Appendix I: Traffic Study - PDF Free Download

City of Fontana Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Draft EIR Appendix I: Traffic Study FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN JN)\0144\01440050\EIR\1 ADEIR\01440050 Sec99 99 Appendix Dividers.doc

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF FONTANA PREPARED BY: Aric Evatt, PTP aevatt@urbanxroads.com (949) 660-1994 x204 Charlene So, PE cso@urbanxroads.com (949) 660-1994 x222 Pranesh Tarikere, PE ptarikere@urbanxroads.com (949) 660-1994 x205 JUNE 3, 2015 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... I APPENDICES... III LIST OF EXHIBITS... IV LIST OF TABLES... V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS... VI 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Project Overview... 1 1.2 Analysis Scenarios... 3 1.3 Study Area... 5 1.4 Summary of Cumulative Impacts... 7 1.5 Recommended Improvements... 8 1.6 On-Site Roadway and Site Access Improvements... 9 2 METHODOLOGIES... 15 2.1 Level of Service... 15 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis... 15 2.3 LOS Criteria... 17 2.4 Thresholds of Significance... 18 2.5 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology... 18 3 AREA CONDITIONS... 19 3.1 Existing Circulation Network... 19 3.2 City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan... 19 3.3 Truck Routes... 24 3.4 Transit Service... 24 3.5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities... 24 3.6 Existing Traffic Counts... 28 3.7 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis... 28 3.8 Existing Conditions Recommended Improvements... 31 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC... 35 4.1 Project Trip Generation... 35 4.2 Project Trip Distribution... 36 4.3 Modal Split... 43 4.4 Project Trip Assignment... 43 4.5 Background Traffic... 43 4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic... 45 4.7 Horizon Year Volume Development... 45 5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS... 49 5.1 Roadway Improvements... 49 5.2 Existing plus Project Traffic Volume Forecasts... 49 5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis... 49 5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures... 53 6 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS... 55 6.1 Roadway Improvements... 55 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev i

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 6.2 Opening Year Cumulative Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts... 55 6.3 Opening Year Cumulative With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts... 55 6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis... 55 6.5 Opening Year Cumulative Impacts and Recommended Improvements... 60 7 HORIZON YEAR (2035) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS... 65 7.1 Roadway Improvements... 65 7.2 Horizon Year Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts... 65 7.3 Horizon Year With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts... 65 7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis... 65 7.5 Horizon Year Cumulative Impacts and Recommended Improvements... 69 8 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION... 73 8.1 On-Site Roadway Improvements... 73 8.2 Site Access Improvements... 73 9 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS... 77 9.1 Measure I... 77 9.2 City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF)... 77 9.3 Fair Share Contribution... 78 10 REFERENCES... 81 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev ii

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 5.1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX 5.2: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 6.1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX 6.2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX 6.3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 6.4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 7.1: HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX 7.2: HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX 7.3: HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 7.4: HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev iii

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN... 2 EXHIBIT 1-2: LOCATION MAP... 6 EXHIBIT 1-3: SITE ACCESS AND ADJACENT ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONS... 11 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS... 20 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF FONTANA CIRCULATION MASTER PLAN... 21 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS... 22 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF FONTANA EXISTING TRUCK ROUTES... 25 EXHIBIT 3-5: CITY OF FONTANA EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES... 26 EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES... 27 EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING (2014) TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 29 EXHIBIT 3-8: SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS FOR EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS... 32 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT PASSENGER TRIP DISTRIBUTION (OUTBOUND)... 39 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT PASSENGER CAR TRIP DISTRIBUTION (INBOUND)... 40 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION (OUTBOUND)... 41 EXHIBIT 4-4: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION (INBOUND)... 42 EXHIBIT 4-5: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 44 EXHIBIT 4-6: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP... 46 EXHIBIT 5-1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 50 EXHIBIT 5-2: SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT... 52 EXHIBIT 6-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 56 EXHIBIT 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 57 EXHIBIT 6-3: SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS... 59 EXHIBIT 6-4: SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS... 61 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2035) TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 66 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 67 EXHIBIT 7-3: SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS... 70 EXHIBIT 7-4: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS... 71 EXHIBIT 8-1: SITE ACCESS AND ADJACENT ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONS... 74 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev iv

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS... 7 TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS... 10 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS... 15 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS... 17 TABLE 2-3: CMP INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY OF FONTANA... 17 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS... 30 TABLE 3-2: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY, WITH IMPROVEMENTS... 33 TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES)... 37 TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (IN PCE)... 38 TABLE 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY... 47 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS... 51 TABLE 5-2: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY, WITH IMPROVEMENTS... 54 TABLE 6-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY... 58 TABLE 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY, WITH IMPROVEMENTS... 62 TABLE 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2035) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY... 68 TABLE 7-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS... 72 TABLE 9-1: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS... 79 TABLE 9-2: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS... 80 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev v

