HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix N - Traffic Study Report
Slover Avenue & Cypress
Avenue Warehouse
TRAFFIC STUDY
CITY OF FONTANA
PREPARED BY:
Aric Evatt, PTP
aevatt@urbanxroads.com
Charlene So, PE
cso@urbanxroads.com
MARCH 4, 2022
13921-05 TS Report
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................... I
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... I
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................... I
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Deficiencies ................................................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.7 Truck Access ................................................................................................................................ 12
1.8 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.9 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 15
1.10 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis ....................................................................................... 15
2 METHODOLOGIES .................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Methodology ................................................................... 19
2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 20
2.5 Minimum Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................................. 21
2.6 Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 21
2.7 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 21
3 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 23
3.2 General Plan Circulation Elements .............................................................................................. 23
3.3 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 26
3.5 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.6 Existing Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................. 26
3.7 Existing (2021) Intersection Operations Analysis ....................................................................... 33
3.8 Existing (2021) Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ......................................................................... 33
3.9 Existing (2021) Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 34
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 38
4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 38
4.4 Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 38
4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 42
4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................................ 42
4.7 Near-Term Traffic Conditions...................................................................................................... 47
5 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...................................................... 49
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report II
5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 49
5.2 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ............................ 49
5.3 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .................................. 49
5.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 52
5.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 53
5.6 Roadway Segment Analysis......................................................................................................... 53
5.7 Deficiencies and Improvements ................................................................................................. 54
6 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS ....................................................................... 55
6.1 Measure “I” Funds ...................................................................................................................... 55
6.2 City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) .......................................................................... 55
6.3 Fair Share Contribution ............................................................................................................... 56
7 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ........................................................................................................ 57
7.1 Project Screening ........................................................................................................................ 57
7.2 VMT Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 58
7.3 VMT Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 59
7.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 61
8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 63
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report III
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING & HISTORICAL TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.5: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX 5.6: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS
APPENDIX 7.1: SBCTA VMT SCREENING TOOL RESULTS
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report IV
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report I
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 2
EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 4
EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 6
EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 9
EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS AT OLEANDER AVENUE ........................................................................... 13
EXHIBIT 1-6: TRUCK ACCESS AT SLOVER AVENUE ................................................................................ 14
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ......................... 24
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF FONTANA HIERARCHY OF STREETS .................................................................... 25
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF FONTANA TRUCK ROUTES ................................................................................. 27
EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF FONTANA BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................................ 28
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................... 29
EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES ............................................................................................ 30
EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................... 32
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................. 39
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (TRUCKS) TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................... 40
EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 41
EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................... 43
EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................... 44
EXHIBIT 5-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................. 50
EXHIBIT 5-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................ 51
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report II
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report I
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 5
TABLE 1-2: STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS ................................................................................... 7
TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF LOS .............................................................................................................. 7
TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS ................... 11
TABLE 1-5: QUEUING ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT
.......................................................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 1-6: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................. 15
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................... 18
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS .............................................................. 19
TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ............................................................ 20
TABLE 2-4: THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................................. 21
TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS ............................................ 33
TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS .................................. 34
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................................................................................... 36
TABLE 4-2: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES) ........................................................... 37
TABLE 4-3: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (PCE) ................................................................................. 38
TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY (PAGE 1 OF 2) ................................... 45
TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY (PAGE 2 OF 2) ................................... 46
TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS ............. 52
TABLE 5-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS ... 53
TABLE 5-3: INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE
(2023) CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 54
TABLE 6-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS ............................................... 56
TABLE 7-1: EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES ................................................................................................ 59
TABLE 7-2: PROJECT VMT PER SP ........................................................................................................ 60
TABLE 7-3: PROJECT VMT PER SP COMPARISON ................................................................................. 60
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report II
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report I
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CMP Congestion Management Program
DIF Development Impact Fee
EVA Emergency Vehicle Access
FAR Floor to Area Ratio
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB 743 Senate Bill 743
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SED Socio-Economic Data
SP Service Population
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPA Transit Priority Area
TS Traffic Study
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
V/C Volume to Capacity
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report II
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Traffic Study (TS) for the proposed Slover Avenue & Cypress
Avenue Warehouse development (“Project”), which is located on the northwest corner of
Cypress Avenue and Slover Avenue in the City of Fontana as shown on Exhibit 1-1.
The purpose of this TS is to evaluate the potential deficiencies related to traffic, identify
circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project,
and to recommend improvements to resolve identified deficiencies in order to achieve
acceptable operational conditions at study area intersections and ensure consistency with the
City’s General Plan. This TS has been prepared in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment
(October 21, 2020) and through consultation with City of Fontana staff during the scoping process.
(1) The Project traffic study scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TS, which has
been approved by the City of Fontana.
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 Slover Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-
of-way) from the Project’s western boundary to Cypress Avenue consistent with the City’s
standards.
• Project to widen the eastern curb on Oleander Avenue to accommodate 28-feet of pavement
within a 44-foot right-of-way from the Project’s northern boundary to Slover Avenue consistent
with the City’s standards.
Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations
of this report.
There are no off-site improvements recommended as the addition of Project traffic is not
anticipated to result in any deficiencies based on the City’s thresholds. As such, the Project
Applicant’s shall pay its requisite fees towards future regional roadway improvements consistent
with the City’s requirements (see Section 6 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms).
As required by City Guidelines, a project level Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was
conducted consistent with the requirements identified for single use warehouse projects. The
Project was not found to exceed 15% below the County of San Bernardino’s baseline regional
average VMT per Service Population (SP) measures of VMT. The Project’s impact to VMT is
therefore presumed to be less than significant. Detail traffic analysis can be found in Section 7
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis of this TS.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 2
EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 3
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project includes the development of 469,095 square feet of high-cube fulfillment
center warehouse use (75% of the total square footage) and 156,365 square feet of high-cube
cold storage warehouse use (25% of the total square footage) for a total of 625,460 square feet.
The Project is anticipated to be developed within a single phase with an Opening Year of 2023.
The preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-2. As indicated on Exhibit
1-2, access to the Project site will be provided via Boyle Avenue via three full access driveways
and one right-in/right-out access point along Slover Avenue (easterly access on Slover Avenue is
to be designated as emergency vehicle access or EVA only). Regional access to the Project site is
available from the I-10 Freeway via the Citrus Avenue and Sierra Avenue interchanges.
