HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix N - Traffic Analysis
SOUTHRIDGE FONTANA (PAM21-0081)
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
February 28, 2023 City of Fontana 14713-03A TA Report
PREPARED BY: Charlene So | cso@urbanxroads.com
Aric Evatt | aevatt@urbanxroads.com
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Abbreviated Terms ............................................................................................................................... vii
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Deficiencies .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis .......................................................................................................... 10
2 Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 13
2.4 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) ............................................................................................ 14
2.5 Deficiency Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 14
2.6 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................................. 15
3 Area Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Existing Circulation Network ............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 General Plan Circulation Elements .................................................................................................................. 17
3.3 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 20
3.4 Transit Service .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Existing Traffic Counts .......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.6 Existing (2022) Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................... 25
3.7 Existing (2022) Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................... 25
4 Projected Future Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 Modal Split ................................................................................................................................................................. 29
4.4 Project Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................................................... 29
4.5 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 29
4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.7 Near-Term Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 34
5 EAP (2027) Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................ 35
5.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 EAP (2027) Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ............................................................................................ 35
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
iii
5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35
5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 37
6 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Traffic Conditions .......................................................................... 39
6.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 39
6.2 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ............................. 39
6.3 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .................................... 39
6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 42
6.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 42
6.6 Deficiencies and Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 43
7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms ........................................................................................... 45
7.1 Measure “I” Funds ................................................................................................................................................... 45
7.2 City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) ........................................................................................ 45
8 Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................................................... 47
8.1 Project Screening .................................................................................................................................................... 47
8.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 50
9 References ............................................................................................................................................... 51
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
iv
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 1.2: Site Adjacent Queuing Worksheets
Appendix 3.1: Existing Traffic Counts
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2022) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 3.3: Existing (2022) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 5.1: EAP (2027) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 5.2: EAP (2027) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.1: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations
Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.2: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations
Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.3: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant
Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.4: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant
Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 8.1: SBCTA VMT Screening Tool
Appendix 8.2: Southridge Village specific Plan
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
v
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 Access Recommendations ................................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ............................................. 18
Exhibit 3-3: City of Fontana Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................ 21
Exhibit 3-4: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................... 22
Exhibit 3-5: Existing Transit Routes ................................................................................................................ 23
Exhibit 3-6: Existing (2022) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 24
Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 28
Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic volumes ...................................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location Map .................................................................................. 31
Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 32
Exhibit 5-1: EAP Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 36
Exhibit 6-1: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Traffic Volumes ...................................... 40
Exhibit 6-2: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volumes ............................................ 41
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 1-2: Summary of LOS ............................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ...................................................................................... 12
Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ................................................................................. 13
Table 2-3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations ................................................................................... 14
Table 2-4: Thresholds of Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 15
Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2022) Conditions ................................................................. 25
Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 27
Table 4-2: Cumulative Development land use Summary ............................................................................ 33
Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for EAP (2027) Conditions ........................................................................ 35
Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Conditions .................................. 42
Table 8-1: SVSP Capacities at buildout .......................................................................................................... 49
Table 8-2: Trip generation comparison ......................................................................................................... 50
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
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
EAP Existing Ambient Growth plus Project
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
OD Origination-Destination
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OYC Opening Year Cumulative
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Southridge Fontana
SB 743 Senate Bill 743
SBTAM San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model
SHS State Highway System
TA Traffic Analysis
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TPA Transit Priority Area
V/C Volume to Capacity
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Traffic Analysis (TA) for the proposed Southridge Fontana
development (“Project”), which is located south of Village Drive and east of Live Oak Avenue in the City
of Fontana, as shown on Exhibit 1-1. Exhibit 1-1 depicts the location of the proposed Project in relation
to the existing roadway network and the study area intersections.
The purpose of this TA 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 TA 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 TA, which has been reviewed and approved by City of
Fontana staff.