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference ADT Average Daily Traffic Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMP Congestion Management Program DIF Development Impact Fee E+P Existing Plus Project HCM Highway Capacity Manual ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LOS Level of Service PCE Passenger Car Equivalents PHF Peak Hour Factor Project Sierra Lakes Commerce Center RTP Regional Transportation Plan SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments SBTAM San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model SCAG Southern California Association of Governments sf Square Feet TIA Traffic Impact Analysis tsf Thousand Square Feet vphg Vehicles Per Hour of Green 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev vi

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Sierra Lakes Commerce Center ( Project ) located at the southeast corner of and Clubhouse Drive in the City of Fontana as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the potential impacts to traffic and circulation associated with the development of the proposed Project, and to recommend improvements to mitigate impacts considered significant in comparison to established regulatory thresholds. Based on discussions with City staff, the scope of this study is consistent with other recently completed TIAs in the area whose scopes were developed through consultation with the City of Fontana, and follows the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Fontana s traffic study requirements. 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Project is anticipated to consist of the development of up to 597,818 square feet (sf) of high-cube warehouse use in a single building generally located on the southeast corner of and Club House Drive in the City of Fontana. The Project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by the year 2016. Access to the site will be provided via three driveways on and three driveways along the future Mango Avenue. Clubhouse Drive will be restricted to passenger cars only with full access. Driveway 2 and Driveway 3 on will be restricted to right-in / right-out access only. The three driveways (Driveways 4, 5, and 6) on Mango Avenue will provide full access. 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) as presented in ITE s most current edition of Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012). (1) The Project is estimated to generate a net total of approximately 1,004 (1,576 passenger car equivalents or PCE) trip-ends per day with 66 (93 PCE) AM peak hour trips and 72 (108 PCE) PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project s trip generation characteristics are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report. High-cube warehouse/distribution centers are a unique land use type within the larger, more generalized industrial land use category. ITE s most recent edition of the Trip Generation manual (ITE 9 th Edition), published in 2012, defines high-cube warehouses as used for storage of materials, goods and merchandise prior to their distribution to retail outlets, distribution centers or other warehouses. These facilities are typically characterized by ceiling heights of at least 24 feet with small employment counts due to a high level of mechanization. This definition is widely accepted by other engineering and planning disciplines. Over the years, the proliferation of high-cube warehouse/distribution center buildings throughout Southern California, and most notably the Inland Empire, has prompted both the public and private 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 1 1

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis sectors to conduct numerous studies to understand the trip generation characteristics of these unique buildings, and their associated impacts on the transportation system. 1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions: Existing (2014) (1 scenario) Existing plus Project (1 scenarios) Opening Year Cumulative (2016), Without and With Project (2 scenarios) Horizon Year (2035), Without and With Project (2 scenarios) 1.2.1 EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS Information for Existing (2014) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. 1.2.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The Existing Plus Project (E+P) analysis determines significant traffic impacts that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project traffic. Pursuant to the approved scoping agreement with the City of Fontana, the E+P analysis is intended to identify the Projectspecific impacts associated solely with the development of the proposed Project based on a comparison of the E+P traffic conditions to Existing conditions. 1.2.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2016) CONDITIONS The Opening Year Cumulative conditions analysis determines the near-term cumulative traffic impacts based on a comparison of the with Project traffic scenarios to the without Project traffic scenario. The Opening Year Cumulative conditions analyses uniquely identifies the specific traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth of 2 percent per year from Existing conditions is included for Opening Year Cumulative traffic conditions. The currently adopted Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (April 2012) growth forecasts City of Fontana identifies projected growth in population of 193,900 in 2008 to 259,100 in 2035, or a 33.6% increase over the 27 year period. (1) The change in population equates to roughly a 1.08 percent growth rate compounded annually. Similarly, growth over the same 27 year period in households is projected to increase by 37.2 percent, or 1.18 percent annual growth rate. Finally, growth in employment over the same 27 year period is projected to increase by 44.9 percent, or a 1.39 percent annual growth rate. Based on a comparison of Existing (2014) traffic volumes to the Horizon Year (2035) forecasts, the average growth rate is estimated at approximately 5 percent compounded annually 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 3 3

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis between Existing (2014) and Horizon Year (2035) traffic conditions. The annual growth rate at each individual intersection is not lower than 2.0 percent compounded annually to as high as 6.5 percent compounded annually over the same time period. Therefore, the annual growth rate utilized for the purposes of this analysis would appear to conservatively approximate the anticipated regional growth in traffic volumes in the City of Fontana for Opening Year Cumulative (2016) and Horizon Year (2035) traffic conditions, especially when considered along with the addition of project-related traffic. As such, the growth in traffic volumes assumed in this traffic impact analysis would tend to overstate as opposed to understate the potential impacts to traffic and circulation. 1.2.4 HORIZON YEAR (2035) CONDITIONS The Horizon Year conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs, such as the City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the cumulative traffic at the target level of service (LOS) identified by the City of Fontana (lead agency). If the planned and funded improvements can provide the target LOS, then the Project s payment into these established fee programs will be considered as cumulative mitigation for the long-range traffic impacts. City of Fontana staff provided the following traffic studies with published 2030 forecasts and indicated that the data included in these studies was the most appropriate source for background long range (2030) traffic projections for the study area: Summit at Rosena Specific Plan (2005) Sierra Crest Residential Project (2011) The Arboretum Specific Plan (2008) City provided Specific Plan information and Urban Crossroads obtained relevant traffic study materials independently. Fontana-Hans Project (2011) In addition, Urban Crossroads, Inc. also obtained the traffic study report for the Fontana Promenade Specific Plan project and contacted the San Bernardino Associated Governments to obtain the most current sub-regional traffic model forecasts. The traffic volumes for 2035 conditions have been extracted from the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model SBTAM, and compared to 2030 projections contained in the various studies referenced previously. In cases where approved/published 2030 volumes are higher than 2035 data, the approved/published projections have been retained for local circulation design purposes. In general, the approved/published traffic study report volumes were in fact higher than the most current 2035 model volumes. Therefore, the long range forecasts in this report are identified as representative of 2035 conditions. The Horizon Year Without Project traffic conditions presented in this analysis were obtained from recently approved Fontana Industrial Development Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised December 13, 2013) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., (3) whose forecasts were based on methodology described above. 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 4 4

