San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

3.16 - Transportation and Traffic

This section describes the existing transportation and traffic conditions and potential effects from project implementation on surrounding roads and intersections. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 14, 2017; the San Gorgonio Crossing Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated April 18, 2017 the San Gorgonio Crossing Traffic Impact Analysis—Supplemental Expanded Freeway Segment Analysis each dated April 18, 2017 and the San Gorgonio Crossing Supplemental Traffic Analysis—Future Beckwith Avenue dated April 18, 2017 prepared by Urban Crossroads, included in this Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) as Appendix I (collectively, “Traffic Study”).

3.16.1 - Existing Conditions Project Study Area The project site is located along the north side of Cherry Valley Boulevard and east of the Interstate 10 Freeway (I-10), between the cities of Calimesa and Beaumont, within the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley in the County of Riverside, California. The project site has regional access via Cherry Valley Boulevard to the I-10 Freeway, and local access via Cherry Valley Boulevard, Brookside Avenue, and Oak Valley Parkway. Most of the land around the project site is vacant and in unincorporated areas of Riverside County. In addition, the City of Beaumont is located south of the project site, the City of Calimesa is located directly west and northwest of the site, and the City of Yucaipa is located approximately two miles north of the site.

Intersections Analyzed Pursuant to the approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement and discussion with the County of Riverside staff, the study area includes 11 existing and future intersections.1 Of these 11 intersections, the existing study area circulation network includes six intersection analysis locations shown in Table 3.16-1 and Exhibit 3.16-1. Four intersections in the study area are future project access points that do not exist currently, as indicated in Table 3.16-1. Exhibit 3.16-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the project and identifies the number of through-traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

Table 3.16-1: Intersection Analysis Locations

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction 1A Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard Calimesa 1 I-10 Freeway Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Caltrans 2 I-10 Freeway Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Caltrans 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County, Calimesa 4 Driveway 1/Cherry Valley Boulevard–Future Intersection (right-in/right-out) Riverside County 5 Street 2/Cherry Valley Boulevard–Future Intersection Riverside County

1 Ten intersections are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 14, 2017; the future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard is analyzed only in the San Gorgonio Crossing Supplemental Traffic Analysis—Future Beckwith Avenue dated April 18, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Table 3.16-1 (cont.): Intersection Analysis Locations

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction 6 Driveway 3/Cherry Valley Boulevard–Future Intersection (right-in/right-out) Riverside County 7 Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County 8 Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County 9 Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County 10 Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—Future intersection Riverside County Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

The potential impact study area and intersections to be evaluated was defined in coordination with the County of Riverside staff and in conformance with the requirements of the County’s Traffic Impact Assessment preparation guidelines. Based on these guidelines, the minimum area to be studied shall include any intersection of “Collector” or higher classification streets, at which the project will add 50 or more peak-hour trips. The “50 peak hour trip” criterion used by the County of Riverside and the City of Calimesa is consistent with the methodology employed by other jurisdictions throughout Southern California, and generally represents a threshold of trips at which an intersection would have the potential to be significantly impacted. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule-of-thumb is a widely used tool for estimating a potential area of impact (i.e., study area).

Although a temporary location, the Roberts Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection (Intersection ID No. 1A) located to the immediate west of the I-10 westbound ramps has been included in the analysis, based upon a request by Caltrans. This intersection is proposed to be realigned further west from its current location on Cherry Valley Boulevard. The project’s contribution to this intersection is anticipated to be nominal and would not meet the County or City of Calimesa’s “50 peak hour trip” screening criteria.

Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Intersection ID No. 10) would not be constructed until 2040, so impacts to this future intersection are only addressed under the 2040 Horizon Year Scenario, within the separate April 18, 2017 letter report entitled “San Gorgonio Crossing Supplemental Traffic Analysis—Future Beckwith Avenue,” included in Appendix I.

Freeway Mainline Segments Consistent with Caltrans traffic study guidelines, the freeway mainline analysis locations includes those freeway segments where the project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak-hour trips. The study area freeway mainline analysis locations include a total of 56 segments, consisting of 34 I-10 Freeway mainline segments, and 22 SR-60 segments as shown on Table 3.16-2. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak-hour trips west of the I-215 Freeway on either the I-10 or SR-60 freeways, or east of the SR-60 and I-10 Freeway interchange, these segments are not required to be included within this analysis by Caltrans. (See the April 18, 2017 Supplemental Expanded Freeway Segment Analysis, included in this RDEIR as Appendix I.3.)

3.16-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx Exhibit 3.16-1 TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING VALLEY LP TSG CHERRY RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IMPACT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL RECIRCULATED Existing and Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls Through Lanes and Existing and Number of

30 34260005 • 05/2017 | 3.16-1_existing_number_through_lanes_intersect_controls.cdr Source: Urban Crosswords, November 2017. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-2: Freeway Mainline Analysis Locations

ID Freeway Direction Segment 1 I-10 Westbound I-215 Freeway to Waterman Ave. 2 I-10 Westbound Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 3 I-10 Westbound Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 4 I-10 Westbound Mountain View Ave. to California St. 5 I-10 Westbound California St. to Alabama St. 6 I-10 Westbound Alabama St. to Orange St. 7 I-10 Westbound Orange St. Cypress Ave. 8 I-10 Westbound Cypress Ave. to Ford St. 9 I-10 Westbound Ford St. to Wabash Ave. 10 I-10 Westbound Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. 11 I-10 Westbound Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 12 I-10 Westbound Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 13 I-10 Westbound W. County Line Rd. to Calimesa Blvd. 14 I-10 Westbound Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 15 I-10 Westbound Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. 16 I-10 Westbound Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy. 17 I-10 Westbound Oak Valley Pkwy. to SR-60 Freeway 18 I-10 Eastbound I-215 Freeway to Waterman Ave. 19 I-10 Eastbound Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 20 I-10 Eastbound Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 21 I-10 Eastbound Mountain View Ave. to California St. 22 I-10 Eastbound California St. to Alabama St. 23 I-10 Eastbound Alabama St. Orange St. 24 I-10 Eastbound Orange St. to Cypress Ave. 25 I-10 Eastbound Cypress Ave. to Ford St. 26 I-10 Eastbound Ford St. Wabash Ave. 27 I-10 Eastbound Wabash Ave. Yucaipa Blvd. 28 I-10 Eastbound Yucaipa Blvd. Live Oak Canyon Rd. 29 I-10 Eastbound Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 30 I-10 Eastbound W. County Line Rd. to Calimesa Blvd. 31 I-10 Eastbound Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 32 I-10 Eastbound Singleton Rd. Cherry Valley Blvd.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Table 3.16-2 (cont.): Freeway Mainline Analysis Locations

ID Freeway Direction Segment 33 I-10 Eastbound Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy. 34 I-10 Eastbound Oak Valley Pkwy. to SR-60 Freeway 35 SR-60 Westbound I-215 Freeway to Day St. 36 SR-60 Westbound Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. 37 SR-60 Westbound Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. to Heacock St. 38 SR-60 Westbound Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. 39 SR-60 Westbound Perris Blvd. to Nason St. 40 SR-60 Westbound Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. 41 SR-60 Westbound Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. 42 SR-60 Westbound Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. 43 SR-60 Westbound Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. 44 SR-60 Westbound Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. 45 SR-60 Westbound Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 Freeway 46 SR-60 Eastbound I-215 Freeway to Day St. 47 SR-60 Eastbound Day St. Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. 48 SR-60 Eastbound Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. to Heacock St. 49 SR-60 Eastbound Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. 50 SR-60 Eastbound Perris Blvd. to Nason St. 51 SR-60 Eastbound Nason St. Moreno Beach Dr. 52 SR-60 Eastbound Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. 53 SR-60 Eastbound Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. 54 SR-60 Eastbound Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. 55 SR-60 Eastbound Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. 56 SR-60 Eastbound Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 Freeway

Freeway Merge/Diverge Ramp Junctions The study area freeway merge/diverge ramp junction analysis locations include four (4) I-10 Freeway ramp junctions at Cherry Valley Boulevard for both eastbound and westbound directions of flow as shown on Table 3.16-3.