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) and the High Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January
2019) were used to estimate the trip generation. (2) (3) The Project is anticipated to generate a
total of 1,334 two-way trips per day with 74 AM peak hour trips and 96 PM peak hour trips (actual
vehicles). 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.
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 (2021)
• Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project
1.3.1 EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2021) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions
as they existed at the time this report was prepared.
1.3.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS
The Opening Year Cumulative (2023) 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 (2021) conditions of 2.33% is included for Opening Year Cumulative (2023)
traffic conditions. The near-term conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if
improvements funded through regional transportation fee programs, such as the City’s
Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanisms can
accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target level of service (LOS) identified by
the City of Fontana (lead agency). Other improvements needed beyond the “funded”
improvements (such as localized improvements to non-DIF facilities) are identified as such.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 4
EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 5
1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TS satisfies the City of Fontana’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads,
Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by City of Fontana staff prior to
the preparation of this report. This agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip
generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement approved by the City of
Fontana is included in Appendix 1.1 of this TS.
The 10 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1-3 and listed in Table 1-1, and 3 roadway
segments are identified on Table 1-2 were selected for evaluation in this TS based on consultation
with City of Fontana staff. The study area includes intersections where the Project is anticipated
to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips per the City of Fontana’s traffic study guidelines. (1)
The “50 peak hour trip” criteria represent a minimum number of trips at which a typical
intersection would have the potential to be substantively affected by a given development
proposal. The 50 peak hour trip criterion is a traffic engineering rule of thumb that is accepted
and widely used within San Bernardino County for estimating a potential area of influence (i.e.,
study area).
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. Counties within California have developed CMPs with
varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. Study area
intersections that are identified as CMP facilities in the County of San Bernardino per the San
Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) CMP are indicated on Table 1-1. (4)
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction CMP?
1 Citrus Av. & I-10 Westbound Ramps City of Fontana, Caltrans No
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 Eastbound Ramps City of Fontana, Caltrans No
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av. City of Fontana No
4 Oleander Av. & Driveway 1 – Future Intersection City of Fontana No
5 Oleander Av. & Boyle Av./Driveway 2 City of Fontana No
6 Oleander Av. & Driveway 3 – Future Intersection City of Fontana No
7 Oleander Av. & Slover Av. City of Fontana No
8 Driveway 4 & Slover Av. – Future Intersection City of Fontana No
9 Cypress Av. & Slover Av. City of Fontana No
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av. City of Fontana No
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 6
EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 7
TABLE 1-2: STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS
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 Opening Year
Cumulative (2023) Traffic Conditions includes the detailed analysis. A summary of LOS results for
all analysis scenarios is presented on Table 1-3.
TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF LOS
1.5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following study area intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS
D or worse) during the peak hours under Existing (2021) traffic conditions:
• Cypress Avenue & Slover Avenue (#9) – LOS D AM peak hour only
• Juniper Avenue & Slover Avenue (#10) – LOS F PM peak hour only
1.5.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e.,
LOS D or worse) during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project
traffic conditions:
• Citrus Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (#2) – LOS F AM peak hour only
• Citrus Avenue & Slover Avenue (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Oleander Avenue & Slover Avenue (#7) – LOS E AM peak hour only
#Roadway Segments
1 Slover Av. between Citrus Av. & Oleander Av.
2 Slover Av. between Oleander Av. & Cypress Av.
3 Slover Av. between Cypress Av. & Juniper Av.
#Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Citrus Av. & I-10 WB Ramps
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av.
4 Oleander Av. & Driveway 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Oleander Av. & Boyle Av./Driveway 2
6 Oleander Av. & Driveway 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 Oleander Av. & Slover Av.
8 Driveway 4 & Slover Av.N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 Cypress Av. & Slover Av.
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av.
= A - C = D/E = F
Existing
2023 Without
Project
2023 With
Project
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 8
• Cypress Avenue & Slover Avenue (#9) – LOS D AM peak hour only
• Juniper Avenue & Slover Avenue (#10) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour
No additional intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS D or
worse) during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project traffic
conditions, in additional to the intersections listed above. However, the LOS at the intersection
of Oleander Avenue and Slover Avenue is anticipated to worsen from LOS E to LOS F with the
addition of Project traffic.
1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to
accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations. The site adjacent
recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1-4.
Recommendation 1 – Oleander Avenue & Driveway 1 (#4) – The following improvements are
necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to maintain the stop control on the westbound approach.
• Project to accommodate shared left-right turn lane on westbound approach.
Recommendation 2 – Oleander Avenue & Boyle Avenue/Driveway 2 (#5) – The following
improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to maintain the stop control on the westbound approach.
• Project to accommodate shared left-through-right turn lane on westbound approach.
Recommendation 3 – Oleander Avenue & Driveway 3 (#6) – The following improvements are
necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to maintain the stop control on the westbound approach.
• Project to accommodate shared left-right turn lane on westbound approach.
Recommendation 4 – Driveway 4 & Slover Avenue (#8) – The following improvements are
necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach (Project driveway) and a right turn
lane. Driveway will be restricted to right-in/right-out access only with the construction of the
future median along Slover Avenue.
Recommendation 6 – Slover Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located on the Project’s
southern boundary. Project to construct Slover Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a Primary
Highway (104-foot right-of-way) from Oleander Avenue to Cypress Avenue consistent with the
City’s standards.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 9
EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 10
Recommendation 7 – Oleander Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located to the west
of the Project (not on Project boundary). Project to widen the eastern curb on Oleander Avenue
to accommodate 28-feet of pavement within a 44-foot right-of-way from the Project’s northern
boundary to Slover Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.
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 Caltrans
and City of Fontana sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading,
landscape, and street improvement plans.
1.6.2 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
Under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project traffic conditions, two intersections are
anticipated to have improvements due to net change in delay is more than the City’s thresholds
for deficient study area intersections under pre-project traffic conditions. The Project would be
required to pay fair share fees consistent with the City’s requirements (see Section 6 Local and
Regional Funding Mechanisms).