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis The Horizon Year traffic forecasts used in the traffic analysis were refined with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at intersection analysis locations. The initial estimate of the future peak hour turning movements has, therefore, been reviewed for reasonableness. The reasonableness checks performed include a review of traffic flow conservation in addition to a comparison with the Existing and Opening Year Cumulative traffic volumes. Where necessary, the Horizon Year volumes have been adjusted to achieve flow conservation, reasonable growth, and reasonable diversion between parallel routes. The Horizon Year With Project scenario includes the Horizon Year Without Project traffic volumes, plus the traffic generated by the proposed Project. 1.3 STUDY AREA 1.3.1 INTERSECTIONS The following eleven study area intersection locations listed in Table 1-1 and shown on Exhibit 1-2 were selected for this TIA based on the City of Fontana s traffic study requirements that require analysis of intersection locations in which a proposed Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak-hour trips, and in consultation with City of Fontana staff. The rationale for evaluating intersections where a Project would contribute 50 or more peakhour trips is standard industry practice and supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the potential impact threshold of 50 peak hour trips is identified in the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Study Guidelines, which is followed by the City of Fontana. It should also be noted that the 50 peak hour trip threshold is used by several other lead agencies throughout southern California including Caltrans, County of Riverside, and the County of Orange. The 50 peak hour trip threshold is based on the desire to analyze potential impacts when the project contributes 3% or more of the capacity of a typical signalized intersection. According to the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Guidelines, the 50 peak hour threshold represents less than 3% of capacity of a signalized intersection for critical movements, estimated based on the Highway Capacity Manual at approximately 1700 vehicles per hour. In effect, acting as the lead agency, these jurisdictions have established 50 project trips as the threshold of significance for when to analyze signalized intersections. Therefore, a project trip contribution of less than 50 trips is considered less than significant and is typically not analyzed. The San Bernardino County CMP Traffic Study Guidelines state that Urban segments (i.e., segments on roadways that are generally signalized with spacing less than 2 miles) do not require segment analysis. Segment requirements can normally be determined by the analysis of lane requirements at intersections. Roadway segment analysis has not been requested by the City of Fontana for other recent projects in the area. As stated in the CMP, the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, roadway segment analysis is typically only performed if explicitly required by the applicable jurisdiction s traffic study guidelines or specifically requested by the lead agency. 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 5 5

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction 1 / Summit Avenue Fontana 2 / Clubhouse Drive Fontana 3 / Driveway 2 Future Intersection Fontana 4 / Driveway 3 Future Intersection Fontana 5 / Sierra Lakes Parkway Fontana 6 / SR-210 Westbound Ramps Caltrans (CMP location) 7 / SR-210 Eastbound Ramps Caltrans (CMP location) 8 / Driveway 4 Future Intersection Fontana 9 / Driveway 5 Future Intersection Fontana 10 / Driveway 6 Future Intersection Fontana 11 Mango Avenue / Sierra Lakes Parkway Fontana Based on discussions with the City staff, although the Project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips at the intersections of / Summit Avenue and Sierra Avenue / SR-210 Eastbound ramps, these intersections are included in the study area, in order to be consistent with other recent traffic studies completed in the area. 1.3.2 FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS The San Bernardino County CMP traffic study guidelines require the freeway mainline analysis locations include the segments where the proposed Project is anticipated to contribute 100 or more two-way peak hour trips. As the Project is anticipated to contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips in either direction, freeway mainline and ramp junction analysis is not required for this TIA. 1.4 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative traffic impacts are deficiencies that are not directly caused by the Project, but occur as a result of regional growth combined with that or other nearby cumulative development projects. The Project s contribution to a particular cumulative transportation deficiency is deemed cumulatively considerable if the Project adds significant traffic to the forecasted deficiency (as measured by the 50 or more peak hour trip threshold). 1.4.1 Existing Conditions For Existing traffic conditions, the following intersection was found to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or more of the peak hours: ID Intersection Location Level of Service 5 / Sierra Lakes Parkway LOS D, PM peak hour 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 7 7