3.16-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-3: Freeway Merge/Diverge Ramp Junction Analysis Locations

ID Freeway Merge/Diverge Ramp Junctions 1 I-10 Freeway–eastbound, off-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard (Diverge) 2 I-10 Freeway–eastbound, on-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard (Merge) 3 I-10 Freeway–westbound, on-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard (Merge) 4 I-10 Freeway–westbound, off-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard (Diverge) Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

Existing Study Area Operations Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term “level of service” (LOS). LOS is described in further detail in the methodology discussion below. Existing average daily traffic (ADT), Existing AM Peak Hour intersection volumes, and Existing PM Peak Hour intersection volumes are provided in Exhibit 3.16-2, Exhibit 3.16-3, and Exhibit 3.16-4.

Existing Intersection Operations Existing (2017) baseline peak-hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented later in this section under the Methodology heading. The intersection operations analysis results provided on Table 3.16-4 shows that the following intersection analysis locations currently experience unacceptable conditions.

• I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard–LOS F PM Peak Hour only. • I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard–LOS F AM and PM Peak Hour.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-4: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2017) Conditions

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,4 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1A Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.4 15.0 C B 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.4 >100 C F 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100 51.4 F F 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 17.0 19.8 C C 4 Driveway 1/Cherry Valley Boulevard Future Intersection Location 5 Street 2/Cherry Valley Boulevard Future Intersection Location 6 Driveway 3/Cherry Valley Boulevard Future Intersection Location 7 Union Street (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.2 14.3 B B 8 Nancy Avenue (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 25.9 10.4 D B 9 Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard TS 1 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 0 34.1 28.9 C C Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d = de facto Right Turn Lane 2 Based on the 2010 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. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All-Way Stop CSS = Cross-street Stop 4 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-8 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx Source: Urban Crossroads, November 2017. Exhibit 3.16-2 Existing (2017) Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

34260005 • 03/2017 | 3.16-2_existing_2014_ADT.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Urban Crossroads, November 2017. Exhibit 3.16-3 Existing (2017) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

34260005 • 03/2017 | 3.16-3_existing_2014_AM_PH_IV.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Urban Crossroads, November 2017 Exhibit 3.16-4 Existing (2017) PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

34260005 • 03/2017 | 3.16-4_existing_2012_PM_PH_IV.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Existing Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Traffic signal warrants for existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak-hour intersection turning volumes. The methodology used to determine whether a traffic signal is warranted is discussed below (see Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology heading, below). For existing (2017) traffic conditions, the following intersections currently appear to warrant traffic signals:

1. I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (under Caltrans jurisdiction) 8. Nancy Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Riverside County jurisdiction)

Existing Freeway Segment Operations The I-10 Freeway and SR-60 Freeway segments analyzed were found to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better during peak hours), with the exception of the following 19 segments:

• ID # 2: I-10 Westbound, Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave., LOS E, AM Peak Hour only • ID # 4: Mountain View Ave. to California St., LOS E, AM Peak Hour only • ID# 6: I-10 Westbound, Alabama St. to Orange St., LOS E, AM Peak Hour only • ID #8: I-10 Westbound, Cypress Ave. to Ford St., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #9: I-10 Westbound, Ford St. to Wabash Ave., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #10: I-10 Westbound, Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #12: I-10 Westbound, Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd, LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #25: I-10 Eastbound, Cypress Ave. to Ford St., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #26: I-10 Eastbound, Ford St. to Wabash Ave., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #27: I-10 Eastbound, Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #28: I-10 Eastbound, Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #38: SR-60 Westbound, Heacock St. to Perris Blvd., LOS F both Peak Hours • ID #42: SR-60 Westbound, Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St, LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #43: SR-60 Westbound, Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #45: SR-60 Westbound, Jack Rabbit Trail to I-10, LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #53: SR-60 Eastbound, Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #54: SR-60 Eastbound, Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd., LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #55: SR-60 Eastbound, Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Trail, LOS E, PM Peak Hour only • ID #56: SR-60 Eastbound, Jack Rabbit Trail to I-10, LOS E, PM Peak Hour only

Existing Conditions Freeway Merge/Diverge Analysis Ramp merge and diverge operations were also evaluated for existing (2017) conditions and the results of this analysis are presented in the table below. As shown in Table 3.16-5, the I-10 Freeway ramp merge and diverge areas at Cherry Valley Boulevard currently operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours under existing (2017) traffic conditions.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Table 3.16-5: Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge Analysis for Existing (2017) Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I-10 Direction Mainline Segment Lanes1 Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Off-ramp Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 17.5 B 22.9 C EB On-ramp Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 17.5 B 23.3 C Off-ramp Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 25.3 C 19.5 B WB On-ramp Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 19.8 B 18.1 B Notes: 1 Number of lanes is in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. No future improvements are currently planned. 2 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

Methodology 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.

LOS Criteria County of Riverside General Plan Policy C 2.1 states that the target of LOS C shall apply to all development proposals in any area of the Riverside County not located within the boundaries of an Area Plan; and that LOS D shall apply to all development proposals located within any of certain enumerated Area Plans, including the Pass Area Plan (in which the project is located). LOS E may be allowed in designated Community Centers to the extent that it would support transit-oriented development and walkable communities.

The intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley Boulevard is partially within the boundaries of the City of Calimesa. The City of Calimesa General Plan states that arterial roads should carry both local and through traffic and be improved to maintain a Level of Service “C” or better. Thus, LOS C has been considered acceptable at any intersection within the City of Calimesa. LOS D is considered to be the limit of acceptable traffic operations during the peak hour at freeway ramp intersections, basic freeway segments and merge/diverge ramp junctions maintained by Caltrans. Table 3.16-6 shows the LOS criteria for each of the study area intersections.

3.16-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-6: Intersection Level of Service Criteria

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction Acceptable LOS 1A Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard Calimesa C 1 I-10 Freeway EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Caltrans D 2 I-10 Freeway WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Caltrans D Riverside County, City 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard C of Calimesa 4 Driveway 1/Cherry Valley Boulevard (right-in/right-out) Riverside County D 5 Street 2/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County D 6 Driveway 3/Cherry Valley Boulevard (right-in/right-out) Riverside County D 7 Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County D 8 Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County D 9 Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County D 10 Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard Riverside County D Notes: LOS = Level of Service EB = eastbound WB = westbound Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

Traffic Analysis Methodology 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) (Transportation Research Board 2010) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak-hour conditions using traffic count data collected in December 2016, which took place when school was in session and under typical traffic conditions (i.e., no construction detours in effect). The following peak hours were selected for analysis:

• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.)