1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1.1.1 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) (2). Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory, specific
procedures for complying with the new CEQA requirements for VMT analysis, the City of Fontana
adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment
(City Guidelines) (1). The City Guidelines documents the City’s VMT analysis methodology and
adopted VMT impact thresholds. The VMT screening evaluation presented in this report has been
developed based on these City Guidelines. The Project was evaluated consistent with the City’s available
screening criteria. The Project was found to meet the Project Net Daily Trips Less than 500 ADT screening
criteria and is presumed to result in a less than significant impact for VMT; no further VMT analysis required.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
2
EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
3
1.1.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS
The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with
development of the site:
• Project to construct a westbound left turn lane on Live Oak Avenue by restriping the two-way left turn
painted median (Project Driveway 1). Driveway 1 should be realigned with the existing shopping center
driveway to the north, creating a 4-leg intersection.
• Project to construct a westbound shared left-though-right lane and install a stop control on the
westbound approach (egress Project traffic) and implement a cross-street stop-controlled intersection.
Project to construct a southbound left turn lane on Live Oak Avenue by restriping the two-way left turn
painted median (Project Driveway 2).
Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of
this report. The proposed Project is not anticipated to require the construction of any off-site
improvements, however, there are improvement needs identified at off-site intersections for future
cumulative traffic study scenarios. As such, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s
contributions towards deficient off-site intersections is fulfilled through payment of fair share and/or
payment into pre-existing fee programs (if applicable) that would be assigned to the future
construction of the identified recommended improvements. The Project Applicant would be required
to pay requisite fees and/or fair share contributions consistent with the City’s requirements (see
Section 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms).
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project is to consist of 255 single family attached residential dwelling units. It is
anticipated to have an Opening Year of 2027. The proposed 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
to Live Oak Avenue via two driveways. Regional access to the Project site is available from the I-10
Freeway via Cherry Avenue to the north, the I-15 Freeway via Jurupa Avenue to the west, and SR-60
Freeway via Mulberry Avenue to the south.
In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip-generation statistics
published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021)
for the Single-Family Attached (ITE Land Use Code 215) land use category. (3) The Project is anticipated
to generate a total of 1,836 two-way trips per day with 122 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour
trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are
discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
4
EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
5
1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been
assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP)
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project
1.3.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2022) traffic conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic
conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared.
1.3.2 EAP CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) traffic conditions analysis determines traffic
deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project traffic. To
account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 10.41%
is included for EAP (2027) traffic conditions (2 percent per year compounded annually over 5 years).
The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area within the City of
Fontana.
1.3.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS
The Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions analysis determines the potential near-term
cumulative circulation system deficiencies. To account for background traffic growth, traffic
associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth
from Existing (2022) traffic conditions of 10.41% is included for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic
conditions (2 percent per year compounded annually over 5 years). This analysis scenario includes a
list of other cumulative development projects which was compiled from information provided by the
City of Fontana and is consistent with other recent studies in the study area.
1.4 STUDY AREA
The 5 study area intersections listed in Table 1-1 and shown on Exhibit 1-3 were selected for evaluation
in this TA 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).
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
6
EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
7
The intent of a 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.
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
1.5 DEFICIENCIES
This section provides a summary of deficiencies by analysis scenario. Section 2 Methodologies
provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 5 EAP (2027) Traffic
Conditions and Section 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Traffic Conditions. A summary of LOS results
for all analysis scenarios is presented on Table 1-2.
1.5.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
All of the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the weekday
AM and PM peak hours.
1.5.2 EAP CONDITIONS
All of the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during
the peak hours under EAP traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic, consistent with Existing
conditions.
1.5.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS
The study area intersections are anticipated to continue operate at an acceptable LOS under Opening
Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project traffic conditions, with the exception of the following
intersection:
• Live Oak Avenue & Jurupa Avenue (#5) – LOS D PM peak hour only
The addition of Project traffic is not anticipated to result in any additional intersection operational
deficiencies in comparison to the location previously identified for Opening Year Cumulative (2027)
Without Project traffic conditions. Although the intersection of Live Oak Avenue at Jurupa Avenue is
anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during the PM peak hour for both Opening Year Cumulative
(2027) Without and With Project traffic conditions, the addition of Project traffic would increase the
PM peak hour delay by less than 5.0 seconds (City’s threshold criteria for LOS D). As such,
improvements have not been identified at the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Jurupa Avenue.