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 1.4.2 E+P Conditions The same intersection that was found to operate at a deficient LOS under Existing traffic conditions was also found to operate at a deficient LOS under E+P traffic conditions. In other words, there were no NEW traffic impacts identified due to the addition of Project traffic. Improvements needed to address E+P traffic conditions were the same as those identified for Existing traffic conditions. 1.4.3 Opening Year Cumulative Conditions Based on a comparison of Opening Year Cumulative Without and With Project traffic conditions to Existing traffic conditions, the same intersection previously identified to operate at an unacceptable LOS for Existing and E+P traffic conditions was also found to operate at an unacceptable LOS for Opening Year Cumulative Without and With Project traffic conditions. Similar to E+P traffic conditions, the improvements needed to address Opening Year Cumulative Without and With Project traffic conditions were the same as those identified for Existing traffic conditions. 1.4.4 Horizon Year Conditions Based on the assessment of Horizon Year Without and With Project traffic conditions, the following additional intersections were identified to operate at a deficient LOS in addition to those previously identified under Existing traffic conditions: ID Intersection Location Level of Service 1 / Summit Avenue LOS D, AM Peak Hour LOS F, PM Peak Hour 7 / SR-210 Eastbound Ramps LOS F, PM Peak Hour It should be noted that the Project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips to both of these intersections. However, in order to be consistent with other recent traffic studies completed in the area, improvements have been recommended for the intersections. 1.5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Table 1-2 lists the recommended improvements necessary to reduce the identified intersection LOS deficiencies by traffic condition. For improvements that do not appear to be in DIF, a fair share contribution based on the Project s percentage contribution may be imposed in order to mitigate the Project s share of impacts in lieu of construction. These fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected vehicle trip increases. Alternatively, minor fair share responsibilities may be waived when collection is infeasible or where other mitigation assignments substantially exceed the Project s demonstrated impacts. Additional information related to the fee programs are contained in Section 9 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this report. Under the City s DIF program, the City may grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF program. The overall mitigation 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 8 8

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis program includes a cash payment through the City s DIF program which will lead to the improvement of select off site facilities with local and regional significance. A rough order of magnitude cost has been prepared to determine the appropriate contribution value based upon the Project s fair share of traffic as part of the project approval process. Table 1 2 also summarizes the applicable cost associated with each of the recommended improvements based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP (2) in conjunction with a cost escalation factor of 1.484% to reflect current (2014) costs. The total cost of needed study area intersection improvements is $1,023,960. Based on the project fair share percentages shown on Table 1 2, the project s fair share cost is estimated at $6,458. These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. 1.6 ON SITE ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Access to the site will be provided via three driveways on and three driveways along the future Mango Avenue. Clubhouse Drive will be restricted to passenger cars only with full access. Driveway 2 and Driveway 3 on will be restricted to right in / right out access only. The three driveways (Driveways 4, 5, and 6) on Mango Avenue will provide full access. Roadway improvements necessary to provide site access and on site circulation are assumed to be constructed in conjunction with site development and are described below. These improvements should be in place prior to occupancy. 1.6.1 ON SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The recommended site adjacent roadway improvements for the Project are described below. Exhibit 1 3 illustrates the site adjacent roadway improvement recommendations. is a north south oriented roadway located along the Project s western boundary. is built to its ultimate number of travel lanes as indicated in the City of Fontana General Plan Circulation Element. Additional curb, gutter and parkway improvements are recommended along the Project s frontage consistent with City of Fontana standards and final conditions of approval. Mango Avenue Construct an additional 16 foot paved section in conjunction with 12 foot parkway of Mango Avenue from the Project s northern boundary to southern boundary prior to the Project s opening day to accommodate Project truck traffic and minimize truck traffic on, north of Sierra Lakes Parkway, in compliance with the applicable City of Fontana standards. A 28 foot paved section of Mango Avenue has recently been constructed by adjacent development. 1.6.2 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS The recommended site access driveway improvements for the Project are described below. Exhibit 1 3 illustrates the on site and site adjacent recommended roadway lane improvements. 09316 07 Traffic Study Rev 9

Table 1 2 Summary of Intersection Improvements # Intersection Location Jurisdiction Existing (2014) E+P Recommended Improvements 1 Improvements in DIF? OYC (2016) Without Project OYC (2016) With Project HY (2035) Without Project HY (2035) With Project Total Cost 2,3,4 Fair Share Fair Share % 5 Cost 4 1 Sierra Av. / Summit Av. Fontana Restripe EB left turn lane as a shared left right turn lane Same No $37,100 1.0% $ 378 2nd NB through lane Same Yes $267,120 $ 3rd NB through lane Same Yes $267,120 $ 5 7 Sierra Av. / Sierra Lakes Pkwy. Sierra Av. / SR 210 EB Ramps Fontana Modify the traffic signal to accommodate overlap phasing for EB right turn lane Same Same Same Same Same No $111,300 2.3% $ 2,545 Restripe 2nd EB through lane as a 2nd EB right turn lane Same No $37,100 $ 848 Caltrans 3rd SB through lane Same No $267,120 0.9% $ 2,359 Restripe EB shared left through right turn lane as a 2nd EB right turn lane Same No $37,100 $ 328 Total Costs for Horizon Year (2035) Improvements $1,023,960 $ 6,458 All recommended improvements are consistent with the general plan designations of the respective jurisdictions in which they are located. Costs have been estimated using the data provided in Appendix "G" of the CMP (2003 Update) for preliminary construction costs. Appendix "G" costs escalated by factor of 1.484. Rough order of magnitude cost estimate. Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. See Table 9 2 for Fair Share Calculations. 1 2 3 4 5 10