Signalized Intersections The County of Riverside requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in Chapter 16 of the HCM. 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 3.16-7.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Table 3.16-7: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds

Level of Average Control Service Description Delay (Seconds) Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or A 0 to 10.00 short cycle length. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle B 10.01 to 20.00 lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer C 20.01 to 35.00 cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, D long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle 35.01 to 55.00 failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.01 to 80.00 This is considered the limit of acceptable delay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over F 80.01 and up saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Notes: V/C = volume to capacity ratio Source: HCM 2010, Chapter 18.

Unsignalized Intersections The County of Riverside requires unsignalized intersection operation analysis based on the methodology provided in Chapters 19, 20, and 32 of the HCM 2010. Intersection LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle, as shown in Table 3.16-8.

Table 3.16-8: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds

Average Control per Vehicle Level of Service Description (seconds) A Little or no delays 0 to 10.00 B Short traffic delays 10.01 to 15.00 C Average traffic delays 15.01 to 25.00 D Long traffic delays 25.01 to 35.00 E Very long traffic delays 35.01 to 50.00 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity > 50.00 F exceeded Source: HCM 2010, Chapters 19 and 20.

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

3.16-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole.

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 ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This Traffic Study uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement, for all study area intersections.

Future unsignalized intersections have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized study area intersections for each analysis scenario:

1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Calimesa) 1. I-10 Freeway Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Caltrans) 2. I-10 Freeway Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Caltrans) 3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Calimesa) 7. Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Riverside County) 8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Riverside County) 10. Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Riverside County)2

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. In addition, signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with level of service. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above LOS C, or may operate below LOS C and not meet a signal warrant.

Freeway Mainline Segment Analysis The freeway system in the study area has been broken into segments defined by the freeway-to- arterial interchange locations. The freeway segments have been evaluated in the Traffic Study, based upon peak-hour directional volumes. The freeway segment analysis is based on the methodology described in Chapter 23 of the HCM and performed using HCS+ software. The performance measure preferred by Caltrans to calculate LOS is density. Density is expressed in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. Table 3.16-9 illustrates the freeway segment LOS thresholds for each density range used for this analysis.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-19 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Table 3.16-9: Freeway Mainline LOS Thresholds

Level of Density Range Service Description (pc/mi/ln)1 Free-flow operations in which vehicles are relatively unimpeded in their ability to 0.0–11.0 A maneuver within the traffic stream. Effects of incidents are easily absorbed. Relative free-flow operations in which vehicle maneuvers within the traffic stream 11.1–18.0 B are slightly restricted. Effects of minor incidents are easily absorbed. Travel is still at relative free-flow speeds, but freedom to maneuver within the traffic 18.1–26.0 stream is noticeably restricted. Minor incidents may be absorbed, but local C deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues begin to form behind significant blockages. Speeds begin to decline slightly and flows and densities begin to increase more quickly. 26.1–35.0 D Freedom to maneuver is noticeably limited. Minor incidents can be expected to create queuing as the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. Operation at capacity. Vehicles are closely spaced with little room to maneuver. 35.1–45.0 Any disruption in the traffic stream can establish a disruption wave that propagates E throughout the upstream traffic flow. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious disruption in traffic flow and extensive queuing. F Breakdown in vehicle flow. >45.0 Note: 1 pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: HCM 2010, Chapter 11.

Freeway Merge/Diverge Ramp Junction Analysis The freeway system in the study area has been broken into segments defined by freeway-to-arterial interchange locations resulting in four (4) existing on- and off-ramp locations. Although the HCM indicates the influence area for a merge/diverge junction is 1,500 feet, the analysis presented in the Traffic Study has been performed at all ramp locations with respect to the nearest on- or off- ramp at each interchange in an effort to be consistent with Caltrans guidance.

The merge/diverge analysis is based on the HCM 2010 Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments analysis method, and performed using HCS2010 software. Table 3.16-10 presents the merge/diverge area level of service thresholds for each density range used for this analysis.

Table 3.16-10: Freeway Merge/Diverge Ramp Junction LOS Thresholds

Level of Service Density Range (pc/mi/ln)1 A ≤10.0 B 10.0–20.0 C 20.0–28.0 D 28.0–35.0

3.16-20 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-10 (cont.): Freeway Merge/Diverge Ramp Junction LOS Thresholds

Level of Service Density Range (pc/mi/ln)1 E >35.0 F Demand Exceeds Capacity Note: 1 pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: HCM 2010, Chapter 13.

Project Trip Generation In order to estimate the traffic characteristics of the project, trip-generation statistics published in the most recent release of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (9th Edition 2012) manual for the proposed land use (ITE Land Use Code 152—High-Cube Warehousing) were used. This particular rate was selected based on the project’s design and operating characteristics. Trip generation rates for the project are shown in Table 3.16-11 below. Refinements to these raw trip generation estimates have been made to provide a more detailed breakdown of trips by vehicle mix. The project trip generation summary is based on total building area of approximately 1,860,760 square feet, while the project will actually only consist of approximately 1,823,760 square feet; thus, the Traffic Study slightly overestimates the additional traffic that will be attributable to the project, resulting in a more conservative analysis.

In addition, Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) factors have been applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3-axles, 4+-axles). PCE factors have been used due to the expected heavy truck component for the project uses. PCE factors allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. PCE factors are applied to large truck types such as large 2- axles, 3-axles, 4+-axles. A PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to large 2-axle trucks, a factor of 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and a factor of 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks. These PCE factors are consistent with the values recommended by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and are accepted factors by the County of Riverside. Exhibit 3.16-5 shows the project’s passenger car trip distribution, and Exhibit 3.16-6 shows the project’s truck trip distribution.

Projected daily and peak-hour trip generation by vehicle type is illustrated in Table 3.16-11. The project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 3,126 ADT (4,905 PCE) net trip-ends per day on a typical weekday, with approximately 205 (288 PCE) net AM peak-hour trips, and 223 (335 PCE) net PM peak-hour trips.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Table 3.16-11: Project Trip Generation Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE LU Land Use1 Units3 Code Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily High-Cube TSF 152 0.076 0.034 0.110 0.037 0.083 0.120 1.680 Warehouse2 Passenger Cars 0.055 0.025 0.080 0.025 0.055 0.080 1.040 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.141 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.113 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE =3.0) 0.012 0.006 0.018 0.007 0.017 0.024 0.386 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Units3 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Building 1 737,480 TSF — — — — — — — Passenger Cars: 41 18 59 18 41 59 767 Truck Trips: 15 7 22 9 20 29 472 2-axle: 3 2 5 2 4 6 104 3-axle: 3 1 4 2 4 5 84 4+-axle: 9 4 13 6 12 18 285 Net Truck Trips2 15 7 22 9 20 29 472 Building 1 Subtotal 56 25 81 27 61 88 1,239 Building 2 1,123,280 TSF — — — — — — — Passenger Cars: 62 28 90 28 62 90 1,168 Truck Trips: 23 10 34 14 31 45 719 2-axle: 5 2 7 3 7 10 158 3-axle: 4 2 6 2 5 8 127 4+-axle: 14 6 20 8 19 27 434 Net Truck Trips 2 23 10 34 14 31 45 719 Building 2 Subtotal 85 38 124 42 93 135 1,887 San Gorgonio Crossing Passenger Cars 103 46 149 46 103 149 1,935 San Gorgonio Crossing Net Truck Trips4 39 17 56 23 51 74 1,191 San Gorgonio Crossing 141 64 205 69 154 223 3,126 Notes: 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012). 2 Vehicle Mix Source: Total truck percentage source from ITE Trip Generation Manual. Truck mix (by axle type) source from SCAQMD. AM Peak hour = 72.7% passenger cars, 6.01% 2-Axle trucks, 4.83% 3-Axle trucks, 16.46% 4-Axle trucks. PM Peak hour = 66.7% passenger cars, 7.33% 2-Axle trucks, 5.89% 3-Axle trucks, 20.08% 4-Axle trucks. 3 TSF = thousand square feet 4 TOTAL TRIPS = Passenger Cars + Net Truck Trips Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