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 11
TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS
#Intersection Jurisdiction 2023 With Project
Improvements in
Fee Program?1
Project
Responsibility2 Total Cost3
Fair Share
%4
Fair Share
Cost5
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 EB Ramps Caltrans EB right turn lane Yes Fees $0 5.7% $0
Total:$0 $0
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av.Fontana SB right turn lane Fees $0 15.7% $0
Modify the traffic signal to
implement overlap phasingon
the SB and WB right turn
lanes7
Fees $0 $0
Total:$0 $0
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av.A Traffic Signal No Fair Share $600,000 34.0% $204,255
Total:$600,000 $204,255
Total Costs for Opening Year (2023) Improvements $600,000 $204,255
Total Project Fair Share Contribution to the City of Fontana6
1 Improvements included in County of San Bernardino regional fee program for local and regional components.
2 Identifies the Project's responsibility to construct an improvement or contribute fair share or fee payment towards the implementation of the improvement shown.
3 Costs have been estimated using the data provided in Appendix "G" of the CMP for preliminary construction costs.
4 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. See Table 6-1 for Fair Share Calculations.
5 Rough order of magnitude cost estimate.
6 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in a fee program for those intersections wholly or partially within the City.
7 Improvement requires the restriction of southbound U-turns.
Fontana
$204,255
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
12
1.7 TRUCK ACCESS
Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid
on the site plan at each applicable Project driveway anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in
order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to
execute turning maneuvers (see Exhibit 1-5 for Oleander Avenue and Exhibit 1-6 for Slover
Avenue). A WB-67 truck (53-foot trailer) has been utilized for the purposes of this analysis. As
shown on Exhibit 1-5 and Exhibit 1-6, the following curb radius changes are necessary in order to
accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks:
• Oleander Avenue at Driveway 1 should provide a 50-foot curb radius on the southeast corner.
• Slover Avenue at Driveway 4 should provide a 50-foot curb radius on the northeast corner.
1.8 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted along the site adjacent roadways of Oleander Avenue, Slover
Avenue, and at the Project’s driveways for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) traffic conditions to
determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometric necessary to accommodate near-term 95th
percentile queues and recommend storage lengths for the turning movements shown on Exhibit
1-4. The analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours using the
SimTraffic modeling software. The Opening Year Cumulative (2023) queuing results are provided
in Table 1-5 and Appendix 5.6 of this TS.
SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections, with the
primary purpose of checking and fine-tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses the input
parameters from Synchro (Version 11) to generate random simulations. The 95th percentile
queue is not necessarily ever observed; it is simply based on statistical calculations (or Average
Queue plus 1.65 standard deviations). The random simulations generated by SimTraffic have
been utilized to determine the 95th percentile queue lengths observed for each turn lane. A
SimTraffic simulation has been recorded 5 times, during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak
hours, and has been seeded for 30-minute periods with 60-minute recording intervals.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
13
EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS AT OLEANDER AVENUE
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
14
EXHIBIT 1-6: TRUCK ACCESS AT SLOVER AVENUE
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
15
TABLE 1-5: QUEUING ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT
1.9 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Roadway segment capacity analysis was conducted along Slover Avenue for three segments for Existing
(2021), Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project, and Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With
Project conditions. As shown on Table 1-6, these segments are currently operating and are anticipated to
continue to operate at acceptable LOS under Existing and Opening Year Cumulative conditions based on
City’s Circulation Element roadway segment capacities.
TABLE 1-6: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1.10 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
The Project was evaluated against City Guideline’s stated VMT screening criteria but was found
to not meet available screening thresholds. As required by City Guidelines, a project level VMT
analysis was performed consistent with the requirements identified for single use warehouse
projects. The Project was not found to exceed 15% below the County of San Bernardino’s baseline
regional average VMT per SP measures of VMT. The Project’s impact to VMT is therefore
presumed to be less than significant. Detail traffic analysis can be found in Section 7 Vehicle Miles
Traveled Analysis of this TS.
AM PM
4 Oleander Av. & Driveway 1 WBLR 100 18 39 Yes Yes
5 Oleander Av. & Boyle Av./Driveway 2 WBLTR 100 51 47 Yes Yes
6 Oleander Av. & Driveway 3 WBLR 100 23 45 Yes Yes
7 Oleander Av. & Slover Av.SBL 100 65 57 Yes Yes
EBL 150 95 72 Yes Yes
8 Driveway 4 & Slover Av.SBR 100 20 28 Yes Yes
Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)PM Peak HourIntersection#
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.
95th Percentile Queue (Feet)Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour
#Roadway 2021 V/C1 LOS2 2023 V/C1 LOS2 2023 V/C1 LOS2
1 12,679 0.35 A 15,488 0.43 A 16,538 0.46 A
2 Between Oleander Av. & Cypress Av.13,843 0.38 A 16,679 0.46 A 17,579 0.49 A
3 Between Cypress Av. & Juniper Av.14,133 0.39 A 17,376 0.48 A 18,126 0.50 A
1 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
2 LOS = Level of Service
Slover Av.
Between Citrus Av. & Oleander Av.
Segment Limits
Existing 2023 Without Project 2023 With Project
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
16
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
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 generally consistent with the City
of Fontana’s traffic study guidelines. (1)
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 the HCM (6th Edition). 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. Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version
11) analysis software package.
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) is
utilized to analyze signalized intersections within the study area. 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.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
18
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C > 1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This
is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths
80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
A saturation flow rate of 1900 has been utilized for all study area intersections located within the
City of Fontana. The peak hour traffic volumes are adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to
reflect peak 15-minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute
rate of flow. However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the
relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly
Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed
analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing 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. (5)
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Fontana require the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the
methodology described the HCM. (5) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control
delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2).
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
19
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Level of
Service, V/C
≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
> 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled
movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection
as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of
all movements in that lane. Per the HCM, the highest delay and associated LOS on the minor
approach is reported for two-way stop-controlled intersections. For all-way stop controlled
intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole and the average delay is reported
(similar to signalized intersections).
2.3 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Roadway segment operations have been evaluated using the applicable average daily traffic
(ADT) roadway capacity values provided in the City of Fontana General Plan. The roadway
capacities utilized for the purposes of this analysis are considered “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
vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian
bicycle traffic. The City of Fontana Circulation Element identifies 9,000 vehicles per lane per day
for divided arterials.
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 roadway segment
analysis indicates a deficiency (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. Therefore,
roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis
indicates the need for additional through lanes.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
20
2.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by the Caltrans and other
public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic
signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TS uses the signal warrant criteria
presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA MUTCD). (6)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including
volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas.
