summary of LOS by Analysis Scenario .......................................................................................... 6 Table 1-3: Summary of Project Improvements ............................................................................................ 10 Table 1-4: Queuing Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions ....................................................................... 11 Table 1-5: Queuing Analysis for Cumulative (2045) Conditions ................................................................. 12 Table 1-6: Queuing Analysis for Cumulative (2045) Conditions With Improvements ............................. 12 Table 1-7: Summary of Queuing Improvements .......................................................................................... 12 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ...................................................................................... 18 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ................................................................................. 19 Table 2-3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations ................................................................................... 19 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions ................................................................. 32 Table 3-2: Roadway Segment Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions ...................................................... 33 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 35 Table 4-2: Cumulative Development land use Summary ........................................................................... 40 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for Background (2026) Conditions .......................................................... 48 Table 5-2: Roadway Segment Analysis for Background (2026) Conditions .............................................. 48 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for Cumulative (2045) Conditions ........................................................... 52 Table 6-2: Roadway Segment Analysis for Cumulative (2045) Conditions ............................................... 52

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CMP Congestion Management Program
DIF Development Impact Fee
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Van Buren 7-Eleven
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RIVCOM Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model
RTA Riverside Transit Authority
TA Traffic Analysis
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
v/c Volume to Capacity
vphgpl Vehicles per Hour Green per Lane

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
viii
This page intentionally left blank
Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Van Buren 7- Eleven development (“Project”), which is located at 3570 & 3596 Van Buren Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential traffic and circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and to recommend improvements to resolve identified deficiencies and to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions in accordance with the City’s General Plan. As directed by City of Riverside staff, this traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment and consultation with City staff during the scoping process. (1) The 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 construct Driveway 1 on Primrose Drive with stop controls for the northbound traffic (Project egress), and Driveway 2 on Van Buren Boulevard with stop controls for the east bound traffic (Project egress) in order to facilitate site access.
• Project to restripe the eastbound left-turn lane at Van Buren Boulevard & Primrose Drive/Andrew Street to provide 140’ of storage length
Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of this report. There are no peak hour intersection operational deficiencies anticipated for existing and future traffic conditions. As such, no off-site improvements have been identified as part of this TA.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project is located at 3570 & 3596 Van Buren Boulevard, in the City of Riverside (see Exhibit 1-2). The Project is proposed to consist of developing a new 7 Eleven convenience store with 12 vehicle fueling positions (see Exhibit 1 -2). As indicated on Exhibit 1-2, vehicular access will be provided via one full access driveway on Primrose Drive and one right-in/right-out access driveway on Van Buren Boulevard. The Project’s parking requirement is 12.2 spaces and is providing 24 spaces, exceeding the City’s parking requirement.

Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. (2) The Project is estimated to generate a net total of 794 two-way trips per day with 46 AM peak hour trips and 56 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.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
2 EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
3 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
4 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 (2024) Conditions
• Background (2026) Without Project Conditions
• Background (2026) With Project Conditions
• Cumulative (2045) Without Project Conditions
• Cumulative (2045) With Project Conditions

1.3.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2024) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. Local schools were in session with in -person instruction at the time of the traffic counts. Traffic counts were conducted in June 2024.

1.3.2 BACKGROUND (2026) CONDITIONS
The Background (2026) 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 from Existing ( 2024) conditions of 4.04% is included for Background (2026) traffic conditions (2.0% per year compounded annually over 2 years). A list of cumulative development projects was compiled from information provided by the City of Riverside and is consistent with other recent studies in the study area.

1.3.3 CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS
Traffic projections for Cumulative (2045) with Project conditions were derived from the latest Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVCOM). The Cumulative (2045) conditions analysis has been utilized to determine if improvements funded through regional transportation fee programs, such as the Development Impact Fee (DIF) program or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), or other approved funding mechanisms can accommodate the long -range cumulative traffic at the target level of service (LOS) identified by the City of Riverside (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 Riverside’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology and is included in Appendix 1.1. The following 6 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1-3 and listed in Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Riverside staff. Exhibit 1-3 and Table 1-2 also identify 2 roadway segments that were selected for this analysis.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
5 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
6 TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS

TABLE 1-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS

The intent of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related deficiencies, and improve air quality. The County of Riverside CMP became effective with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 and most recently updated in 2019 as part of the Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) adopted the 2019 CMP for the County of Riverside in December 2019. (3) There are no study area intersections identified as a Riverside County CMP intersection.