3.16-22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx Source: Urban Crossroads, November 2014. Exhibit 3.16-5 Project (Passenger Car) Trip Distribution

34260005 • 03/2017 | 3.16-5_project_passenger_car_trip_dist.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Source: Urban Crossroads, November 2015. Exhibit 3.16-6 Project (Truck) Trip Distribution

34260005 • 03/2017 | 3.16-6_project_truck_trip_dist.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes that will be used by project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the project traffic would distribute. The project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the project site for both passenger cars and truck traffic. Each of these distribution patterns was reviewed and approved by the County of Riverside as part of the traffic study scoping process (see Traffic Study Appendix 1.1). Both the passenger car and truck trip distribution patterns take into consideration the access restrictions at project Driveways 1 and 3.

3.16.2 - Regulatory Setting State Regulations The State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) performance standards for all State highway facilities are the transition between LOS C and D. If a State highway facility operates below the transition between LOS C and D, the Caltrans threshold is to maintain the lower level of service. Thus, LOS “D” is considered to be the limit of acceptable traffic operations during the peak hour at freeway ramp intersections, basic freeway segments and merge/diverge ramp junctions maintained by Caltrans.

Senate Bill (SB) 743: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis SB 743 requires OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (New Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)). Measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Draft Guidelines and a Technical Advisory for complying with the new requirements under SB 743 are underway and have undergone several rounds of public comment. OPR issued a “Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” on January 20, 2016. This proposal states that analysis of vehicle miles traveled will be voluntary for 2 years following adoption of the new Guidelines. During that time, OPR will monitor implementation and may evaluate whether any updates to the Guidelines or Technical Advisory are needed.

Because guidance for complying with SB 743 has not yet been finalized and a vehicle miles traveled analysis is not required under CEQA at this point in time, this RDEIR’s transportation analysis utilizes the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds and the County of Riverside CEQA thresholds to analyze the significance of the project’s traffic impacts.

Regional Regulations Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program is administered by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) based upon a regional Nexus Study completed in early 2003 and

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-27 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 updated in 2009 to address major changes in right of way acquisition and improvement cost factors. TUMF identifies a network of backbone and local roadways that are needed to accommodate growth through 2040. This regional program was put into place to ensure that all new development pays its “fair share” for regional facilities and that funding is in place for construction of facilities needed to maintain the requisite level of service and that are critical to mobility in the region. TUMF is a truly regional mitigation fee program, and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County except the City of Beaumont (where a locally implanted program duplicates the regional program).

TUMF fees are imposed on new residential, industrial, and commercial development through application of the TUMF fee ordinance, and fees are collected at the building or occupancy permit stage.

The current fee for industrial use is $1.73 per square foot, with an adjustment to the baseline square footage for high-cube logistics warehouse buildings. In addition, inflation adjustments are considered on an annual basis. In this way, TUMF fees are adjusted on a regular basis to ensure that the development impact fees collected keep pace with construction and labor costs, etc.

After the TUMF fees are collected, they are placed in a separate interest bearing account pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. The TUMF fees go towards funding specific local and regional projects in the arterial system. Local area projects receive about 48.7 percent of all funds. These local funds are programmed into five localized zones, and fund the construction of eligible localized projects that are prioritized by the affected local jurisdictions within each zone.

The facilities planned through the TUMF program are constructed prior to the time at which the identified facility is expected to deteriorate to an inadequate level of service. WRCOG has a successful record of funding and overseeing the construction of improvements funded through the TUMF program. In total, the TUMF program is anticipated to generate nearly $5 billion in transportation projects for Western Riverside County.

Local Regulations Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program The study area is located within the County’s San Gorgonio Pass Area, and therefore will be subject to County of Riverside Development Impact Fees (DIF), which are in addition to the TUMF fees and only address facilities within county unincorporated areas. The DIF program consists of two separate transportation components: the Roads, Bridges, and Major Improvements component, and the Traffic Signals component.

Measure “A” Funds In 1988, the voters of Riverside County approved Measure “A,” a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. Between 1989 and 2009, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has spent over $1 billion raised by Measure “A” on identified roadway and transportation improvements. Funds are allocated to each of three districts: Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde area, in proportion to the amount of sales tax generated within each sub-region. In 2002, Measure “A” was extended by Riverside County voters

3.16-28 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic and will continue to fund numerous transportation improvements through the year 2039. Programs like Measure “A” have been adopted in both San Bernardino and Orange Counties.

While Measure “A” is a self-executing sales tax administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (as opposed to a fee mitigation program imposed upon individual projects) Measure “A” is relevant here because the funds raised through Measure “A” have funded, and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in Riverside County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission has successfully implemented numerous projects that have been funded by Measure “A,” and Measure “A” will continue to fund additional projects in the future.

Fair Share Contribution Project mitigation 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. The Traffic Study provides a list of intersection improvements not included in impact fee programs, which are referred to as “Non-Program Improvements.”

When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to a proposed development project, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution, or require the development project to construct the improvements, subject to a fee credit or reimbursement. A project’s fair share contribution at an off-site study area intersection is determined based on the ratio of project traffic to new (future) traffic, and new traffic is total future traffic minus existing baseline traffic.