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Cherry Av. & Jurupa Av.Fontana
2 Cherry Av. & Live Oak AV.Fontana
3 Driveway 1/Southridge Park & Live Oak Av.Fontana
4 Live Oak Av. & Goldenrain Dr./Driveway 2 Fontana
5 Live Oak Av. & Jurupa Av.Fontana
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
8
TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF LOS
1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate
site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the proposed Project. The site adjacent
recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1-4. The site adjacent queuing analysis worksheets are
provided in Appendix 1.2. No site adjacent queues are anticipated with the proposed improvements
Recommendation 1 – Southridge Park/Driveway 1 & Live Oak Avenue (#3) – The following
improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a westbound left turn lane on Live Oak Avenue by restriping the two-way left turn
painted median (Project Driveway 1).
• Project to realign the driveway with the existing shopping center driveway on the north side of Live Oak
Avenue in order to create a 4-leg intersection.
Recommendation 2 – Live Oak Avenue & Driveway 2 (#4) – The following improvements are necessary
to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach (egress Project traffic) and implement a
cross-street stop-controlled intersection (Project Driveway 2).
• Project to construct a westbound shared left-right turn lane (Project Driveway 2).
• Project to construct a southbound left turn lane on Live Oak Avenue by restriping the two-way left turn
painted median.
Recommendation 3 – The site adjacent roadway of Live Oak Avenue is currently constructed to its
ultimate cross-section General Plan and City of Fontana guidelines. In addition, sidewalk, curb-and-
gutter, and landscaping improvements are in place along all Project fronting roadway. However, the
Project will modify the curb and gutter improvements to accommodate site access points (driveways).
Existing sidewalks and crosswalks connect the proposed Project with the surrounding pedestrian
facilities.
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.
#Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cherry Av. & Jurupa Av.
2 Cherry Av. & Live Oak AV.
3 Driveway 1/Southridge Park & Live Oak Av.
4 Live Oak Av. & Goldenrain Dr./Driveway 2
5 Live Oak Av. & Jurupa Av.
= A - C = D - E = F
Existing (2022)EAP (2027)OYC (2027) - NP OYC (2027) - WP
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
9
EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
10
1.6.2 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis has been performed for the Project driveways and the site adjacent intersection
of Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project traffic
conditions. The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package SimTraffic has been
utilized to assess the queues. SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized
intersections, with the primary purpose of checking and fine-tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses
the input parameters from Synchro to generate random simulations. These random simulations
generated by SimTraffic have been utilized to determine the 95th percentile queue lengths observed
for each applicable turn lane. A SimTraffic simulation has been recorded up to 5 times, during the
weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, and has been seeded for 30-minute periods with 60-minute
recording intervals. Queuing analysis worksheets for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are
provided in Appendix 1.2 of this report.
1.6.3 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
All of the study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours
under Existing (2022), EAP, and Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions are shown in Table
1-2. Thus, no recommended improvements are provided.
1.7 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
The Project was evaluated consistent with the City’s available screening criteria. The Project was found to
meet the Project Net Daily Trips Less than 500 ADT screening criteria and is presumed to result in a less
than significant impact for VMT; no further VMT analysis required. Detailed discussion can be found in
Section 8 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis of this TA.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
11
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 6th Edition
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay
time for the various intersection approaches. (4) The HCM uses different procedures depending on
the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Fontana requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology
described in the HCM. (4) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control
delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final
acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is related to the average control delay per vehicle
and is correlated to a LOS designation as described on Table 2-1.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
12
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has been
utilized to analyze signalized intersections. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is
based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level
models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study
intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of 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.
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 have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect
peak 15-minute volumes. Customary practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute rate of flow.