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 Background (2026) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 Cumulative (2045) Traffic Conditions includes the detailed analysis. A summary of LOS results for all analysis scenarios is presented in Table 1-3.

TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF LOS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO

# Intersection Jurisdiction CMP Facility?
1 SR-91 EB Ramps & Indiana Av. Riverside No
2 Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr. Riverside No
3 Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St. Riverside No
4 Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2 Riverside No
5 Van Buren Bl. & SR-91 WB Ramps Riverside No
6 Van Buren Bl. & Indiana Av. Riverside No
# Roadway Segment Limits
1 Primrose Dr. Van Buren Bl. & Roosevelt St.
2 Van Buren Bl. Primrose Dr. & SR91 WB Ramps

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
7 1.5.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2024) traffic conditions.

1.5.2 BACKGROUND (2026) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Background (2026) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not trigger the City of Riverside’s significance criteria.

1.5.3 CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Cumulative (2045) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not trigger the City of Riverside’s significance criteria.

1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the improvements needed to accommodate site access. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1-4 and illustrated on Exhibit 1-5.

Recommendation 1 – Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr. (#2) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the north bound approach (Project driveway) and construct a shared left-right turn lane.

Recommendation 2 – Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr. / Andrew St. (#3) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to restripe the existing eastbound left turn lane to provide 140-feet of storage.

Recommendation 3 – Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2 (#4) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach (Project driveway) and construct a right turn only lane.

Van Buren Boulevard is currently constructed to its ultimate half-section width as a Special Boulevard along the Project’s frontage from the Project’s southern boundary to the Project’s northern boundary.

Additionally, Primrose Street is currently constructed to its ultimate half -section width as an Local Street along the Project’s frontage from the Project’s western boundary to the Project’s eastern boundary. However, the Project should improve the curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landsca ping as needed to accommodate site access.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
8 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
9 EXHIBIT 1-5: CONCEPTUAL PLAN

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
10 On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS

1.7 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted at Van Buren Boulevard & Primrose Drive/Andrew Street and all Project driveways for Existing conditions and Cumulative ( 2045) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths necessary to accommodate near -term 95th percentile queues . The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro/SimTraffic (Version 12) has been utilized to assess queues at the Project access points.

Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized and unsignalized intersection capacity analyses as specified in the HCM. 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 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). Many jurisdictions utilize the 95th percentile queues for design purposes. SimTraffic simulations have 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.

The results of the queuing analysis are shown in Table 1 -4 for Existing conditions and Table 1-5 for Cumulative conditions. The minimum storage length for turn pockets to accommodate the 95 th percentile queues at the site adjacent intersections and Project driveways were previously shown on Exhibit 1-4. Signal optimization has been applied to the intersection signal timing. Queuing worksheets are included in Appendix 1.2.

Improvements have been identified at the intersection movements where the 95 th percentile queue exceeds the existing available storage. These improvements are identified to satisfy City comments and address long -range traffic deficiencies, likely attributable to the ambient and cumulative development growth. Table 1 -6 provides the queuing analysis for Cumulative (2045) conditions to provide acceptable storage length for the turn pockets shown. # Jurisdiction Improvements Project Responsibility
2 City of Riverside Install a stop control on the northbound approach
Construct
3 City of Riverside Restripe the existing eastbound left turn lane to provide 140-feet of storage
Construct
4 Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2 City of Riverside Install a stop control on the eastbound approach
Construct
Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr.