Local Regulations Riverside County—Circulation According to the County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element, the County of Riverside contains various transportation options, including automobile, rail and air transportation, a transit oasis system, bicycling, hiking, and walking, which serve as vital inter- and intra-regional linkages for the movement of people and goods. Rapid economic and residential growth both within and outside of the County has far outpaced the ability to provide adequate transportation facilities, resulting in increased roadway congestion and decreased air quality. Future land use arrangements and supporting multi-modal transportation systems will allow employment, service and housing opportunities in close proximity to each other, decrease the need to use the automobile for every trip, reduce roadway congestion, and improve the opportunity to use transportation alternatives safely and effectively. The following policies address land use issues related to circulation. A more detailed discussion and policy direction related to circulation can be found in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

• C 1.4: Utilize existing infrastructure and utilities to the maximum extent practicable and provide for the logical, timely, and economically efficient extension of infrastructure and services. • C 2.2: Require that new development prepare a traffic impact analysis as warranted by the Riverside County Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines or as approved by the Director of Transportation. Apply level of service targets to new development per the Riverside County Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines to evaluate traffic impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures for new development. • C 2.3: Traffic studies prepared for development entitlements (tracts, public use permits, conditional use permits, etc.) shall identify project related traffic impacts and determine the

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

significance of such impacts in compliance with CEQA and the Riverside County Congestion Management Program Requirements. • C 2.4: The direct project related traffic impacts of new development proposals shall be mitigated via conditions of approval requiring the construction of any improvements identified as necessary to meet level of service targets. • C 2.5: The cumulative and indirect traffic impacts of development may be mitigated through the payment of various impact mitigation fees such as County of Riverside Development Impact Fees, Road and Bridge Benefit District Fees, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees to the extent that these programs provide funding for the improvement of facilities impacted by development. • C 3.8: Restrict heavy-duty truck through-traffic in residential and community center areas and plan land uses so that trucks do not need to traverse these areas. • C 3.9: Design off-street loading facilities for all new commercial and industrial developments so that they do not face surrounding roadways or residential neighborhoods. Truck backing and maneuvering to access loading areas shall not be permitted on the public road system, except when specifically permitted by the Transportation Department. • C 21.4: Construct and improve traffic signals at appropriate intersections. Whenever possible, traffic signals should be spaced and operated as part of coordinated systems to optimize traffic operation and reduce congestion. • C 21.6: Install special turning lanes whenever necessary to relieve congestion and improve safety. • LU 13.1: Provide land use arrangements that reduce reliance on the automobile and improve opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use in order to minimize congestion and air pollution. • LU 13.2: Locate employment and service uses in areas that are easily accessible to existing or planned transportation facilities. • LU 13.3: Locate transit stations in community centers and at places of public, employment, entertainment, recreation, and residential concentrations. • LU 13.4: Incorporate safe and direct multi-modal linkages in the design and development of projects, as appropriate. • LU 13.5: Allow traffic-calming elements, such as narrow streets, curb bulbs, textured paving, and landscaping, where appropriate. • LU 13.6: Require that adequate and accessible circulation facilities exist to meet the demands of a proposed land use. • LU 13.7: Review projects for consistency with the County’s Transportation Demand Ordinance.

The Pass Area Plan Vehicular Circulation System According to the Pass Area Plan, the vehicular circulation system in the Pass is anchored by I-10, State Route 60 (SR-60), and SR-79. I-10 connects residents of the Pass with the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley. SR-60, which provides access to Moreno Valley and the City of Riverside, joins I-10 in Beaumont. SR-79, a designated Scenic Highway, traverses Lambs Canyon and connects to Temecula to the south. A system of major and secondary arterials and collector roads connect with these primary circulation routes to serve local uses.

3.16-30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Trails and Bikeway System According to the Pass Area Plan, the County of Riverside contains bicycle, pedestrian, and multi- purpose trails that traverse urban, rural, and natural areas that accommodate hikers, bicyclists, equestrian users, and others as an integral part of the County’s circulation system. These multi-use trails connect the unique communities and activity centers throughout the County, and are an effective alternate mode of transportation. Additionally, the trail system serves as a community amenity by providing recreation and leisure opportunities.

3.16.3 - Thresholds of Significance The County of Riverside utilizes Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as its thresholds of significance for CEQA analysis. Further, the County provides a number of additional environmental considerations as part of the County’s Environmental Assessment Checklist.

Would the project:

a) Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? b) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or altered maintenance of roads? c) Cause an effect upon circulation during the project’s construction? d) Result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? e) Impact bike trails?

According to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts to transportation and traffic are significant, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bikeways or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-31 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts are created as a result of a combination of the project, together with other future developments, which contribute to the overall traffic impacts, and may require additional improvements to maintain acceptable LOS with or without the project. 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 or is outside the control of the lead agency, a temporary unmitigated cumulative impact may occur until the needed improvement is fully funded and constructed.

In the event that an intersection is operating at, or is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS, the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines have defined a series of steps to be completed to determine a project’s contribution to the deficiency of intersections. The steps are as follows:

1. Determine the mitigation measures necessary to achieve an acceptable service level. 2. Calculate the project’s share of future peak-hour traffic volume projections. 3. Estimate the cost to implement recommended mitigation measures. 4. Calculate the project’s fair-share contribution to mitigate the project’s traffic impacts.

3.16.4 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the project, and provides mitigation measures where necessary.

Traffic Increase

Impact TRAN-1: The project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Impact Analysis Traffic analysis was performed for the following scenarios:

• Existing (2017) Conditions, as described in Section 3.16.1, Existing Conditions • Existing plus Project • Existing Plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2018) Conditions • Existing Plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2018) Conditions • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project • Horizon Year (2040) With Project

Near-term (2022) conditions and Near-term (2022) conditions plus traffic from the proposed Sunny- Cal development consisting of 497 single-family detached residential dwellings have also been included within the San Gorgonio Crossing Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated April 18, 2017. These

3.16-32 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic two additional scenarios were included at the direction of Riverside County staff, and are intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed project mitigation that would include construction of interim improvements at both the I-10 Freeway at Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange ramps and the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley.

Near-term (2022) conditions included the following traffic volumes:

• Existing (2017) traffic • Growth of 10 percent to account for five years of ambient growth • Project traffic

Near-term (2022) plus Sunny-Cal conditions included the following traffic volumes:

• Existing (2017) traffic • Growth of 10 percent to account for five years of ambient growth • Project traffic • Sunny-Cal Residential traffic

Existing Plus Project Traffic Volume Forecasts This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Project conditions and the resulting intersection and freeway mainline operations. This scenario is presented for informational purposes only as the County of Riverside’s currently adopted traffic study guidelines requires project impacts to be identified through the analysis of Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project traffic conditions.

This scenario includes existing (2017) traffic volumes plus project traffic. Exhibit 5-1 of the Traffic Study shows the ADT volumes that can be expected for Existing plus Project traffic conditions. Existing plus Project AM and PM peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-2 and 5-3 of the Traffic Study, respectively.

Intersection Operation Analysis The Traffic Study evaluated the Existing plus Project peak-hour traffic operations for the study area intersections. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 3.16-12. As shown within Table 3.16-12, there are no additional intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Existing plus Project traffic conditions, beyond those intersections which already operate at an unacceptable LOS under existing (2017) conditions (Section 3.16.1, Existing Conditions).