However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between
the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-
minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to
analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM,
PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak
hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour.
(4)
Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle length.0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression
and/or short cycle lengths.10.01 to 20.00 B
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is
considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very
long cycle lengths.
80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
13
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Fontana requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the
methodology described in the HCM. (4) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay
expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side-street stop-controlled
intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from
the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane,
the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is
reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. For all-way stop
controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay).
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public
agencies to quantitatively justify or determine the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at
an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest
edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (5)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections are based upon several factors,
including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school
areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or
more of the signal warrants are met. (5) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based
Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic
conditions and for all future analysis scenarios for existing unsignalized intersections. Warrant 3 is
appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with
rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining
whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Rural warrants have been used
as posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections are 40 miles per hour
or below.
Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for
new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning
Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Little or no delays.0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays.10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays.15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays.25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays.35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded.> 50.00 F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
14
level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Similarly, the speed limit has been used as the
basis for determining the use of Urban and Rural warrants. Traffic signal warrant analyses were
performed for the following study area intersection shown on Table 2-3:
TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
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 EAP (2027) Tra ffic Conditions and Section 6 Ope n in g Ye a r Cumulative (2027) 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.
2.4 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficiencies has been obtained
from each of the applicable surrounding jurisdictions.
CITY OF FONTANA
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)
2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system
deficiencies. 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.
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
3 Driveway 1/Southridge Park & Live Oak Av.Fontana
4 Live Oak Av. & Goldenrain Dr./Driveway 2 Fontana
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
15
TABLE 2-4: THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative traffic impacts are deficiencies that are not directly caused by the Project but occur as a
result of regional growth combined with that or other nearby cumulative development projects.
Cumulative impacts utilize the same thresholds of significant impacts as shown on Table 2-4. The
Project’s contribution to a particular cumulative transportation deficiency is deemed cumulatively
considerable if the Project adds significant traffic to the forecasted deficiency (Per Table 2-4). A
Project’s contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact can be reduced to less than significant if
the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate the
potential cumulative impact. If full funding of future cumulative improvements is not reasonably
assured, a temporary unmitigated cumulative impact may occur until the needed improvement is fully
funded and constructed.
2.6 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to traffic
deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been
identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following
equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic, and new traffic is total future (Horizon Year)
traffic less existing baseline traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project AM/PM Traffic / (OYC 2027 With Project AM/PM Total Traffic – Existing
AM/PM Traffic)
The project fair share percentage has been calculated for both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour
and the highest of the two has been selected. The Project fair share contribution calculations are
presented in Section 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this TA.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
16
This page intentionally left blank
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
17
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 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 5 existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-3. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates
the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through
traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
3.2 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
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 roadways within the City
of Fontana are classified as a Major Highways:
• Cherry Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue
Modified 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 roadways within the
City of Fontana are classified as a Modified Major Highways:
• Jurupa Avenue
Primary Highways are four-lane divided roadways (typically divided by a raised median or painted
two-way turn-lane). These roadways serve local traffic. The following study area roadways within the
City of Fontana are classified as a Primary Major Highways:
• Cherry Avenue, south of Jurupa 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:
• Live Oak Avenue
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
18
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
19
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF FONTANA HIERARCHY OF STREETS
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
20
3.3 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Fontana bike facilities are shown on Exhibit 3-3. Cherry Avenue (south of Jurupa Avenue)
and Live Oak Avenue (west of Cherry Avenue) are proposed as Class II bike facilities (striped, on-street
bike lanes). Existing pedestrian facilities are shown on Exhibit 3-4. As shown on Exhibit 3-4, there are
limited pedestrian facilities along Live Oak Avenue. There is a Class I (off-road) bikeway within the
Southern California Edison easement south of Jurupa Avenue and west of Live Oak Avenue.