Intersection Location
Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
11 The anticipated queuing deficiencies at the study area intersections are consistent under both Cumulative (2045) Without Project and With Project, with the exception of the following movements:
• Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St. (#3) – EBL and WBL turn movements Van Buren B oulevard & Primrose Drive /Andrew Street is located adjacent to the Project site. The eastbound left turn lane is expected to serve Project traffic. The westbound left turn lane may potentially serve Project traffic. As such, the queuing deficiencies will be addressed based on the proposed Project’s design features (see Section 1.6.1 for a discussion of the proposed improvements that the Project will construct). All other movements shown in Table 1-6 are anticipated to experience queuing issues under Without Project conditions, therefore the deficiency is likely caused by the local and regional traffic growth. As such, the Project is not proposed to construct the improvements for the westbound left turn lane.

A summary of the improvements identified to address all Cumulative (2045) queuing deficiencies is provided in Table 1-7. As shown in Table 1-7, the Project responsibility has been identified based on the results of the Cumulative (2045) Without Project and With Project queuing analysis, as shown in Table 1-6. Movements that are identified as a Project deficiency in Table 1-6 are identified as construct obligations in Table 1-7. All other queuing deficiencies are identified under both Without Project and With Project, meaning the Project does not solely cause the queuing deficiency for that specific movement. Since the City does not have a fair share program to collect fair share fees, the Project responsibility for these movements is identified as “None.” TABLE 1-4: QUEUING ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS

3 NBL 150 124 151
SBL 160 62 70
EBL 60 32 50
WBL 145 140 120
# Intersection Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
* BOLD = Stacking distance is greater than available stacking distance. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown in this table, where applicable.

Van Buren Bl. & Primrose
Dr./Andrew St.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
12 TABLE 1-5: QUEUING ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS

TABLE 1-6: QUEUING ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS

TABLE 1-7: SUMMARY OF QUEUING IMPROVEMENTS

AM PM
2 Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr. NBR 100 55 63 No No
WBL 170 52 97 No No
3 NBL 150 150 1 154 1 152 1 151 1 No No
SBL 160 68 67 68 74 No No
EBL 60 72 95 125 137 No No
WBL 145 178 175 171 185 No No
4 Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2 EBR 100 61 63 No No
3 Project deficiency is anticipated if there is identified queuing issue under With Project conditions but not under Without Project conditions Future Intersection
Van Buren Bl. & Primrose
Dr./Andrew St.

Future Intersection
* BOLD = Stacking distance is greater than available stacking distance. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown in this table, where applicable. 2 Due to the random simulations evaluated using the SimTraffic software, there are cases where the Without Project conditions generates results that are higher than the With Project condition.

Project
Deficiency? 3
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
2045 Without Project 2045 With Project
# Intersection Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue
(Feet) 1,2
95th Percentile Queue
(Feet) 1,2
3 NBL 150 1 52 2 151 2
SBL 160 6 8 74
EBL 140 125 137
WBL 190 171 185
2 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown in this table, where applicable.
# Intersection Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet) 1
95th Percentile Queue (Feet)
1 100 = Improvement
Van Buren Bl. & Primrose
Dr./Andrew St.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
13 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 the Project driveways and site adjacent intersection of Van Buren B oulevard & Primrose Drive/Andrew Street, which is 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. A WB-40 truck (33-foot trailer) has been utilized for the purposes of this analysis, which is consistent with the size of the fuel tankers. Driveway 1 on Primrose Drive and the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard & Primrose Drive /Andrew St reet are anticipated to accommodate the ingress of heavy trucks as currently designed. Driveway 2 on Van Buren Boulevard is anticipated to accommodate the egress of heavy trucks as currently designed. Exhibit 1-6 reflects the inbound truck access at Driveway 1; Exhibit 1 -7 reflects the outbound truck access at Driveway 2; and Exhibit 1- 8 reflects the inbound truck access at the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard & Primrose Drive/Andrew Street.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
14 EXHIBIT 1-6: TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATES (1 OF 3)

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
15 EXHIBIT 1-7: TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATES (2 OF 3)

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
16 EXHIBIT 1-8: TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATES (3 OF 3)

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
17 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Riverside’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from 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 existence 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 7 th 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 Riverside requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the met hodology described in the HCM. (4) Intersection LOS operations are based 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 in Table 2-1.