The Caltrans CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if
one or more of the signal warrants are met. (6) Specifically, this TS utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-
based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing
study area intersections for all analysis scenarios. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TS
because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g.,
located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major
streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was
the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized study area
intersection shown in Table 2-3:
TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
5 Oleander Av. & Boyle Av. Fontana
11 Juniper Av. & Slover Av. Fontana
The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section,
Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions
are presented in Section 5 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) 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 location, 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. Traffic signal warrant analysis has
not been performed for unsignalized intersections with limited access/turn restrictions.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
21
2.5 MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
The City’s General Plan recommends a LOS standard of LOS C. Intersections which are forecast to
operate at unsatisfactory conditions (i.e., at LOS worse than LOS C for City intersections) shall be
identified as cumulatively deficient intersections. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS
D, E, or F will be considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis. (1)
2.6 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
For the intersections that lie within the City of Fontana, determination of direct project-related
deficiencies will be based on a comparison of without and with project levels of service for each
analysis year. A project-related deficiency occurs if project traffic increases the average delay at
an intersection by more than the thresholds identified on Table 2-4. The thresholds for LOS A, B,
and C do not apply to projects consistent with the General Plan.
TABLE 2-4: THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
A Project’s contribution to a deficiency can be reduced/improved if the Project is required to
implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate the potential deficiency.
2.7 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TS 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 net new traffic, where net new traffic
is total future traffic (Opening Year Cumulative conditions) subtracts less baseline traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (Opening Year Cumulative Total Traffic – Existing Baseline
Traffic)
The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 6 Local and Regional
Funding Mechanisms of this TS.
Pre-Project LOS Significant Impact Threshold1
A/B 10.0 Seconds
C 8.0 Seconds
D 5.0 Seconds
E 3.0 Seconds
F 1.0 Second
Source: Fontana Traffic Study Guidelines, October 21, 2020.
1 Increase in delay
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
22
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
23
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, roadway
segment, and traffic signal warrant analyses.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the scoping agreement with City of Fontana staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area
includes a total of 11 existing and future intersections as shown on Exhibit 3-1. 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 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
As noted previously, the Project site is located within the City of Fontana. The roadway
classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross-sections of the major roadways within the
study area, as identified on City of Fontana General Plan Hierarchy of Streets, are described
subsequently. Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Fontana General Plan Circulation Element. The City
of Fontana General Plan does not include roadway cross-sections in its General Plan.
Major Highways are four-to-six-lane divided roadways (typically divided by a raised median or
painted two-way turn-lane). These roadways serve both regional through-traffic and inter-city
traffic and typically direct traffic onto and off-of the freeways. The following study area roadway
within the City of Fontana is classified as a Major Highways:
• Citrus Avenue, north of Slover Avenue
Primary Highways are four-lane roadways and may include a painted median. These roadways
typically direct traffic through major development areas. The following study area roadway
within the City of Fontana is classified as a Primary Highways:
• Slover Avenue
Secondary Highways are two-lane streets, providing one lane in each direction, separated by a
raised median. The following study area roadways within the study area are classified as a
Secondary Highways:
• Citrus Avenue, south of Slover Avenue
• Cypress Avenue
Collector Streets are two-lane streets, providing one lane in each direction. The following study
area roadway within the study area is classified as a Collector Street:
• Oleander Avenue, south of Slover Avenue
• Juniper Avenue, south of Slover Avenue
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
24
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
25
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF FONTANA HIERARCHY OF STREETS
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
26
3.3 TRUCK ROUTES
Exhibit 3-3 shows the City of Fontana truck routes. As shown, Citrus Avenue and Slover Avenue
are identified as truck routes. These truck routes have been utilized to route truck traffic
associated with the proposed Project and future cumulative development projects for the
purposes of this TS.
3.4 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Fontana bike facilities are shown on Exhibit 3-4. There are no existing bike facilities
within the study area. However, Citrus Avenue and Cypress Avenue are proposed Class II bike
facilities. Exhibit 3-5 illustrates the existing pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and
crosswalks. As shown on Exhibit 3-5, there are limited pedestrian facilities within the study area.
3.5 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by Omnitrans Transit Agency with bus services along Citrus
Avenue and Slover Avenue via Omnitrans Route 82. There are currently stops along Slover
Avenue in close proximity to the proposed Project. The transit services are illustrated on Exhibit
3-6. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership,
budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic
adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
3.6 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 May 2018, March 2019, April 2021, and August
2021. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
• Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
Due to the currently ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, schools and businesses within the study area
were closed or operating at less than full capacity at the time this study was prepared. As such,
historic traffic counts from May 2018 and March 2019 were utilized in conjunction with a 1.16%
per year growth rate (compounded annually) to develop traffic volumes for 2021 conditions. The
historic 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 construction activity or
detour routes and near-by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
27
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF FONTANA TRUCK ROUTES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report
28
EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF FONTANA BICYCLE FACILITIES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 29
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 30
EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 31
Historic traffic count data was not readily available for all study area intersections. As such, 2021
traffic counts have been collected at the intersections of Oleander Avenue at Boyle Avenue.
Traffic counts have also been collected at Citrus Avenue at I-10 Westbound Ramps, Citrus Avenue
at I-10 Eastbound Ramps, and Oleander Avenue at Slover Avenue in order to compare and
develop an adjustment factor based on a comparison to historic May 2018 or March 2019 traffic
count data to the recently collected 2021 traffic count data. This adjustment factor has been
applied to the 2021 traffic count data at the intersection of Oleander Avenue and Boyle Avenue
in order to reflect non-COVID traffic conditions. Where applicable, traffic volumes have been
flow conserved in order to not have any loss of vehicles. The raw manual peak hour turning
movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.
Existing weekday ADT volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area 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 10.38 = 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 9.63 percent. As
such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 10.38 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area
roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 9.63 percent (i.e.,
1/0.0963 = 10.38) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning-level
analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on
Exhibit 3-7. The volumes shown on Exhibit 3-7 (and on all other volume exhibits within this
report) are in actual vehicles. PCE volumes utilized in the operations analysis are provided in the
appendices for each applicable analysis scenario.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 32
EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 33
3.7 EXISTING (2021) 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 the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak
hours, with the exception of the following intersections:
• Cypress Avenue & Slover Avenue (#9) – LOS D AM peak hour only
• Juniper Avenue & Slover Avenue (#10) – LOS F PM peak hour only
The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TS.
TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
3.8 EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection
turning volumes. The following unsignalized study area intersection currently meets peak hour
volume-based traffic signal warrants for Existing (2021) traffic conditions (see Appendix 3.3):
• Juniper Avenue & Slover Avenue (#10)
Delay1 Level of
Traffic (secs.)Service
#Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM
1 Citrus Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 17.1 9.3 B A
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 21.6 22.1 C C
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av.TS 33.6 33.2 C C
4 Oleander Av. & Driveway 1 --
5 Oleander Av. & Boyle Av./Driveway 2 CSS 14.9 9.8 B A
6 Oleander Av. & Driveway 3 --
7 Oleander Av. & Slover Av.TS 33.0 12.7 C B
8 Driveway 4 & Slover Av.--
9 Cypress Av. & Slover Av.TS 41.4 24.6 D C
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av.CSS 21.8 99.4 C F
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
1
2 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level
of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For
intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst
individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 34
3.9 EXISTING (2021) ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
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. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the Existing (2021) conditions
roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Fontana Roadway Segment Capacity
Thresholds. As shown on Table 3-2, all study area roadway segments currently operate at an
acceptable LOS based on the City’s planning level daily roadway capacity thresholds.
TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
Roadway LOS Acceptable
#Roadway Section Capacity1 2021 V/C2 LOS3 LOS
1 4D 36,000 12,679 0.35 A C
2 Between Oleander Av. & Cypress Av.4D 36,000 13,843 0.38 A C
3 Between Cypress Av. & Juniper Av.4D 36,000 14,133 0.39 A C
1 These maximum roadway capacities assume 9,000 vehicles per lane per day for arterials.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
Slover Av.
Between Citrus Av. & Oleander Av.
Existing
Segment Limits
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 35
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
The proposed Project includes the development of 469,095 square feet of high-cube fulfillment
center warehouse use (75% of the total square footage) and 156,365 square feet of high-cube
cold storage warehouse use (25% of the total square footage) for a total of 625,460 square feet.
The Project is anticipated to be developed within a single phase with an Opening Year of 2023.
As shown on Exhibit 1-2, access to the Project site will be provided to Oleander Avenue via 3 full
access driveways and to Slover Avenue via 1 driveway. A future raised median is planned to be
constructed along Slover Avenue between Oleander Avenue and Cypress Avenue. As such,
Driveway 4 is proposed to be restricted to right-in/right-out access only. Regional access to the
Project site is available from the I-10 Freeway via the Citrus Avenue and Sierra Avenue
interchanges.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
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,
2017) for High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (Land Use Code 157) and the High-Cube
Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019) for High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse use. (2) (3)
The ITE Trip Generation Manual Supplement (February 2020) has trip generation rates for high-
cube fulfillment center use for both non-sort and sort facilities (ITE land use code 155). (7) While
there is sufficient data to support use of the trip generation rates for non-sort facilities, the sort
facility rate appears to be unreliable because they are based on limited data (i.e., one to two
surveyed sites only). The proposed Project is speculative and whether a non-sort or sort facility
end-user would occupy the building is not known at this time. Lastly, the ITE Trip Generation
Manual recommends the use of local data sources where available. As such, the best available
source for high-cube fulfilment center use would be the trip-generation statistics published in
the High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019) which was
commissioned by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) in support of the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) update in the County of Riverside. (3) The WSP
trip generation rates were published in January 2019 and are based on data collected at 11 local
high-cube fulfillment center sites located throughout Southern California (located throughout
both Riverside County and San Bernardino County).
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 36
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES
The trip generation summary for the Project in actual vehicles is shown on Table 4-2. As shown
on Table 4-2, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,334 two-way trips per day with 74
AM peak hour trips and 96 PM peak hour trips.
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicles:
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse4 TSF --0.094 0.028 0.122 0.046 0.119 0.165 2.129
Passenger Cars 0.079 0.024 0.103 0.040 0.104 0.144 1.750
2-4 Axle Trucks 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.011 0.162
5+-Axle Trucks 0.008 0.003 0.011 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.217
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120
Passenger Cars 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.065 0.090 1.665
2-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.260
3-Axle Trucks 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.083
4+-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.113
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):5
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse4 TSF --0.094 0.028 0.122 0.046 0.119 0.165 2.129
Passenger Cars 0.079 0.024 0.103 0.040 0.104 0.144 1.750
2-4 Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.5)0.015 0.005 0.020 0.008 0.008 0.028 0.405
5+-Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0)0.025 0.008 0.033 0.008 0.022 0.030 0.651
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120
Passenger Cars 0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.065 0.090 1.665
2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)0.006 0.015 0.021 0.010 0.011 0.021 0.521
3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.5)0.003 0.006 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.008 0.206
4+-Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0)0.015 0.034 0.049 0.024 0.025 0.049 0.338
1 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021).
2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.
Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks.
4 Vehicle Mix Source: High Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019.
Inbound and outbound split source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021) for ITE Land Use Code 154.
5 PCE factors per City's TIA Guidelines.
Daily
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 37
TABLE 4-2: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES)
The trip generation summary for the Project in PCE is shown on Table 4-3. As shown on Table 4-
3, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,838 PCE two-way trips per day with 98 PCE AM
peak hour trips and 116 PCE PM peak hour trips.
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:
High-Cube Cold Storage (25%)156.365 TSF
Passenger Cars: 10 3 13 4 11 15 216
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 1 1 40
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
4+-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 1 2 3 64
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles):3 1 4 1 3 4 118
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 13 4 17 5 14 19 334
High-Cube Fulfillment (75%)469.095 TSF
Passenger Cars: 37 11 48 19 49 68 822
2-4 axle Trucks: 3 1 4 1 4 5 76
5+-axle Trucks: 4 1 5 1 3 4 102
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles):7 2 9 2 7 9 178
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 44 13 57 21 56 77 1,000
Total Passenger Cars:47 14 61 23 60 83 1,038
Total Trucks (Actual Vehicles):10 3 13 3 10 13 296
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 57 17 74 26 70 96 1,334
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 38
TABLE 4-3: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (PCE)
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of
traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable
destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential
interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are
considered, to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. Separate
distributions have been developed for passenger cars and trucks. Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate
the passenger car and truck trip distribution patterns through the study area intersections,
respectively.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The traffic reducing potential of public transit, walking, or bicycling have not been considered in
this TS. Essentially, the traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel
modes might be able to 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 occupancy 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 4-3.