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-33 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-12: Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,4 Delay2,4 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) LOS (secs.) LOS Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Roberts Rd/Cherry Valley 1A AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.4 15.0 C B 24.4 15.0 C B Boulevard I-10 EB Ramps/ 1 CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.4 >100.0 C F >100.0 >100.0 F F Cherry Valley Boulevard I-10 WB Ramps/ 2 CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100 51.4 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Cherry Valley Boulevard Calimesa Boulevard/ 3 CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 17.0 19.8 C C 24.1 27.6 C D Cherry Valley Boulevard Driveway 1/ 4 CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable 12.1 11.2 B B Cherry Valley Boulevard Street 2/ 5 TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable 27.1 19.7 C B Cherry Valley Boulevard Driveway 3/ 6 CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable 11.4 9.7 B A Cherry Valley Boulevard Union St. (NS)/ 7 CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.2 14.3 B B 15.1 15.0 C C Cherry Valley Boulevard Nancy Avenue (NS)/ 8 AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 25.9 10.4 D B 27.3 10.7 D B Cherry Valley Boulevard Beaumont Avenue/ 9 TS 1 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 0 34.1 28.9 C C 34.9 30.4 C C Cherry Valley Boulevard

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-34 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-12 (cont.): Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,4 Delay2,4 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) LOS (secs.) LOS Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d = de facto Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2000 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. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All-Way Stop CSS = Cross-street Stop BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 4 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-35 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Existing Plus Project Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Traffic signal warrants for Existing plus Project traffic conditions are based on Existing plus Project ADT volumes. For Existing plus Project conditions, the following intersections appear to warrant a traffic signal, in addition to those intersections identified in Section 3.16.1, Existing Conditions:

2. I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (Jurisdiction: Caltrans)

Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Mainline segment analysis results for the AM and PM peak hours are summarized on Table 3.16-13. As shown on Table 3.16-13, the freeway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the peak hours for Existing plus Project traffic conditions, with the exception of the 19 segments previously identified as deficient under Existing Conditions and the following six freeway segments, which will each operate at LOS “E” during the PM Peak Hour:

• ID # 39: SR-60 Westbound, Perris Blvd. to Nason St. • ID # 40: SR-60 Westbound, Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. • ID # 41: SR-60 Westbound, Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. • ID # 50: SR-60 Eastbound, Perris Blvd. to Nason St. • ID # 51: SR-60 Eastbound, Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. • ID# 52: SR-60 Eastbound, Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd.

3.16-36 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-13: Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 3,972 16.3 B 3,979 16.3 B I-215 to Waterman Ave. 4 PM 3,867 15.8 B 3,887 15.9 B AM 7,871 39.5 E 7,878 39.6 E Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 4 PM 6,535 29.3 D 6,555 29.5 D AM 6,936 32.1 D 6,943 32.2 D Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 4 PM 5,547 23.6 C 5,567 23.7 C AM 8,017 41.4 E 8,024 41.5 E Mountain View Ave. to California St. 4 PM 5,717 24.5 C 5,737 24.6 C AM 6,397 21.3 C 6,404 21.4 C California St. to Alabama St. 5 PM 3,486 11.5 B 3,506 11.5 B AM 8,137 42.8 E 8,144 42.8 E Alabama St. to Orange St. 4 PM 5,331 22.4 C 5,351 22.4 C AM 6,096 26.4 D 6,105 26.5 D Orange St. to Cypress Ave. 4 Westbound Westbound

I-10 Freeway PM 3,160 12.9 B 3,188 13.0 B AM 6,495 28.9 D 6,504 28.9 D Cypress Ave. to Ford St. 4 PM 7,405 35.0 E 7,433 35.3 E AM 6,495 28.9 D 6,504 28.9 D Ford St. to Wabash Ave. 4 PM 7,405 35.0 E 7,433 35.3 E AM 6,495 29.1 D 6,504 29.1 D Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. 4 PM 7,405 36.8 E 7,433 37.1 E AM 4,811 20.3 C 4,820 20.4 C Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 4 PM 3,427 14.4 B 3,455 14.5 B AM 4,872 29.7 D 4,888 29.8 D Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 3 PM 5,554 36.8 E 5,598 37.4 E

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-37 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-13 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 4,168 24.0 C 4,191 24.2 C W. County Line Rd. to Calimesa Blvd. 3 PM 3,175 17.5 B 3,234 17.8 B AM 3,819 21.7 C 3,847 21.8 C Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 3 PM 3,021 16.7 B 3,090 17.0 B AM 3,356 18.5 C 4,169 23.6 C Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. 3 PM 2,997 16.5 B 3,071 16.9 B AM 3,027 16.7 B 3,435 19.0 C Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy 3 PM 2,726 15.0 B 3,272 18.1 C AM 2,481 13.7 B 2,519 13.9 B Oak Valley Pkwy to SR-60 3 PM 2,543 14.0 B 2,585 14.2 B AM 4,809 15.8 B 4,825 15.8 B I-215 to Waterman Ave. 5 PM 4,559 14.9 B 4,568 15.0 B AM 5,790 24.6 C 5,806 24.7 C Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 4 PM 5,886 25.1 C 5,895 25.1 C AM 6,431 28.7 D 6,447 28.8 D Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 4 PM 7,043 32.9 D 7,052 33.0 D AM 8,066 42.0 E 8,082 42.1 E Mountain View Ave. to California St. 4 PM 5,202 21.8 C 5,211 21.9 C Eastbound Eastbound

I-10 Freeway AM 3,634 15.0 B 3,650 15.0 B California St. to Alabama St. 4 PM 5,657 24.0 C 5,666 24.1 C AM 3,778 15.5 B 3,794 15.6 B Alabama St. to Orange St. 4 PM 6,134 26.7 D 6,143 26.7 D AM 6,096 26.4 D 6,117 26.6 D Orange St. to Cypress Ave. 4 PM 4,021 16.4 B 4,034 16.4 B

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-38 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-13 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 6,495 28.9 D 6,516 29.0 D Cypress Ave. Ford St. 4 PM 7,405 35.0 E 7,418 35.1 E AM 6,495 28.9 D 6,516 29.0 D Ford St. to Wabash Ave. 4 PM 7,405 35.0 E 7,418 35.1 E AM 6,495 29.1 D 6,516 29.2 D Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. 4 PM 7,405 35.9 E 7,418 36.0 E AM 6,495 29.7 D 6,516 29.8 D Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 4 PM 7,405 35.9 E 7,418 36.0 E AM 4,594 27.3 D 4,631 27.6 D Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 3 PM 2,229 12.3 B 2,249 12.4 B AM 2,404 13.4 B 2,456 13.7 B W. County Line Rd. to Calimesa Blvd. 3 PM 3,832 21.4 C 3,858 21.6 C AM 2,420 13.5 B 2,483 13.9 B Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 3 PM 3,617 20.1 C 3,648 20.3 C AM 2,614 14.4 B 2,682 14.8 B Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. 3 PM 3,375 18.6 C 3,408 18.8 C AM 2,666 14.7 B 2,690 14.8 B Cherry Valley Blvd. Oak Valley Pkwy 3 PM 3,794 21.2 C 2,651 14.6 B AM 2,515 13.9 B 2,532 14.0 B Oak Valley Pkwy to SR-60 3 PM 2,644 14.6 B 2,703 14.9 B

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-39 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-13 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 2,911 24.6 C 2,916 24.7 C I-215 to Day St. 2 PM 2,921 24.7 C 2,931 24.8 C AM 3,087 26.6 D 3,092 26.6 D Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. 2 PM 3,360 29.9 D 3,375 30.1 D AM 1,993 16.2 B 1,998 16.3 B Frederick St. to Heacock St. 2 PM 2,235 18.2 C 2,250 18.4 C AM 4,709 60.6 F 4,714 60.8 Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. 2 FF PM 4,841 66.3 F 4,856 67.0 AM 3,247 28.5 D 3,252 28.6 D Perris Blvd. to Nason St. 2 PM 3,701 35.0 D 3,716 35.3 E AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,252 29.7 D Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. 2 PM 3,701 35.0 D 3,716 35.3 E Westbound Westbound