The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 12) 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 effectiveness 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.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
18 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

A saturation flow rate of 1900 has been utilized for all study area intersections located within the City of Riverside. 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 Pea k 15- minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour . Existing PHFs 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)

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 failure are noticeable.

35.01 to 55.0 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
1 Source: HCM, 7th Edition .
2 If V/C is greater than 1.0, then LOS F per HCM.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
19 2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Riverside 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).

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) There are no existing study area intersections that are unsignalized. As such, all traffic signal warrants are only analyzed for future unsignalized intersections. 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. Table 2-3 provides the unsignalized intersections that have been evaluated for traffic signal warrant analysis.

TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS

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
1 Source: HCM, 7th Edition .
2 If V/C is greater than 1.0, then LOS F per HCM.
# Intersection
2 Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
20 Although unsignalized, the intersection of Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2 has not been evaluated for traffic signal warrant analysis as the intersection will operate with restricted access (right-in/right-out only).

The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 Background (2026) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 Cumulative (2045) 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 signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular l ocation, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly 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.

2.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Roadway segment operations have been evaluated using the City of Riverside roadway capacity thresholds are provided in the City’s traffic study guidelines and shown below:

These roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertic al alignment standards), sight distance,

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
21 vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In other words, while using ADT for planning purposes is suitable with regards to evaluating potential volume to capacity with future forecasts, it is not suitable for operational analysis because it does not account for the factors listed previously. As such, where the ADT based roadw ay segment analysis indicates a potential roadway capacity deficiency ( i.e., unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis and progression analysis are undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity.

2.5 QUEUING ANALYSIS
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package SimTraffic has been utilized to assess the queues. 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 to generate random simulations. These random simulations generated by SimTraffic have been utilized to determine the 95 th percentile queue lengths observed
for each applicable turn l ane. A SimTraffic simulation has been recorded up to 5 times, during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, and has been seeded for 15-minute periods with 60-minute recording intervals.

2.6 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
The City of Riverside has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its intersections.

However, key locations, such as City Arterials that are used by regional freeway bypass traffic and at heavily traveled freeway interchanges, allow LOS E at peak hours as the acceptable standard on a case-by-case basis. The acceptable LOS by intersection is shown below.

2.7 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
Per the City of Riverside traffic study guidelines, for Projects that are in conformance with the General Plan:
a) LOS C is to be maintained at all street intersections b) LOS D is to be maintained at intersections of Collector or higher classification (see General Plan Policy CCM 2.3).
# Intersection A cceptable LOS
1 SR-91 EB Ramps & Indiana Av. E
2 Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr. D
3 Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St. E
4 Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2 E
5 Van Buren Bl. & SR-91 WB Ramps E
6 Van Buren Bl. & Indiana Av. E
Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
22 For Projects that propose uses or intensities above that contained in the General Plan , operational improvements are required when the addition of Project related trips causes either peak hour LOS to degrade from acceptable to unacceptable levels or the peak hour delay to increase as follows:

LOS Delay Threshold
LOS A/B By 10 Seconds
LOS C By 8 Seconds
LOS D By 5 Seconds
LOS E By 2 Seconds
LOS F By 1 Second
Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
23 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Riverside General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Riverside staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 4 existing intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1 -4. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

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

Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Riverside General Plan roadway cross-sections.

Study area roadways that are classified as an Special Boulevard have variable widths and design. The following study area roadways within the City of Riverside are classified as an Special Boulevard:
• Van Buren Boulevard
Study area roadways that are classified as an Arterial are identified as having four to eight lanes of travel. The following study area roadways within the City of Riverside are classified as an Arterial:
• Indiana Avenue
Study area roadways that are classified as a Local are identified as having two lanes of travel. The following study area roadways within the City of Riverside are classified as a Collector:
• Primrose Drive
• Andrew Street

3.3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Riverside Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways is shown on Exhibit 3-4. There is a designated Class II bikeway that runs along Van Buren Boulevard and Indiana Avenue in the vicinity of the study area. Existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-5. As shown on Exhibit 3-5, there are existing pedestrian facilities provided along the Project’s frontage and in the vicinity of the Project site to provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the study area.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
24 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
25 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RIVERSIDE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
26 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RIVERSIDE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
27 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF RIVERSIDE MASTER PLAN OF TRAILS AND BIKEWAY

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
28 EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
29 3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE
The Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) currently serves the City of Riverside. Transit service is reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs.