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):
High-Cube Cold Storage (25%)156.365 TSF
Passenger Cars: 10 3 13 4 11 15 216
2-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 1 2 3 82
3-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 1 1 32
4+-axle Trucks: 6 2 8 2 5 7 190
Total Truck Trips (PCE):9 3 12 3 8 11 304
Total Trips (PCE)2 19 6 25 7 19 26 520
High-Cube Fulfillment (75%)469.095 TSF
Passenger Cars: 37 11 48 19 49 68 822
2-4 axle Trucks: 7 2 9 4 4 8 190
5+-axle Trucks: 12 4 16 4 10 14 306
Total Truck Trips (PCE):19 6 25 8 14 22 496
Total Trips (PCE)2 56 17 73 27 63 90 1,318
Total Passenger Cars:47 14 61 23 60 83 1,038
Total Trucks (PCE):28 9 37 11 22 33 800
Total Trips (PCE)2 75 23 98 34 82 116 1,838
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 39
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 40
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (TRUCKS) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 41
EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 42
4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 1.16% per
year for 2023 traffic conditions, consistent with other recent studies performed in the area. The
total ambient growth is 2.33% for 2023 traffic conditions (compounded growth of 1.16 percent
per year over 2 years or 1.01162 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. Opening Year Cumulative (2023) traffic volumes are provided in Section 5 of
this TS. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base
volume to determine Opening Year Cumulative “With Project” forecasts.
4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation
with planning and engineering staff from the City of Fontana. 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 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) 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 4-4, listed in Table 4-4, and have been considered for inclusion.
Although it is unlikely that all of these cumulative projects would be fully built and occupied by
Years 2023, they have been included in an effort to conduct a conservative analysis and overstate
as opposed to understate potential traffic deficiencies. Any other cumulative projects located
beyond the cumulative study area 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 likely 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 4-5.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 43
EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 44
EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 45
TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY (PAGE 1 OF 2)
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 46
TABLE 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY (PAGE 2 OF 2)
TAZ Land Use
1 Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP)1 Slover East Industrial
Light Industrial 719.464 TSF
Warehousing 1006.149 TSF
Office Park 503.074 TSF
Slover West Industrial
Light Industrial 1384.886 TSF
Warehousing 3518.167 TSF
Speedway Industrial
Light Industrial 930.121 TSF
Warehousing 762.191 TSF
Office Park 13.264 TSF
SWIP Residential Trucking (1,3 and 4)
Single Family Detached Residential 84 DU
Office 47.000 TSF
Retail 44.500 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive-Thru 8.658 TSF
3 ASP 16-018 Retail w/ Gas Station 18.800 TSF
4 City Park 17.45 AC
Free-Standing Discount Superstore 200.000 TSF
Specialty Retail Center 9.490 TSF
Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru 9.490 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse / Distribution Center 360.000 TSF
General Light Industrial 41.436 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse (Cold Storage)52.580 TSF
Warehousing 157.740 TSF
8 Church 19.508 TSF
Warehousing 362.416 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 90.604 TSF
10 Fontana Foothills High-Cube Warehouse / Distribution Center 754.408 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse (Cold Storage)77.053 TSF
Warehousing 231.158 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse (Cold Storage)20.421 TSF
Warehousing 115.719 TSF
13 SEC of Citrus Av. & Slover Av.Warehousing 194.212 TSF
14 10131 Redwood Av.High-Cube Warehouse / Distribution Center 250.160 TSF
15 High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Sort)705.735 TSF
1 Source: Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Project TIA, RBF Consulting, September 29, 2011.
2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres; DU = Dwelling Units
Southwest Fontana Logistics Center Project
2 Citrus Center
Project Quantity 2
5 Walmart Shopping Center
6 First Redwood Logistics
7 SWC Oleander Av. & Slover Av.
Sierra Business Center
St. Mary's Catholic Church
9 GLC Fontana III
11 14801 Slover Avenue Warehouse
12 Slover Industrial Center
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 47
4.7 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth
factor to forecast the near-term 2023 traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of 1.16% per
year, compounded annually, accounts for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur
over time up to the years 2023 from the year 2021. Traffic volumes generated by cumulative
development projects are then added to assess the Opening Year Cumulative (2023) traffic
conditions. Lastly, Project traffic is added to assess “With Project” traffic conditions. The 2023
roadway network is similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of
intersections proposed to be developed by the Project. The near-term traffic analysis includes
the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project
o Adjusted Existing 2021 counts
o Ambient growth traffic (2.33%)
o Cumulative Development Project traffic
• Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project
o Adjusted Existing 2021 counts
o Ambient growth traffic (2.33%)
o Cumulative Development Project traffic
o Project traffic
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 48
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 49
5 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without
and With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations, roadway segment,
and traffic signal warrant analyses.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative
(2023) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception
of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site
access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year 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 Opening Year Cumulative conditions only (e.g.,
intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and
driveways).
5.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 2.33% plus traffic
from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area.
The ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which can be expected for
Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.
5.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes, an ambient growth factor of 2.33%, traffic from
pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area and the
addition of Project traffic. The ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which
can be expected for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project conditions are shown on
Exhibit 5-2.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 50
EXHIBIT 5-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 51
EXHIBIT 5-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 52
5.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
5.4.1 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Opening Year Cumulative (2023) 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 analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1,
which indicate that the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an
unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project:
• Citrus Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (#2) – LOS F AM peak hour only
• Citrus Avenue & Slover Avenue (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
• Oleander Avenue & Slover Avenue (#7) – LOS E AM peak hour only
• Cypress Avenue & Slover Avenue (#9) – LOS D AM peak hour only
• Juniper Avenue & Slover Avenue (#10) – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative Without Project
traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TS.
TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS
Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
(secs.)Service (secs.)Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Citrus Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 29.9 9.1 C A 30.0 10.6 C B
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 82.2 24.6 F C 91.0 25.7 F C
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av.TS 118.6 99.3 F F 122.3 108.8 F F
4 Oleander Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 8.7 8.7 A A
5 Oleander Av. & Boyle Av./Driveway 2 CSS 15.1 9.8 C A 16.6 10.3 C B
6 Oleander Av. & Driveway 3 CSS 11.6 9.9 B A
7 Oleander Av. & Slover Av.TS 78.6 14.2 E B 82.2 15.0 F B
8 Driveway 4 & Slover Av.CSS 14.0 11.0 B B
9 Cypress Av. & Slover Av.TS 49.2 28.7 D C 51.1 29.5 D C
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av.CSS 41.8 >200.0 E F 48.4 >200.0 E F
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
1
2 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-Street Stop; CSS = Improvement
#
Future Intersection
Intersection
Traffic
Control2
2023 Without Project 2023 With Project
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for
intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and
level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 53
5.4.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 5-1, there are no additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at
an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic, in addition to the intersections
previously identified under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project traffic conditions.