3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by Omnitracs Transit Agency with bus services along parts of Jurupa
Avenue and Cherry Avenue, south of Jurupa Avenue. Routes 82 is the closest route that provides
service along Cherry Avenue, northwest of the Project; however, there are currently no transit routes
that provide service along Live Oak Avenue that could potentially serve the Project site in the future.
The existing stop on Jurupa Avenue at Live Oak Avenue is approximately 1,550 feet north of the Project
with 60 to 65-minute headways. The existing stop on Cherry Avenue at Live Oak Avenue is
approximately 1,325 feet west of the Project and also has 60 to 65-minute headways. Omnitrans Route
82 serves Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Sierra Lakes with major stops at the Rancho Cucamonga
Metrolink Station, Victoria Gardens, Ontario Mills, and Fontana Metrolink Station. The transit services
are illustrated on Exhibit 3-5. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to
address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these
periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour
conditions using traffic count data collected in 2022. The following peak hours were selected for
analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
• Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.
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 (see Exhibit 3-6):
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 11.38 = 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 8.875 percent. As such, the
above equation utilizing a factor of 11.38 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway
segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 8.875 percent (i.e., 1/0.0878 = 11.38)
and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning-level
analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit
3-6.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
21
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF FONTANA BICYCLE FACILITIES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
22
EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
23
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
24
EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
25
3.6 EXISTING (2022) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on
the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The
intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1 which indicates that all study
area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The
intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.
TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
3.7 EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection
turning volumes. The unsignalized study area intersections currently do not meet a traffic signal
warrant under Existing (2022) traffic conditions (see Appendix 3.3).
Traffic Delay (secs.)2 Level of Service
#Intersection Control 1 AM PM AM PM
1 Cherry Av. & Jurupa Av.TS 24.2 21.0 C C
2 Cherry Av. & Live Oak AV.TS 11.4 8.8 B A
3 Driveway 1/Southridge Park & Live Oak Av.CSS 14.3 14.0 B B
4 Live Oak Av. & Goldenrain Dr./Driveway 2 CSS 11.2 11.1 B B
5 Live Oak Av. & Jurupa Av.TS 19.8 27.6 B C
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual, 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 in seconds.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
26
This page intentionally left blank
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
27
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the
Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is proposed to consist of
255 single family attached residential dwelling units. Vehicular access will be provided via two
driveways on Live Oak Avenue (full access with no turn restrictions). Regional access to the Project site
is available from the I-10 Freeway via Cherry Avenue to the north, the I-15 Freeway via Jurupa Avenue
to the west, and SR-60 Freeway via Mulberry Avenue to the south.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a
development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting
the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses
being proposed for a given development.
The Project trip rate and trip generation summary is shown in Table 4-1. As shown in Table 4-1, the
Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,836 two-way trips per day with 112 AM peak hour trips
and 145 PM peak hour trips.
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic
to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical
location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway
system. Exhibit 4-1 illustrates the distribution patterns for the Project.
ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Attached 215 DU 0.149 0.331 0.480 0.325 0.245 0.570 7.200
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021).
2 DU = dwelling units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Project Quantity In Out Total In Out Total
Southridge Fontana 255 DU 38 84 122 83 63 145 1,836
1 DU = dwelling units
Daily
Land Use1 Units2 Daily
Units1
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
28
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
29
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips (non-truck) to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or
bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the
Project’s traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the
forecasted traffic volumes.
4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the
Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system
improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the
identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT and
weekday/weekend peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2.