Existing transit routes in the vicinity of the study area are illustrated on Exhibit 3 -6. As shown, there are several existing lines that provide service along Van Buren Boulevard and Indiana Avenue. There is an existing bus stop along the Project’s frontage. RTA Routes 10 and 27 are the closest routes that may serve the Project.

3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in 2024. 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) Local schools are back in session with in-person instruction, as such, no additional adjustments were made to the traffic counts for the purposes of establishing the existing baseline. The 2024 weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as co nstruction activity or detour routes and near- by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. 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 3-7. 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 15.04 = 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 6.65 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 15.04 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 6.65 percent (i.e., 1/0.0665 = 15.04) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning-level analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-7.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
30 EXHIBIT 3-6: CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSIT MAP

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
31 EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
32 3.6 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 in Table 3-1, which indicates that all the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2024) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis works heets are included in Appendix

3.2 of this TA.

TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS

3.7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing ( 2024) traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. There are no unsignalized study area intersections that currently meet a traffic signal warrant for Existing (2024) traffic conditions (see Appendix 3.3).

3.8 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The roadway capacities utilized for the study area roadway segment analysis are obtained from the applicable roadway capacities for each agency. These roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. It should be noted, capacities have been interpolated where applicable for roadway sections not identified in an agency’s General Plan. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the Existing (2024) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis. As shown in Table 3-2, the following study area roadway segment is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS based on the daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria:
• Primrose Dr. between Van Buren Bl. & Roosevelt St.

Level of
Traffic S ervice
# Intersection Control 2 AM PM AM PM
1 SR-91 EB Ramps & Indiana Av. TS 3 5.1 38.8 D D
2 Driveway 1 & Primrose Dr.
3 Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St. TS 19.0 20.7 B C 4 Van Buren Bl. & Driveway 2
5 Van Buren Bl. & SR-91 WB Ramps TS 27.2 26.7 C C
6 Van Buren Bl. & Indiana Av. TS 42.0 45.7 D D
1 2 TS = Traffic Signal
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections w
ith cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds.

Delay1
(secs.)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
33 Although the roadway of Primrose Drive operates at LOS E roadway capacity, the roadway segment is built to the General Plan ultimate full -section width. As such, additional roadway widening is not recommended.

TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
34 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
35 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The proposed Project consists of developing a new 7 Eleven convenience store with 12 vehicle fueling positions. The Project is proposed to utilize the following driveways:
• Driveway 1 on Primrose Drive: full access driveway
• Driveway 2 on Van Buren Boulevard: right-in/right-out only driveway A preliminary site plan of which the traffic study will be based on is shown on Exhibit 1-2.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is 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. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip -generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) was used to estimate the trip generation. (2) In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip -generation statistics published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for Convenience Store/Gas Station - GFA (2-4k) (ITE Land Use Code 945) land use were utilized. (2) The trip generation rates are shown in Table 4-1. As shown in Table 4-1, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 794 two-way trips per day with 46 AM peak hour trips and 56 PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

As the Project is proposed to include retail uses , pass-by percentages have been obtained from the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual (2021). (2) Pass-by trips are associated with existing traffic on the roadway network that might visit a use on-site on their way to their primary destination.

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
36 routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the Project site and are consistent with other similar projects that have been reviewed and approved by City of Riverside staff. The proposed Project trip distribution patterns are illustrated on Exhibit 4-1. These distribution patterns was reviewed and approved by the City of Riverside as part of the traffic study scoping process (see Appendix 1.1).

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

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupa ncy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, the Project only ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2.

4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC

4.5.1 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2.0% per year.