However, the LOS at Oleander Avenue and Slover Avenue is anticipated to go from LOS E to LOS
F with the addition of Project traffic. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for
Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.2 of
this TS.
5.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for Opening Year Cumulative
(2023) traffic conditions based on peak hour intersection turning movements volumes or
planning level (ADT) volumes. There are no unsignalized study area intersections anticipated to
meet a traffic signal warrant under Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project or With
Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.3 and 5.4).
5.6 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The 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. Table 5-2 provides a summary of the Opening Year Cumulative
conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Fontana Roadway Segment
Capacity Thresholds. As shown on Table 5-2, the study area roadway segments are anticipated
to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS based on the City’s planning level daily roadway
capacity thresholds, consistent with Existing (2021) traffic conditions.
TABLE 5-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS
Roadway LOS Acceptable
#Roadway Section Capacity1 2023 V/C2 LOS3 2023 V/C2 LOS3 LOS
1 4D 36,000 15,488 0.43 A 16,538 0.46 A C
2 Between Oleander Av. & Cypress Av.4D 36,000 16,679 0.46 A 17,579 0.49 A C
3 Between Cypress Av. & Juniper Av.4D 36,000 17,376 0.48 A 18,126 0.50 A C
1 These maximum roadway capacities assume 9,000 vehicles per lane per day for arterials.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
Slover Av.
Between Citrus Av. & Oleander Av.
2023 Without Project 2023 With Project
Segment Limits
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 54
5.7 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
This section provides a summary of deficiencies, based on the City of Fontana’s deficiency criteria
discussed in Section 2.6 Deficiency Criteria, and improvements needed to improve operations
back to acceptable levels. The intersection with the change in delay with the addition of Project
traffic is anticipated to exceed the City’s thresholds, as such, the Project is anticipated to have a
significant effect on the pre-project deficiencies (see Table 5-3). The following improvements
have been recommended for those intersections exceeding the City’s thresholds as listed in Table
2-4. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With
Project with improvements are included in Appendix 5.5 of this TS.
TABLE 5-3: INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE
(2023) CONDITIONS
Delay2 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.)Service
#Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
-Without Improvements TS 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 91.0 25.7 F C
-With Improvements4 TS 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 25.6 23.2 C C
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av.
-Without Improvements TS 1 2 1 2 2 1>2 2 0 1 2 1>122.3 108.8 F F
-With Improvements5 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1>2 2 0 1 2 1>51.1 78.5 D E
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av.
-Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 48.4 >200.0 E F
-With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 7.0 7.2 A A
1
2
3 CSS = Cross-Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement
4
5 Improvement requires restrictions to SB U-turns.
Intersection Approach Lanes1
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.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-turn Overlap Phasing; 1 = Improvement
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a
traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual
movement (or movements sharing a single lane) is considered the delay and LOS for the intersection.
Improvements might require additional right-of-way/ramp widening.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 55
6 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Fontana are funded through a combination of
direct project mitigation, development impact fee programs or fair share contributions, such as
the City of Fontana DIF program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally
determined through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.
6.1 MEASURE “I” FUNDS
In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30-year extension of Measure “I”, a
one-half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation
projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit,
and other identified improvements. The Measure “I” extension requires that a regional traffic
impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was
prepared by SBCTA and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component
in their local programs in order to meet the Measure “I” requirement. The regional component
assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently
updated in May 2018. Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with
Measure “I” funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study.
While Measure “I” is a self-executing sales tax administered by SBCTA, it bears discussion here
because the funds raised through Measure “I” have funded in the past and will continue to fund
new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County, including within the City of Fontana.
6.2 CITY OF FONTANA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF)
The City of Fontana adopted the latest update to their DIF program in February 2016. Fees from
new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund Measure “I”
compliant regional facilities as well as local facilities. Under the City’s DIF program, the City may
grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct
certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF
program.
After the City’s DIF fees are collected, they are placed in a separate restricted use account
pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. The timing to use the
DIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs which are overseen by
the City’s Engineering Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents, and a
review of traffic trends throughout the City are also periodically performed by City staff and
consultants. The City uses this data to determine the timing of the improvements listed in its
facilities list. The City also uses this data to ensure that the improvements listed on the facilities
list are constructed before the LOS falls below the LOS performance standards adopted by the
City. In this way, the improvements are constructed before the LOS falls below the City’s LOS
performance thresholds. The City’s DIF program establishes a timeline to fund, design, and build
the improvements.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 56
6.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project improvement may include a combination of fee payments to established programs,
construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future
improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by
development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where
appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).
When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to
proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution
or require the development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each
peak hour, has been provided on Table 6-1 for the applicable deficient study area intersections.
These fees are collected with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at
ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population
increases.
TABLE 6-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS
#Intersection Existing
Project
Only
2023 With
Project Volume
Net New
Traffic
Project % of
New Traffic
2 Citrus Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
AM:3,195 33 4,404 1,209 2.73%
PM:3,190 42 3,927 737 5.70%
3 Citrus Av. & Slover Av.
AM:2,834 39 3,082 248 15.73%
PM:3,334 50 4,643 1,309 3.82%
10 Juniper Av. & Slover Av.
AM:1,097 32 1,191 94 34.04%
PM:1,531 43 2,099 568 7.57%
BOLD = Denotes highest fair share percentage.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 57
7 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December
2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based
level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects.
This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). (8) Based on OPR’s Technical
Advisory, the City of Fontana adopted its Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles
Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (October of 2020) (9) (City Guidelines), which
documents the City’s VMT analysis methodology and approved impact thresholds. The VMT
analysis presented in this report has been developed based on the adopted City Guidelines.
7.1 PROJECT SCREENING
The City Guidelines provides information on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used
to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant
impact without conducting a more detailed project-level assessment. Screening thresholds are
broken into the following four steps:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Low Project Type Screening
• Step 4: Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT
The City Guidelines identify that the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool) is utilized to
assess project VMT screening criteria. The Screening Tool uses the project’s assessor’s parcel
number (APN) to determine if its location meets one or more of the VMT screening thresholds
for land use projects. A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to
result in a less than significant impact.