SR-60 Freeway Freeway SR-60 AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,252 29.7 D Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. 2 PM 3,701 35.0 D 3,716 35.3 E AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,252 29.7 D Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. 2 PM 3,701 36.8 E 3,716 37.1 E AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,252 29.7 D Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. 2 PM 3,701 36.8 E 3,716 37.1 E AM 1,234 10.3 A 1,244 10.4 A Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. 2 PM 1,738 14.6 B 1,764 14.8 B AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,257 29.8 D Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 2 PM 3,701 36.8 E 3,727 37.3 E

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-40 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-13 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 3,650 20.0 C 3,662 20.0 C I-215 to Day St. 3 PM 4,353 24.5 C 4,360 24.6 C AM 1,667 13.6 B 1,679 13.7 B Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. 2 PM 2,908 24.6 C 2,915 24.6 C AM 2,471 20.3 C 2,483 20.4 C Frederick St. to Heacock St. 2 PM 3,116 26.9 D 3,123 27.0 D AM 449 3.7 A 461 3.8 A Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. 2 PM 1,240 10.1 A 1,247 10.2 A AM 3,247 28.5 D 3,259 28.6 D Perris Blvd. to Nason St. 2 PM 3,701 35.0 D 3,708 35.1 E AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,259 29.8 D Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. 2 PM 3,701 35.0 D 3,708 35.1 E Eastbound Eastbound

SR-60 Freeway Freeway SR-60 AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,259 29.8 D Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. 2 PM 3,701 35.0 D 3,708 35.1 E AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,259 29.8 D Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. 2 PM 3,701 36.8 E 3,708 36.9 E AM 3,247 29.7 D 3,259 29.8 D Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. 2 PM 3,701 36.8 E 3,708 36.9 E AM 3,247 31.1 D 3,269 31.4 D Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. 2 PM 3,701 38.4 E 3,713 38.6 E AM 3,247 31.1 D 3,269 31.4 D Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 2 PM 3,701 38.4 E 3,713 38.6 E Notes: 1 Number of lanes are in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. 2 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Bold = Unacceptable Level of Service

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-41 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Freeway Merge/Diverge Analysis Ramp merge and diverge operations were also evaluated for Existing plus Project conditions, and are presented in Table 3.16-14. As shown in Table 3.16-14, the I-10 Freeway ramp merge and diverge areas were found to operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the peak hours under Existing plus Project traffic conditions.

Table 3.16-14: I-10 Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing (2017) Existing Plus Project

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I-10 Lanes on Direction Ramp or Segment Freeway1 Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Off-Ramp at Cherry Valley 3 17.5 B 22.9 C 18.1 B 23.2 C Boulevard EB On-Ramp at Cherry Valley 3 17.5 B 23.3 C 17.7 B 23.9 C Boulevard On-Ramp at Cherry Valley 3 25.3 C 19.5 B 25.6 C 20.2 C Boulevard WB Off-Ramp at Cherry Valley 3 19.8 B 18.1 B 20.2 C 18.3 C Boulevard Notes: 1 Number of lanes is in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. 2 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

The intersection of Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard is currently operating at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better), and is anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project traffic. However, Calimesa Boulevard is located approximately 150 feet from the intersection of I-10 WB ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard, which could have potential queuing issues with the installation of traffic signals. The intersection of Calimesa Boulevard is proposed to be realigned approximately 550 feet to the east, which would increase the distance between Calimesa Boulevard and the I-10 WB ramp, and mitigate potential queueing issues for westbound traffic towards the interchange. As shown below in Table 3.16-15 and Table 3.16-16, there are no potential queuing issues anticipated during either the AM or PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing plus Project conditions, with recommended improvements.

3.16-42 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-15: Peak Hour Queuing Summary with Interim Improvements

EAP (2018) 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable?1 Available Stacking Intersection Movement Distance (Feet) AM PM AM PM I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. WBL 150 80 132 Yes Yes WBT 560 8 96 Yes Yes SBL/T 1,145 206 310 Yes Yes SBR 350 91 217 Yes Yes I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. EBL 250 213 171 Yes Yes EBT 560 50 76 Yes Yes NBL/T/R 1,030 137 145 Yes Yes WBT 545 101 103 Yes Yes WBR 375 231 101 Yes Yes Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley EBL 300 39 34 Yes Yes Blvd. Note: 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-43 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-16: Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Opening Year (2018) EAP and EAPC Conditions with Improvements

EAP (2018) EAPC (2018) 95th Percentile 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable?1 Queue (Feet) Acceptable?1 Available Stacking Intersection Movement Distance (Feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. SBL/TR 1,145 2452 346 Yes Yes 4542 7532 Yes Yes I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. NBL/T/R 1,030 1322 1622 Yes Yes 132 213 Yes Yes Notes: 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 to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the staking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. TS=Traffic Signal

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-44 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

3.16.5 - Opening Year (2018) Traffic Analysis Roadway Improvements This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient plus Project 2018 opening year traffic forecasts, and the Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative 2018 traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations.

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2018) Traffic Volume Forecasts The Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) conditions analysis determines the traffic impacts based on a comparison of the Existing plus Ambient plus Project traffic conditions to existing (2017) conditions. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor of 2.0 percent was applied to account for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur over time from 2017 to 2018 (two percent per year growth over a one-year period). Traffic volumes generated by the project are then added to assess the Existing plus Ambient and Existing plus Ambient plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions. The 2018 roadway networks are similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of the project driveways.

The Existing plus Ambient plus Project analysis determines whether any significant traffic impacts would occur on the existing roadway system once traffic generated by the project is added to existing plus ambient growth conditions. The weekday ADT volumes that can be expected for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1 of the Traffic Study, and Exhibits 6-2 and 6-3 show the weekday AM and weekday PM peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) traffic conditions.

Intersection Operation Analysis Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2018) Traffic Conditions Level of service calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) conditions with existing roadway and intersection geometrics. As shown in Table 3.16-17, other than the I-10 EB/WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Intersections, there are no additional intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) traffic conditions, beyond those previously identified for Existing (2017) conditions. It bears noting that the I-10 WB/EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard Intersections already operate at LOS F during the AM and PM Peak Hours, respectively.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-45 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-17: Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2018) Conditions

Existing plus Ambient Growth Existing (2017) plus Project (2018)

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,4 Level of Delay2,4 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1A Roberts Rd./Cherry Valley Blvd. AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.4 15.0 C B 26.2 15.5 D C I-10 EB Ramps/ CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.4 >100.00 C F >100.0 >100.0 F F 1 Cherry Valley Boulevard I-10 WB Ramps/ CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 51.4 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F 2 Cherry Valley Boulevard Calimesa Boulevard/ CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 17.0 19.8 C C 24.9 28.5 C D 3 Cherry Valley Boulevard Driveway 1/ CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable 12.2 11.2 B B 4 Cherry Valley Boulevard Street 2/ TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable 27.5 19.7 C B 5 Cherry Valley Boulevard Driveway 3/ CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable 11.5 9.7 B A 6 Cherry Valley Boulevard Union Street (NS)/ CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.2 14.3 B B 15.3 15.2 C C 7 Cherry Valley Boulevard Nancy Avenue (NS)/ AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 25.9 10.4 B B 29.5 10.8 D B 8 Cherry Valley Boulevard Beaumont Avenue/ TS 1 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 0 34.1 28.9 C C 35.1 31.0 D C 9 Cherry Valley Boulevard

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-46 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-17 (cont.): Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2018) Conditions

Existing plus Ambient Growth Existing (2017) plus Project (2018)

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,4 Level of Delay2,4 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d = de facto Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2010 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. 3 TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All-Way Stop; CSS = Cross-street Stop BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 4 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-47 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Consistent with Table 3.16-17, the weekday AM and PM peak-hour intersection LOS are summarized in Exhibit 6-7 of the Traffic Study for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) traffic conditions. Recommended improvements necessary to bring peak-hour intersection operations within acceptable levels for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) traffic conditions are discussed under recommended improvements for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) conditions.