The total ambient growth is 4.04% for 2026 conditions (2.0% per year compounded over 2 years). The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area -wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. Background (2026) traffic volumes are provided in Section 5 of this report. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base volume to determine Background “With Project” forecasts conditions. Conservatively, this TA estimates the area ambient traffic growth and then adds traffic generated by other known or probable related projects. These related projects are at least in part already accounted for in the assumed ambient growth rates; and some of these related projects may not be implemented and operational within the 2026 Opening Year time frame assumed for the Project (see also Section 4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic).

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
37 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
38 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
39 4.5.2 CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS
The Cumulative (2045) traffic conditions were derived from the latest RIVCOM using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing. The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing conditions and Cumulative conditions. See additional discussion in Section 4.7 Cumulative (2045) Volume Development.

4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study area have also been included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of th is analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Riverside. The cumulative project list includes known and foreseeable projects that are anticipated to contribute traffic to the study area intersections.

Where applicable, cumulative projects anticipated to contribute measurable traffic (i.e. , 50 or more peak hour trips) to study area intersections have been manually added to the study area network to generate Background (2026) forecasts. In other words, this list of cumulative development projects has been reviewed to determine which projects would likely contribute measurable traffic through the study area intersections (e.g., those cumulative projects in close proximity to the proposed Project). For the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative projects that were determined to affect one or more of the study area intersections are shown on Exhibit 4 -3, listed in Table 4 -2, and have been considered for inclusion.

These cumulative projects have been included in an effort to conduct a conservative analysis and overstate as opposed to understate potential traffic deficiencies. Any other cumulative projects that are not expected to contribute measurable traffic to study area intersections have not been included since the traffic would dissipate due to the distance from the Project site and study area intersections.

Any additional traffic generated by other projects not on the cumulative projects list is accounted for through background ambient growth factors that have been applied to the peak hour volumes at study area intersections as discussed in Section 4.5 Background Traffic. Cumulative Only ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-4.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
40 TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY

ID Project Name Land Use Quantity Units1
R1 P17-0946 Office / Medical Building 4.415 TSF
R2 Convenience Store/Gas Station with Car Wash 16 VFP
Restaurant with Drive-thru 2.533 TSF
Sit-down Restaurant 5.550 TSF
Hotel 84 Room
R3 P20-0476 / P20-0477 Car Wash 10.629 TSF
R4 PR-2021-000975 Multi-family Residential 139 DU
R5 PR-2021-001026 Office / Medical Building 1.351 TSF
R6 PR-2022-001338 Car Wash 3.596 TSF
R7 PR-2022-001369 University 14.226 TSF
R8 PR-2022-001464 Self-Storage 172.536 TSF
R9 PR-2022-001467 Multi-family Residential 63 DU
R10 PR-2023-001531 Office / Medical Building 1.389 TSF
R11 PR-2023-001477 Restaurant Bar 1.800 TSF
R12 PR-2023-001598 Adult Daycare Facility 7.500 TSF
R13 PR-2024-001643 Multi-family Residential 149 DU
R14 PR-2024-001655 Public Charter School 500 STU
R15 PR-2024-001665 Convenience Store/Gas Station (Proposed Projec 3.010 TSF R16 PR-2024-001679 Coffee Shop with Drive-thru 0.950 TSF R17 PR-2021-000831 Retail 14.000 TSF
Restaurant 1.020 TSF
R18 PR-2021-001212 Brewery 2.027 TSF
R19 PR-2022-001381 Multi-family Residential 70 DU
R20 PR-2023-001617 Convenience Store 2.878 TSF
1 DU = Dwelling Units; STU = Students; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions P18-0296 / P18-0297 /
P18-0298 / P18-0299 /
P18-0300 / P18-0301 /
P18-0302 / P18-0303
Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
41 EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
42 EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
43 4.7 CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS
“Buildout” traffic projections for Cumulative conditions are based on traffic model forecasts and were derived from the RivCOM using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing for study area intersections located within the County of Riverside. The Cumulative traffic conditions analyses was utilized to determine if improvements funded through regional transportation mitigation fee programs, such as the TUMF, can accommodate the long-range traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of Riverside General Plan.