7.1.1 STEP 1: TPA SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit
Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”1 or an existing stop along
a “high-quality transit corridor”2) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent
substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may NOT be appropriate if a
project:
1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a
ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.”).
2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with
fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 58
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than
required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking);
• Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by
the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or
• Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income
residential units.
Based on the Screening Tool results presented in Appendix 7.1, the Project site is not located
within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor.
TPA screening criteria is not met.
7.1.2 STEP 2: LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
As described in the City Guidelines, “residential and office projects located within a low VMT
generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects
may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT
per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the
low VMT area.”
The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM)
to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the City. The
Project’s physical location based on parcel number is selected in the Screening Tool to determine
project generated VMT as compared to the City’s threshold. The parcel containing the proposed
Project was selected and the Screening Tool was run for the Production/Attraction (PA) VMT per
service population measure of VMT. The Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone
as compared to the City threshold of 15% below baseline County of San Bernardino PA VMT per
service population (see Appendix 7.1).
Low VMT Area screening criteria is not met.
7.1.3 STEP 3: LOW PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
City Guidelines state that local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact. In addition to local serving retail, other local
serving land uses such as public facilities, day care centers, gas stations, etc. would tend to
provide local services and result in reducing overall VMT. The Project’s intended land use does
not include any local serving retail.
Project Type screening criteria is not met.
7.1.4 STEP 4: PROJECT NET DAILY TRIPS LESS THAN 500 ADT SCREENING
Identified in City Guidelines, Projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT)
would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and are therefore
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 59
presumed to have less than significant impact on VMT. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed
land use have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. (2) The proposed
Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,334 vehicle trip-ends per day, exceeding 500
average daily trips criteria (see Table 4-2).
Project Net Daily Trips Screening criteria is not met.
The project was not found to meet any of the aforementioned VMT screening criteria, a project
level VMT analysis should be prepared.
7.2 VMT METHODOLOGY
Consistent with City Guidelines, the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is a
useful tool to estimate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on
socio-economic data such as population, households, and employment. The City Guidelines
identifies SBTAM as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the
City of Fontana.
7.3 VMT ANALYSIS
Project VMT has been calculated using the most current version of SBTAM. Adjustments to socio-
economic data (SED) (i.e., the Project’s estimated number of employees) has been made to the
appropriate traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within the SBTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed
land use (i.e., warehouse). Table 7-1 summarizes the employment estimates for the Project. It
should be noted that the employment estimates are consistent with the employment density
factors identified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment
Density Study (October 2001). (4)
TABLE 7-1: EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
Land Use Quantity (SF) Employment Density Factor3 Estimated
Employees
Warehouse 625,460 1 employee per 1,195 SF 524
SED adjustments to represent the Project were made to the applicable TAZ in both the SBTAM
base year and cumulative year traffic models. The SBTAM base year and cumulative year travel
demand forecasting models inclusive of Project SED were run and Project generated VMT was
then calculated from the production attraction (PA) trip matrices – consistent with City
Guidelines for single land use projects. Project generated total VMT is then normalized by dividing
by the Project’s SP (i.e., Project employees). The project generated VMT, for both the base year
model (2016) and cumulative year model (2040) results, were then calculated utilizing linear
interpolation to determine the baseline (2021) project generated VMT. As shown in Table 7-2,
the Project baseline VMT per SP is 20.64.
3 Table II-B of the SCAG Employment Density Study.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 60
TABLE 7-2: PROJECT VMT PER SP
Base Year (2016) Cumulative
(2040)
Baseline (2021)
VMT 10,873 10,606 10,815
Employment 524 524 524
VMT per SP4 20.75 20.24 20.64
7.3.1 REGIONAL VMT
The City Guidelines provides the following impact threshold(s) used to determine a projects
impact on VMT. A project would result in a significant project generated impact if either of the
following conditions are satisfied:
1. The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15% below the
baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population (SP), or
2. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15% below
the baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per SP.
As noted, the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold is based on a level of 15% below the baseline
County of San Bernardino VMT per SP. SBCTA provides VMT calculations for each of its member
agencies and for the County of San Bernardino region. Urban Crossroads has obtained from
SBCTA the baseline PA VMT per SP value for the County of San Bernardino, which is 28.37. The
City’s adopted threshold is a value of 15% below the baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per
SP or 24.11 VMT per SP.
7.3.2 PROJECT LEVEL VMT ASSESSMENT
Table 7-3 illustrates the comparison between Project baseline and cumulative VMT per SP to the
City’s adopted impact threshold. As indicated, the Project baseline and cumulative VMT per SP
are below the City’s adopted impact threshold; in other words, the Project VMT impact is less
than significant.
TABLE 7-3: PROJECT VMT PER SP COMPARISON
Baseline (2021) Cumulative (2040)
Impact Threshold 24.11 24.11
Project 20.64 20.24
Potentially Significant? No No
7.3.3 PROJECT’S CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON VMT
The Technical Advisory notes that “… metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e.,
metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office
projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an
efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no
cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-
4 Since the Project does not have a residential component, the service population consists entirely of employment.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 61
significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa.
This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality
impacts, and impact that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.”7 As the Project
was found to have a less than significant impact based on the efficiency metric VMT per service
population, the Project’s cumulative impact is also considered less than significant.
.
The Project was evaluated against City Guideline’s stated VMT screening criteria but was found
to not meet available screening thresholds. As required by City Guidelines, a project level VMT
analysis was performed consistent with the requirements identified for single use warehouse
projects. The Project was not found to exceed 15% below the County of San Bernardino’s baseline
regional average VMT per SP measures of VMT. The Project’s impact to VMT is therefore
presumed to be less than significant.
7 OPR’s Technical Advisory; Page 6
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 62
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 63
8 REFERENCES
1. City of Fontana Public Works Department. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment. Fontana : s.n., October 21, 2020.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.
3. WSP. High Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study. January 29, 2019.
4. San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San
Bernardino. County of San Bernardino : s.n., Updated June 2016.
5. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy
of Sciences, 2016.
6. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CAMUTCD). 2017.
7. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manaul Supplement. February 2020.
8. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
State of California : s.n., December 2018.
9. City of Fontana Traffic Engineering Division. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles
Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. City of Fontana : s.n., October 2020.
10. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. February 2020.
11. Southern California Association of Governments. Employment Density Study. October 2001.
Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study
13921-07 TS Report 64
This Page Intentionally Left Blank