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis Construction of on site and site adjacent improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes. at Clubhouse Drive / Driveway 1 Modify the traffic signal to include the westbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: Northbound Approach: One left turn lane, three through lanes and one right turn lane. Southbound Approach: One left turn lane, three through lanes and one right turn lane. Eastbound Approach: One left turn lane and one shared through right turn lane. Westbound Approach: One left turn lane and one shared through right turn lane. Provide signage to restrict trucks access. at Driveway 2 Install a stop control on the westbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: Northbound Approach: Two through lanes and one shared through right turn lane. Southbound Approach: Three through lanes. Eastbound Approach: Not applicable. Westbound Approach: One right turn lane. Provide signage to restrict trucks access. at Driveway 3 Install a stop control on the westbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: Northbound Approach: Two through lanes and one shared through right turn lane. Southbound Approach: Three through lanes. Eastbound Approach: Not applicable. Westbound Approach: One right turn lane. Mango Avenue at Driveway 4 Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: Northbound Approach: One shared left through lane. Southbound Approach: One shared through right turn lane. Eastbound Approach: One right turn lane. Westbound Approach: Not applicable. Mango Avenue at Driveway 5 Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: Northbound Approach: One shared left through lane. 09316 07 Traffic Study Rev 12 12

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis Southbound Approach: One shared through right turn lane. Eastbound Approach: One shared left right turn lane. Westbound Approach: Not applicable. Mango Avenue at Driveway 6 Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: Northbound Approach: One shared left through lane. Southbound Approach: One shared through right turn lane. Eastbound Approach: One shared left right turn lane. Westbound Approach: Not applicable. On site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Fontana sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 09316 07 Traffic Study Rev 13 13

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 14 14

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 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 Fontana, San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Caltrans traffic study guidelines. (3) (2) (4) 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 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (5) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. 2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The City of Fontana requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in Chapter 16 of the HCM. (5) 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 directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS Level of Service A B C Description Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Average Control Delay (Seconds) 0 to 10.00 10.01 to 20.00 20.01 to 35.00 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 15 15

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis Level of Description Service Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to F over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths Source: HCM 2000, Chapter 16 Average Control Delay (Seconds) 35.01 to 55.00 55.01 to 80.00 80.01 and up All the study area intersections have been analyzed using the software package Traffix (Version 8.0 R1, 2008). The LOS analysis for signalized intersections has been performed using optimized signal timing. This analysis has included an assumed lost time of four seconds per critical phase in accordance with San Bernardino County CMP recommended default values. (2) There were nominal pedestrian crossings (less than 5) observed during peak hours based on counts at the study area intersections. As such, a minimum green time of 10 seconds was used in the analysis. The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15 minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-mintue rate of flow. However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g. PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per Chapter 8 of the HCM 2000, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (5) Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for through and right-turn lanes and 1,700 vphg for single left-turn lanes, 1,600 vphg per lane for dual left-turn lanes, and 1,500 vphg per lane for triple left-turn lanes have been assumed for all capacity analysis under Existing (2014) and Opening Year Cumulative conditions. For Horizon Year (2035) conditions, saturation flow rates of 1,900 vphg for through and right-turn lanes and 1,800 vphg for single left-turn lanes, 1,700 vphg per lane for dual left-turn lanes, 1,600 vphg per lane for triple left-turn lanes, and 1,800 vphg per lane for dual right-turn lanes have been assumed. These saturation flow rates are consistent with the recommended values in the CMP. (2) 2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The City of Fontana requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in Chapter 17 of the HCM. (5) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 16 16

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis Level of Service TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 B Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 C Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 D Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 E Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 Source: HCM 2000, Chapter 17 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. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole. 2.3 LOS CRITERIA The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from each of the applicable jurisdictions. The City of Fontana has set the goal for acceptable LOS as LOS C or better, wherever feasible (see Goal #1, Policy #12 of the City of Fontana General Plan Circulation Element). However, in some instances maintaining the LOS C threshold within a built environment may require extensive roadway widening that could affect existing uses, property rights and substantial costs associated with implementing these improvements. In the event that the improvements required to maintain LOS C is determined to be infeasible, the City of Fontana recognizes that LOS D may be considered the worst acceptable level of service in urbanized areas of the City. Per the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the acceptable LOS of service for CMP intersections is LOS E or better. However, for the purposes of this analysis, LOS D has been considered the LOS threshold for CMP intersections, consistent with the minimum LOS thresholds utilized by Caltrans. The following study area intersections are identified as CMP intersections (see Table 2-3): TABLE 2-3: CMP INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY OF FONTANA ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction 6 / SR-210 Westbound Ramps Caltrans 7 / SR-210 Eastbound Ramps Caltrans 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 17 17