The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing (2024) conditions and Cumulative (2045) traffic conditions. In most instances the traffic model zone structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements along arterial roadways unless refinement and reasonableness checking is performed. Therefore, the Cumulative peak hour forecasts were refined using the model derived long range forecasts, base (validation) year model forecasts, along with existing peak hour traffi c count data collected at each analysis location. The RivCOM has a base (validation) year of 2018 and a horizon (future forecast) year of 2045. The RivCOM 2045 model utilized for the purposes of this analysis assumes buildout of the City of Riverside.

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 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Report 765), along with initial estimates of turning movement proportions.

A linear programming algorithm is used to calculate 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 future Cumulative (2045) Without Project peak hour turning movements were then reviewed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for reasonablenes s, 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. Post -processing worksheets for Cumulative (2045) Without Project traffic conditions are provided in Appendix 4.1.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
45 5 BACKGROUND (2026) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Background (2026) Without and With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant and analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Background (2026) 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 Background 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 Background conditions only.

5.2 BACKGROUND (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT 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. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Background (2026) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.3 BACKGROUND (2026) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes Background (2026) Without Project traffic in conjunction with the addition of Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Background (2026) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-2.

5.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Background (2026) traffic conditions with the roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 5.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown in Table 5-1, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Background (2026) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2024 ) traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not trigger the City of Riverside’s significance criteria. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Background (2026) Without Project and Background (2026) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
46 EXHIBIT 5-1: BACKGROUND (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
47 EXHIBIT 5-2: BACKGROUND (2026) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
48 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR BACKGROUND (2026) CONDITIONS

5.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for Background (2026) With Project traffic conditions based on daily planning level volumes . There are no unsignalized intersections under Background (2026) Without Project traffic conditions. There are no unsignalized study area intersections anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under Background (2026) With Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.3).

5.6 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Table 5-2 provides a summary of the Background (2026) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis. As shown in Table 5-2, all study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under Background (2026) Without and With Project traffic conditions. Roadway segment widening has only been considered/recommended if the intersection operations analysis indicates that additional through lanes are needed in order to process peak hour volumes at the intersections. Since the study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hours, no widening has been recommended. Although the roadways of Primrose Drive and Van Buren are anticipated to operate at LOS E roadway capacities, both roadway segments are built to the General Plan ultimate full-section width. As such, additional roadway widening is not recommended.

TABLE 5-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR BACKGROUND (2026) CONDITIONS

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
49 6 CUMULATIVE (2045) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Cumulative (2045) Without and With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Cumulative (2045) 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 Cumulative 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 Cumulative 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 Cumulative traffic conditions and would affect the travel patterns within the study area.

6.2 CUMULATIVE (2045) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post-processed volumes developed from the RIVCOM (see Section

4.7 Cumulative (2045) 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 Cumulative (2045) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.

6.3 CUMULATIVE (2045) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post -processed volumes developed from the RIVCOM pus Project traffic. T he weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Cumulative (2045) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-2.

6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Cumulative (2045) traffic conditions with the roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 6.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown in Table 6-1, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Cumulative (2045) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions, consistent with Existing ( 2024) traffic conditions. The addition of Proj ect traffic would not trigger the City of Riverside’s significance criteria. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Cumulative (2045) Without Project and Cumulative (2045) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
50 EXHIBIT 6-1: CUMULATIVE (2045) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
51 EXHIBIT 6-2: CUMULATIVE (2045) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
52 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS

6.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for Cumulative (2045) With Project traffic conditions based on daily planning level volumes . There are no unsignalized intersections under Cumulative (2045) Without Project traffic conditions. There are no unsignalized study area intersections that are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under Cumulative (2045) With Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.3).