4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2.0% per year for
2027 traffic conditions, consistent with other recent studies performed in the area. The total ambient
growth is 10.41% for 2027 traffic conditions (compounded growth of 2.0 percent per year over 5 years
or 1.025 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. EAP and Opening Year Cumulative
(2027) traffic volumes are provided in Section 5 and 6 of this TA. 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 projects listed are those that
would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections. Exhibit 4-3 illustrates
the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their
proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-2. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual
cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that
traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-2 are reflected as part of
the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are
added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic. Cumulative
ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-4.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
30
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
31
EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
32
EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
33
TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
ID Project Land Use Quantity1
1 Fontana Corporate Center Warehouse 355.370 TSF
2 Fontana Trailer Storage Yard Truck Trailer Storage Yard 17.380 AC
3 MG Home International Warehouse Warehouse 15.570 TSF
4 Calabash Industrial Building Warehouse 64.692 TSF
5 Cherry Av. Warehouse Warehouse 174.280 TSF
6 Beech & Santa Ana Warehouse Warehouse 174.000 TSF
7 Banana & Rose Warehouse 85.730 TSF
8 MCN No. 19-040 Warehouse 106.500 TSF
9 MCN No. 21-074 Warehouse 42.000 TSF
10 TPM No. 20236 (MCN No. 20-040)Warehouse (2 Buildings)158.223 TSF
11 MCN No. 19-094 Warehouse 192.000 TSF
12 MCN No. 19-057 Warehouse 146.800 TSF
13 Slover and Redwood Industrial Truck Trailer Storage Yard 5.120 AC
14 14801 Slover Avenue Warehouse Warehouse 308.211 TSF
15 MCN No. 21-049 Warehouse 210.400 TSF
16 Banana & Santa Ana Warehouse Warehouse 341.838 TSF
17 First Industrial Catawba Warehouse Warehouse (Shell; MCN22-00003 18.467 TSF
18 Project No. 22-013 Research and Devopment 180.600 TSF
Office, Space, Parking, and
landscaping 20.000 TSF
19 MCN20-000080 (Manheim Buildin Expansion Service Bay and Office Building (e 10.612 TSF
20 MCN21-000082 (Truck Repair)Office Building 10.804 TSF
Truck Repair Shop 3.850 TSF
Truck Wash Area with 20 parking 28.000 spaces
21 MCN18-00095 (Banana Av. Development)Warehouse 133.813 TSF
22 MCN19-000021 (Cabot Commerce Center)Warehouse Building Total of 159 159.618 TSF
with office space included 7.000 TSF
23 MCN19-000035 (Fontana Santa Ana Industrial Center)Warehouse 296.920 TSF
24 MCN18-000085 (Jurupa and Redwood Warehouse)Warehouse 78.000 TSF
Office Space 5.000 TSF
25 MCN21-000097 (mulberry)Warehouse 229.014 TSF
26 TTM 21-020 3 Warehouses 279.859 TSF
27 MCN19-000022 (Parkhouse Tire Project)Recapping Facility 63.000 TSF
28 MCN20-000095 (Colombard trailer Yard)Office 1.575 TSF
Trailer Yard 67.000 spaces
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
34
4.7 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to
forecast the near-term EAP (2027) and Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions. An ambient
growth factor of 2.0% per year, compounded annually, accounts for background (area-wide) traffic
increases that occur over time up to the year 2027 from the year 2022. Traffic volumes generated by
cumulative development projects are then added to assess the Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic
conditions. Lastly, Project traffic is added to assess “With Project” traffic conditions. The 2027 roadway
network are similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future roadways
and intersections proposed to be developed by the Project. The near-term traffic analysis includes
the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• EAP (2027)
o Existing 2022 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (10.14%)
o Project Traffic
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project
o Existing 2022 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (10.14%)
o Cumulative Traffic
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project
o Existing 2022 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (10.14%)
o Cumulative Traffic
o Project Traffic
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
35
5 EAP (2027) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop EAP traffic forecasts, and the resulting
intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative
(2027) traffic 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 EAP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements
along the Project’s frontage and driveways).
5.2 EAP (2027) PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 10.41% and the
addition of Project traffic. The ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which can
be expected for EAP (2027) conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.
5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP (2027) 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 all of study area
intersections is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under EAP (2027)
traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP (2027) traffic conditions are
included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.
TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2027) CONDITIONS
Traffic Delay (secs.)2 Level of Service Delay (secs.)2 Level of Service
#Intersection Control 1 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cherry Av. & Jurupa Av.TS 24.2 21.0 C C 26.4 23.1 C C
2 Cherry Av. & Live Oak AV.TS 11.4 8.8 B A 13.9 10.3 B B
3 Driveway 1/Southridge Park & Live Oak Av.CSS 14.3 14.0 B B 21.8 18.9 C C
4 Live Oak Av. & Goldenrain Dr./Driveway 2 CSS 11.2 11.1 B B 21.0 13.6 C B
5 Live Oak Av. & Jurupa Av.TS 19.8 27.6 B C 23.5 31.1 C C
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2
Existing (2021)EAP (2027)
Per the Highway Capacity Manual, 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 in seconds.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
36
EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
37
5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for EAP (2027) traffic conditions
based on peak hour intersection turning movements volumes. There is no unsignalized study area
intersection anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under EAP (2027) traffic conditions (see
Appendix 5.2).
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
38
This page intentionally left blank
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
39
6 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without and
With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant
analyses.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative
(2027) traffic 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).
6.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME
FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 10.41% 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 (2027) Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.
6.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME
FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes, an ambient growth factor of 10.41%, 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 (2027) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit
6-2.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
40
EXHIBIT 6-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
41
EXHIBIT 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
42
6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
6.4.1 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Opening Year Cumulative (2027) 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 6-1, which indicate
that all of study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak
hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic conditions, with the exception of
the following location:
• Live Oak Av. & Jurupa Avenue (#5) – LOS D PM peak hour only
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative Without Project traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TA.
6.4.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 6-1, there are no additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at an
unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With
Project traffic conditions in addition to the location previously identified under Opening Year
Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets
for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.2 of this
TA.
TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS
6.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for Opening Year Cumulative
(2027) traffic conditions based on peak hour intersection turning movements volumes. The
unsignalized study area intersections are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under Opening
Year Cumulative (2027) Without and With Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.3 and Appendix
6.4).
Traffic Delay (secs.)2 Level of Service Delay (secs.)2 Level of Service
#Intersection Control 1 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Cherry Av. & Jurupa Av.TS 29.4 25.3 C C 29.9 25.7 C C
2 Cherry Av. & Live Oak AV.TS 12.8 9.6 B A 14.1 10.4 B B
3 Driveway 1/Southridge Park & Live Oak Av.CSS 15.6 15.2 C C 21.8 18.9 C C
4 Live Oak Av. & Goldenrain Dr./Driveway 2 CSS 11.6 11.4 B B 21.0 13.6 C B
5 Live Oak Av. & Jurupa Av.TS 27.2 39.8 C D 28.7 42.3 C D
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual, 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 in seconds.
2027 Without Project 2027 With Project
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
43
6.6 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
This section provides a summary of deficiencies, based on the City of Fontana’s deficiency criteria
discussed in Section 2.5 Deficiency Criteria, and improvements needed to improve operations back to
acceptable levels. Although the intersection of Live Oak Avenue at Jurupa Avenue is anticipated to
operate at a deficient LOS during the PM peak hour for both Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without
and With Project traffic conditions, the addition of Project traffic would increase the PM peak hour
delay by less than 5.0 seconds (City’s threshold criteria for LOS D). As such, improvements have not
been identified at the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Jurupa Avenue.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
44
This page intentionally left blank
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
45
7 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.
7.1 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.
7.2 CITY OF FONTANA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF)
The City of Fontana adopted the latest update to their DIF program in September 2019. 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.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
46
This page intentionally left blank
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
47
8 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) (2). Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory, specific
procedures for complying with the new CEQA requirements for VMT analysis, the City of Fontana
adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment
(City Guidelines) (1). The City Guidelines documents the City’s VMT analysis methodology and
adopted VMT impact thresholds. The VMT screening evaluation presented in this report has been
developed based on these City Guidelines.
8.1 PROJECT SCREENING
The City Guidelines describe specific “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 VMT analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, the initial VMT screening
process has been conducted with the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool), which uses
screening criteria consistent with the screening thresholds recommended in the City Guidelines.