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 2.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE For purposes of analyzing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts, the E+P scenario will be used to establish direct project impacts. To determine whether the addition of Project traffic at a study intersection results in a significant impact, the following thresholds of significance have been utilized: A significant impact occurs at a study intersection if the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS to fall from acceptable (LOS A, B, or C) to an unacceptable (LOS D, E or F or see applicable jurisdictional LOS criteria). Cumulative traffic impacts are deficiencies that are not directly caused by the Project, but occur as a result of regional growth combined with that or other nearby cumulative development projects. The Project s contribution to a particular cumulative transportation deficiency is deemed cumulatively considerable if the Project adds significant traffic to the forecasted deficiency (as measured by the 50 or more peak hour trip threshold). A Project s contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact can be reduced to less than significant if the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate the potential cumulative impact. If full funding of future cumulative improvements is not reasonably assured, a temporary unmitigated cumulative impact may occur until the needed improvement is fully funded and constructed. 2.5 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY In cases where this TIA identifies that the proposed Project would have a significant cumulative impact to a roadway facility, and the recommended mitigation measure is a fair share monetary contribution, the following methodology was applied to determine the fair share contribution. A project s fair share contribution at an off-site study area intersection is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic, and new traffic is total future traffic subtracts existing baseline traffic: Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (2035 Total Traffic Existing Baseline Traffic) The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 9 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this TIA. 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 18 18

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 3 AREA CONDITIONS This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Fontana General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations. 3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK Pursuant to discussion with City of Fontana staff, the study area includes a total of eleven existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-1. Of these eleven intersections, the existing study area circulation network includes six intersections. Five intersections in the study area are future planned intersections that do not currently exist (Project driveways). 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 FONTANA CIRCULATION MASTER PLAN As previously noted, the Project site is located within the City of Fontana. Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, and Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Fontana General Plan roadway cross-sections. The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross-sections of the major roadways within the study area, as identified on the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, are described subsequently. Major Highways can accommodate six or eight travel lanes and may have raised medians. These facilities carry high traffic volumes and are the primary thoroughfares linking Fontana with adjacent cities and the regional highway system. Driveway access to these roadways is typically limited to provide efficient high volume traffic flow. Right of way (including sidewalks) on these facilities varies between 132 and 156 feet depending on the number of lanes. The following study area roadway within the City of Fontana is classified as Major Highway: Primary Highways are designed to accommodate four travel lanes with a median, within a typical 104-foot right of way, carry high traffic volumes and provide limited access. Their primary function is to link the major highways to the secondary highways as well as to carry vehicles entering and exiting the City from neighboring areas. Driveway access is also typically limited on these facilities, where feasible. The following study area roadways within the City of Fontana are classified as Primary Highways: Sierra Lakes Parkway Clubhouse Drive 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 19 19

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis Secondary Highways are typically four-lane streets, providing two lanes in each direction. These highways carry traffic along the perimeters of major developments, provide support to the major and primary highways, and are also through streets enabling traffic to travel uninterrupted for longer distances through the City. Secondary highways have a 92-foot wide right of way, which includes sidewalks. The following study area roadway within the City of Fontana is classified as Secondary Highway: Summit Avenue west of Collector Streets are typically two-lane streets that connect the local streets with the secondary highways allowing local traffic to access the regional transportation facilities. Collector streets have a 68-foot wide right of way and Industrial Collectors have a 80-foot right of way. The following study area roadway within the City of Fontana is classified as Collector Street: Mango Avenue 3.3 TRUCK ROUTES The City of Fontana designated truck route map is shown on Exhibit 3-4. is identified as designated City of Fontana truck route. The designated truck route map has been utilized to route truck traffic from both the proposed Project and future cumulative development projects throughout the study area. 3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE The study area is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along and Sierra Lakes Parkway via Route 82. The existing bus route provided within the area by Omnitrans is shown on Exhibit 3-5. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. Based on the routes provided on Exhibit 3-5, it appears that Route 82 could potentially serve the Project in the future. 3.5 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Field observations indicate nominal pedestrian and bicycle activity within the study area. Existing pedestrian facilities and bike lanes within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-6. 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 24 24

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 3.6 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted on May 2014. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1. The traffic counts collected in May 2014 include the vehicle classifications as shown below: Passenger Cars 2-Axle Trucks 3-Axle Trucks 4 or More Axle Trucks To represent the impact large trucks, buses and recreational vehicles have on traffic flow; all trucks were converted into PCEs. By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate and slow down is also much longer than for passenger cars, and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. For the purpose of this analysis, a PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks and 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks to estimate each turning movement. These factors are consistent with the values recommended for use in the CMP. (2) Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are 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 12.56 = Leg Volume Based on a comparison of PM peak hour traffic count data to 24-hour tube count data along roadway segments in close proximity to the study area, it was determined that the PM peak hour volumes were approximately eight percent of the total 24-hour daily volume on select segments. As such, it was determined that the above equation could be utilized to approximate the ADT volume on the study area segments based on the same relationship (i.e., 8 percent PM peak-to-daily relationship). Existing ADT, AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-7. All of the intersection turning movement volumes illustrated on the exhibits and used in the traffic analysis are shown in terms of PCE. 3.7 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Existing (2014) 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 the existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the exception of the following intersection: ID Intersection Location Level of Service 5 / Sierra Lakes Parkway LOS D, PM peak hour 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 28 28