6.6 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Table 6-2 provides a summary of the Cumulative (2045) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis. As shown in Table 6-2, all study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria under Cumulative (2045) Without and With Project traffic conditions. Roadway segment widening has only been considered/recommended if the intersection operations analysis indicates that additional through lanes are needed in order to process peak hour volumes at the intersections. Since the study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hours, no widening has been recommended. Although the roadways of Primrose Drive and Van Buren are anticipated to operate at LOS E roadway capacities, both roadway segments are built to the General Plan ultimate full-section width. As such, additional roadway widening is not recommended.

TABLE 6-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2045) CONDITIONS

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
53 7 REFERENCES

1. City of Riverside. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. Riverside : s.n., July 2020.

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

3. VRPA Technologies, Inc. for Riverside County Transportation Commission. Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study. County of Riverside : VRPA Technologies, Inc., December 2019.

4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 7th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2022.

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. Western Riverside Council of Governments. TUMF Nexus Study, 2016 Program Update. July 2017.

7. City of San Jacinto. City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan. San Jacinto : s.n., Adopted November 15, 2022.

8. County of Riverside Transportation Department. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020.

Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report REV2
54 This page intentionally left blank
V an Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis
16095-04 TA Report
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
Van Buren 7-Eleven Traffic Analysis

16095-04 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
WZͲϮϬϮϰͲϬϬϭϲϲϱ;Z͕hW͕Z͕WZEͿ
sĂŶƵƌĞŶϳͲ
ůĞǀĞŶ
ϮϬϮϲ
ϯϱϳϬΘϯϱϵϲsEhZ
E>s
ϳͲ
ůĞǀĞŶŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ^ƚŽƌĞǁŝƚŚϭϮǀĞŚŝĐůĞĨƵĞůŝŶŐƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐ ZŽďĞƌƚsƵ
ϭϭϯϯĂŵĞůďĂĐŬ^ƚ͘ηϴϯϮϵ
EĞǁƉŽƌƚĞĂĐŚ͕ϵϮϲϱϴ
ƌǀƵΛƵƌďĂŶǆƌŽĂĚƐ͘ĐŽŵ
ZŝĐŚĂƌĚZĞĂǀĞƐ
ϲϴϳϵŝƌƉŽƌƚƌŝǀĞ
ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞ͕ϵϮϱϬϰ
ZZĞĂǀĞƐΛĂĚŬĂŶ͘ĐŽŵ
06/13/2024

1.1-1
/d
ϭϭƚŚ
ĚŝƚŝŽŶ
DhͲsʹDŝǆĞĚͲhƐĞʹsŝůůĂŐĞ
DhͲsʹDŝǆĞĚͲhƐĞʹsŝůůĂŐĞ
ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů
ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů
Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
ǆ
ǆ ϳϱͲϳϲ
ǆ
56 23
28 4623
28 1.1-2
ŶŽƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ
ǆ
sDdĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉĞƌĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŵĞŵŽĚĂƚĞĚϬϰͬϬϯͬϮϬϮϰ ϰϬ ϰϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ
^ĞĞ
ǆŚŝďŝƚϭ
^ĞĞ
ǆŚŝďŝƚϯ
dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇDĂǇϮϯ͕ϮϬϮϰ
^ŝŶŐůĞWŚĂƐĞ
^ĞĞŶĞǆƚƉĂŐĞ

1.1-3
EŽƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ
"OBMZTJT4DFOBSJPT
v
v
v
v
v
&YJTUJOH
0QFOJOH:FBS$VNVMBUJWF
8JUIPVU1SPKFDU
0QFOJOH:FBS$VNVMBUJWF
8JUI1SPKFDU
)PSJ[PO:FBS
8JUIPVU1SPKFDU
)PSJ[PO:FBS
8JUI1SPKFDU
Roadway analysis for Van Buren Bl. between Primrose Dr. & SR91 WB Ramps and Primrose Dr. between Van Buren Bl. & Roosevelt St.

Queuing analysis for the intersection of Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St. and project driveways.

Evaluate the westbound left turn lane at Van Buren Bl. & Primrose Dr./Andrew St with an extended turn pocket of 145' (from 100').

1.1-4

Riverside City CouncilNovember 5, 2024

Riverside City Council
November 5, 2024