Screening thresholds are described in the following four steps:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Low (Local Serving) Project Type Screening
• Step 4: Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT
Consistent with City Guidelines, a land use project needs only to satisfy one of the above screening
thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.
8.1.1 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:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by
the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking);
1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a
ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.”).
2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with
fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
48
• 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 8.1, 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.
8.1.2 STEP 2: LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
As noted in the City Guidelines, “Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating
area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the
contrary. In addition, other employment-related 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”3. The Screening
Tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure
VMT performance within San Bernardino County for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within
each city.
The Project’s physical location is selected by the Screening Tool to determine the VMT generated
within the respective TAZ as compared to the jurisdictional average inclusive of a particular threshold
(i.e., 15% below baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population (SP) or 28.3 VMT per
SP). Based on the Screening Tool results, the Project is located in TAZ 53719401 and the Project’s TAZ
has a VMT per SP of 28.3. Therefore, the Project is not located in a low VMT area and does not have a
VMT per SP below the City’s adopted threshold of 15% below baseline County of San Bernardino VMT
per service population (see Appendix 8.1).
Low VMT Area screening criteria is not met.
8.1.3 STEP 3: LOW (LOCAL SERVING) PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail with buildings less than 50,000 square feet or other
local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings,
etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
The proposed Project is not considered a local serving use based on the examples provided in the City
Guidelines.4 The Project does not intend to develop local serving retail or local serving essential
services land use types.
Low (Local Serving) Project Type screening criteria is not met.
3 City Guidelines; Page 12.
4 City Guidelines; Page 13.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
49
8.1.4 STEP 4: PROJECT NET DAILY TRIPS LESS THAN 500 ADT SCREENING
Projects that generate fewer than 500 net ADT (stated in actual vehicles) are deemed to not cause a
substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and are therefore presumed to have a less
than significant impact on VMT. Substantial evidence in support of the daily trip threshold is
documented in the City Guidelines.5 The trip generation rates used for the proposed Project are based
on the trip generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). (3)
The 39.2-acre Project site is located in the original Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP). The 1982
SVSP EIR (Original Specific Plan) analyzed the development of 8,800 residential units within the entire
SVSP area. Since 1983, 18 amendments to the SVSP (Approved SPA #18) have been processed and a
total of 7,908 residential units have been approved (see Table 8-1, and also Appendix 8.2). With the
exception of the Project site and Planning Area 66B, which includes an overlay allowing self-storage
uses, the SVSP is built out.
TABLE 8-1: SVSP CAPACITIES AT BUILDOUT
Dwelling
Units
Self-Storage
Original Specific Plan 8,800
Approved SPA #18 7,908 235,224 SF
Proposed Project 8,071
The Proposed Project intends to develop 255 units on the 39.2-acre site (Planning Areas 66A, 66B, and
56). The Proposed Project is within the remaining development capacity of SVSP. Of the 255 units, 92
units were assumed to occur on the site and 163 would be transferred from the overall remaining
capacity, which is permitted by the SVSP. Therefore, buildout of the SVSP as modified by the Project is
assumed to be 8,071 units. Table 8-2 presents a trip generation comparison between of the original
SVSP, the approved SVSP SPA 18, and the Currently Proposed Project.
5 City Guidelines; Appendix B.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
50
TABLE 8-2: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
The Currently Proposed Project is estimated to generate a net reduction of 7,422 daily vehicle trips as
compared to the Original Specific Plan, which would not exceed the City’s screening threshold of 500
daily vehicle trips.
Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT screening criteria is met.
8.2 CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project was evaluated consistent with the City’s available screening criteria. The
Project was found to meet the Project Net Daily Trips Less than 500 ADT screening criteria and is
presumed to result in a less than significant impact for VMT; no further VMT analysis required.
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
51
9 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. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
State of California : s.n., December 2018.
3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.
4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National
Academy of Sciences, 2016.
5. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).
Southridge Fontana Traffic Analysis
14713-03A TA Report
52
This page intentionally left blank