Table 3 1 Existing (2014) Conditions Intersection Analysis Summary ID Intersection 4 Intersection Approach Lanes 2 HCM Delay 3 Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Control 1 Acceptable L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM LOS 1 Sierra Av. / Summit Av. TS 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 16.8 14.3 B B C 2 Sierra Av. / Clubhouse Dr. TS 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 17.3 12.8 B B C 3 Sierra Av. / Driveway 2 Future Intersection Not Applicable C 4 Sierra Av. / Driveway 3 Future Intersection Not Applicable C 5 Sierra Av. / Sierra Lakes Pkwy. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 25.5 42.7 C D C 6 Sierra Av. / SR 210 WB Ramps TS 0 3 2>> 0 2 2>> 0 0 0 1 1! 1 11.1 10.7 B B D 7 Sierra Av. / SR 210 EB Ramps TS 0 3 1>> 0 2 2>> 1 1! 1 0 0 0 9.6 11.0 A B D 8 Mango Av. / Driveway 4 Future Intersection Not Applicable C 9 Mango Av. / Driveway 5 Future Intersection Not Applicable C 10 Mango Av. / Driveway 6 Future Intersection Not Applicable C 11 Mango Av. / Sierra Lakes Pkwy. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 14.5 14.3 B B C * BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 3 4 TS = Traffic Signal When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (minimum 20 feet). L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Left Through Right Turn Lane; > = Right Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free Right Turn Lane Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix (Version 8.0 R1, 2008) for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Pedestrians not accommodated on every cycle. 30

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis Consistent with Table 3-1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Existing conditions are shown on Exhibit 3-8. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TIA. 3.8 EXISTING CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Improvement strategies have been recommended to reduce the peak hour delay and LOS to acceptable levels for Existing conditions. The effectiveness of the recommended improvements discussed below for Existing traffic conditions are presented in Table 3-2. / Sierra Lakes Parkway (#5) This intersection was found to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS D ) during the weekday PM peak hour under Existing conditions. Recommended Improvement / Sierra Lakes Parkway (#5) The following improvements are necessary to reduce the peak hour delay and LOS to acceptable levels for Existing traffic conditions: Modify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing on eastbound right turn lane. Existing traffic conditions intersection operations analysis worksheets, with recommended improvements, are provided in Appendix 3.3. 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 31 31

Table 3 2 Existing (2014) Conditions Intersection Analysis Summary, with Improvements ID Intersection 4 Traffic Control 1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 5 Sierra Av. / Sierra Lakes Pkwy. with Existing Geometry TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 25.5 42.7 C D with Improvements TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1> 2 2 1 21.0 24.7 C C * BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 TS = Traffic Signal 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes (minimum 20 feet). 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix (Version 8.0 R1, 2008) for signalized intersections. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal. 4 Pedestrians not accommodated on every cycle. Intersection Approach Lanes 2 HCM Delay 3 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap Phasing; 1 = Improvement (secs.) Level of Service 33

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 34 34

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis 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 is anticipated to consist of the development of up to 597,818 sf of highcube warehouse use in a single building generally located on the southeast corner of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive in the City of Fontana. The Project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by the year 2016. Access to the site will be provided via three driveways on and three driveways along the future Mango Avenue. 4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. The ITE Trip Generation manual is a nationally recognized source for estimating site specific trip generation. ITE recently released an updated edition of the Trip Generation manual (9 th Edition) in 2012. (6) The Trip Generation manual is based on more than 4,800 trip generation studies submitted to ITE by public agencies, consulting firms, universities/colleges, developers, associations and local sections/districts/student chapters of ITE. High-cube warehouse/distribution centers (ITE Land Use Code 152) are a unique land use type within the larger, more generalized industrial land use category. ITE s most recent edition of the Trip Generation manual (ITE 9 th Edition), published in 2012, defines high-cube warehouses as used for storage of materials, goods and merchandise prior to their distribution to retail outlets, distribution centers or other warehouses. These facilities are typically characterized by ceiling heights of at least 24 feet with small employment counts due to a high level of mechanization. The average square footage for the sites surveyed for high-cube warehouse/distribution center (Land Use 152) use is above 500,000 square feet. The number of sites observed in the compilation of this data ranges from 57-70 sites of which more than 20 sites exceed 1,000,000 square feet in gross floor area. The weighted average daily trip generation rate for high-cube warehouse (Land Use 152) use is 1.68 trips per thousand square feet (TSF). The ITE Trip Generation manual includes data regarding the types of vehicles that are generated (passenger cars and trucks), but provides no guidance on vehicle mix (different sizes of trucks). While trucks, as a percentage of total traffic, has been based on the ITE Trip Generation manual, data regarding the vehicle mix has been obtained from a separate report; the South Coast Air Quality Management District s (SCAQMD) recent Warehouse Truck Trip Study. (7) The SCAQMD is currently recommending the use of the ITE Trip Generation manual in conjunction with their truck mix by axle-type to better quantify trip rates associated with local warehouse and 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 35 35

Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis distribution projects, as truck emission represent more than 90 percent of air quality impacts from these projects. This recommended procedure has been utilized for the purposes of this analysis in effort to be consistent with other technical studies prepared for the Project. Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic and a summary of the Project s trip generation (actual vehicles) are shown in Table 4-1. As shown on Table 4-1, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 1,004 trip-ends per day with 66 AM peak hour trips and 72 PM peak hour trips. PCE factors have been applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3- axles, 4+-axles). As directed by the City of Fontana and consistent with standard traffic engineering practice in Southern California, PCE factors have been utilized due to the expected heavy truck component for the proposed Project uses. PCE factors allow the typical realworld mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, for the purposes of capacity and LOS analyses. PCE factors are applied to large truck types such as large two-axles, three-axles, 4+-axles. A PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to large 2-axle trucks, a factor of 2.0 for 3-axle trucks and a factor of 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks. These PCE factors are consistent with the values recommended by the San Bernardino County CMP and are accepted factors in the City of Fontana. (2) Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic and a summary of the Project s trip generation (in PCE) are shown in Table 4-2. As shown on Table 4-2, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 1,576 PCE trip-ends per day with 93 PCE AM peak hour trips and 108 PCE PM peak hour trips. In light of using conservative trip generation rates and vehicle mix in conjunction with the application of PCE factors, it is anticipated that the analysis would overstate as opposed to understate potential traffic impacts associated with the Project. 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the Project site for both passenger cars and truck traffic. The truck trip distribution patterns have been developed based on the anticipated travel patterns for the high-cube warehousing trucks. The Project trip distribution patterns for both passenger cars and trucks were developed based on an understanding of existing travel patterns in the area, the geographical location of the site, and the site s proximity to the regional arterial and state highway system. The Project passenger car trip distribution patterns are graphically depicted on Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 and the Project truck trip distribution patterns are graphically depicted on Exhibits 4-3 and 4-4. 09316-07 Traffic Study Rev 36 36

Table 4-1 Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles) 1 Project Trip Generation Rates ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use 1 Units 3 Code Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily High Cube Warehouse 2 TSF 152 0.076 0.034 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 Passenger Cars 0.055 0.025 0.080 0.025 0.055 0.080 1.040 2 Axle Trucks 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.141 3 Axle Trucks 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.113 4 Axle+ Trucks 0.012 0.006 0.018 0.007 0.017 0.024 0.386 Project Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Units 3 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Building 1 597.818 TSF Passenger Cars: 33 15 48 15 33 48 622 Truck Trips: 12 6 18 7 16 24 383 2 axle: 3 1 4 2 4 5 84 3 axle: 2 1 3 1 3 4 68 4+ axle: 7 3 11 4 10 14 231 Net Truck Trips 2 12 6 18 7 16 24 383 Passenger Cars 33 15 48 15 33 48 622 Net Truck Trips 12 6 18 7 16 24 383 Total Net Trips 4 45 21 66 22 49 72 1,004 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation manual, Ninth Edition (2012). 2 Vehicle Mix Source: Total truck percentage source from ITE Trip Generation manual. Truck mix (by axle type) source from SCAQMD. AM peak hour = 72.7% passenger cars, 6.01% 2 Axle trucks, 4.83% 3 Axle trucks, 16.46% 4 Axle trucks PM peak hour = 66.7% passenger cars, 7.33% 2 Axle trucks, 5.89% 3 Axle trucks, 20.08% 4 Axle trucks ADT = 61.9% passenger cars, 8.38% 2 Axle trucks, 6.74% 3 Axle trucks, 22.98% 4 Axle trucks 3 TSF = thousand square feet 4 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Net Truck Trips 37

Table 4-2 Project Trip Generation Summary (in PCE) 1 ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use 1 Units 3 Code Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily High Cube Warehouse 2 TSF 152 0.076 0.034 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 Passenger Cars 0.055 0.025 0.080 0.025 0.055 0.080 1.040 2 Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.007 0.003 0.010 0.004 0.009 0.013 0.211 3 Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.007 0.003 0.011 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.226 4 Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.037 0.017 0.054 0.022 0.050 0.072 1.158 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Units 3 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Building 1 597.818 TSF Passenger Cars: 33 15 48 15 33 48 622 Truck Trips: 12 6 18 7 16 24 383 2 axle: 4 2 6 2 5 8 126 3 axle: 4 2 6 3 6 8 135 4+ axle: 22 10 32 13 30 43 692 Net Truck Trips (PCE) 2 31 14 45 18 41 60 954 Passenger Cars 33 15 48 15 33 48 622 Net Truck Trips (PCE) 31 14 45 18 41 60 954 Total Net Trips (PCE) 4 64 29 93 33 74 108 1,576 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012). 2 Vehicle Mix Source: Total truck percentage source from ITE Trip Generation manual. Truck mix (by axle type) source from SCAQMD. PCE rates are per SANBAG. AM peak hour = 72.7% passenger cars, 6.01% 2 Axle trucks, 4.83% 3 Axle trucks, 16.46% 4 Axle trucks PM peak hour = 66.7% passenger cars, 7.33% 2 Axle trucks, 5.89% 3 Axle trucks, 20.08% 4 Axle trucks ADT = 61.9% passenger cars, 8.38% 2 Axle trucks, 6.74% 3 Axle trucks, 22.98% 4 Axle trucks 3 TSF = thousand square feet 4 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE) = Passenger Cars + Net Truck Trips (PCE). 38