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2018) Traffic Conditions This scenario includes existing (2017) traffic volumes, an ambient growth factor of 2.0 percent, traffic from pending and approved (but not yet constructed) known development projects in the area, and the addition of project traffic. The ADT volumes which can be expected for Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions are shown on the Traffic Study’s Exhibit 6-4. Exhibits 6-5 and 6-6 of the Traffic Study show the weekday AM and weekend PM peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes for Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions.

Level of service calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) conditions with existing roadway and intersection geometrics. As shown in Table 3.16-18, the following intersections are anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS under Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions without improvements for both AM and PM Peak Hours (aside from Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard), due to the addition of cumulative traffic.

1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard 1. I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard 2. I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard 3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard 8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Peak Hour only)

3.16-48 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-18: Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2018) Conditions

EAPC (2018)

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,4 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1A Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 55.9 52.3 F F 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 78.6 >100.0 F F 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 89.6 >100 F F 4 Driveway 1/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 15.6 13.5 C B 5 Street 2/Cherry Valley Boulevard TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 30.4 22.4 C C 6 Driveway 3/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 14.1 11.1 B B 7 Union St. (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 18.8 20.00 C C 8 Nancy Ave. (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 44.1 12.3 E B 9 Beaumont Ave./Cherry Valley Boulevard TS 1 1 d 1 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 0 36.7 46.7 D D Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d = de facto Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2010 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. 3 TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All-Way Stop; CSS = Cross-street Stop BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 4 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-49 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Consistent with Table 3.16-18, the weekday AM and PM peak-hour intersection LOS are summarized on Exhibit 6-8 of the Traffic Study for Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions.

Basic Freeway Segment Analysis Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) peak-hour mainline directional volumes are provided at Table 4 of the Supplemental Expanded Freeway Segment Analysis. Segment analysis results for the AM and PM Peak Hours are summarized in Table 3.16-19.

3.16-50 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-19: Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 4,137 16.9 B 4,144 17.0 B I-215 to Waterman Ave. 4 PM 4,050 16.6 B 4,070 16.7 B AM 7,986 40.7 E 7,993 40.8 E Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 4 PM 6,697 30.0 D 6,717 30.1 D AM 7,060 33.1 D 7,067 33.1 D Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 4 PM 5,684 24.3 C 5,704 24.4 C AM 8,114 42.5 E 8,121 42.6 E Mountain View Ave. to California St. 4 PM 5,825 24.9 C 5,845 25.0 C AM 6,559 21.9 C 6,566 22.0 C California St. to Alabama St. 5 PM 3,637 12.0 B 3,657 12.0 B AM 8,230 43.8 E 8,237 43.9 E Alabama St. to Orange St. 4 PM 5,384 22.6 C 5,404 22.7 C AM 6,272 27.5 D 6,281 27.5 D Orange St. to Cypress Ave. 4 Westbound Westbound

I-10 Freeway PM 3,255 13.4 B 3,283 13.6 B AM 6,560 29.3 D 6,569 29.4 D Cypress Ave. to Ford St. 4 PM 7,479 36.2 E 7,507 36.5 E AM 6,560 29.3 D 6,569 29.4 D Ford St. to Wabash Ave. 4 PM 7,479 36.2 E 7,507 36.5 E AM 6,560 29.5 D 6,569 29.6 D Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. 4 PM 7,479 36.5 E 7,507 36.8 E AM 4,859 20.5 C 4,868 20.6 C Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 4 PM 3,461 14.5 B 3,489 14.7 B AM 4,979 30.7 D 4,995 30.8 D Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 3 PM 5,610 37.5 E 5,654 38.1 E

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-51 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-19 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 4,210 24.3 C 4,233 24.5 C W. County Line Rd to Calimesa Blvd. 3 PM 3,207 17.9 B 3,266 18.4 C AM 3,857 21.9 C 3,885 22.1 C Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 3 PM 3,051 17.1 B 3,120 17.5 B AM 3,390 18.7 C 3,420 18.9 C Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. 3 PM 4,269 24.1 C 4,343 24.6 C AM 3,057 16.9 B 3,111 17.1 B Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy. 3 PM 3,883 21.3 C 3,872 21.7 C AM 2,506 13.8 B 2,544 14.1 B Oak Valley Pkwy to SR-60 3 PM 2,568 14.2 B 2,610 14.5 B AM 4,974 16.3 B 4,990 16.3 B I-215 to Waterman Ave. 5 PM 4,733 15.5 B 4,742 15.5 B AM 5,920 25.3 C 5,936 25.4 C Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 4 PM 6,049 26.0 D 6,058 26.1 D AM 6,514 29.2 D 6,530 29.3 D Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 4 PM 7,161 33.9 D 7,170 34.0 D AM 8,147 42.9 E 8,163 43.0 E Mountain View Ave. to California St. 4 PM 5,360 22.5 C 5,369 22.5 C Eastbound Eastbound

I-10 Freeway AM 3,751 15.4 B 3,767 15.5 B California St. to Alabama St. 4 PM 5,839 25.0 C 5,848 25.0 C AM 3,880 16.0 B 3,896 16.0 B Alabama St. to Orange St. 4 PM 3,303 27.7 D 6,312 27.7 D AM 6,157 26.8 D 6,178 26.9 D Orange St. to Cypress Ave. 4 PM 4,189 17.2 B 4,202 17.3 B

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-52 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-19 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 6,560 29.3 D 6,581 29.4 D Cypress Ave. to Ford St. 4 PM 7,479 36.2 E 7,492 36.4 E AM 6,560 29.3 D 6,581 29.4 D Ford St. to Wabash Ave. 4 PM 7,479 36.2 E 7,492 36.4 E AM 6,560 29.5 D 6,581 29.7 D Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. 4 PM 7,479 36.5 E 7,492 36.7 E AM 6,560 30.1 D 6,581 30.3 D Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 4 PM 7,479 37.5 E 7,492 37.6 E AM 4,640 27.7 D 4,677 28.0 D Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 3 PM 2,357 13.1 B 2,377 13.3 B AM 2,428 13.6 B 2,480 13.9 B W. County Line Rd to Calimesa Blvd. 3 PM 3,870 22.0 C 3,896 22.2 C AM 2,444 13.7 B 2,507 14.0 B Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 3 PM 3,653 20.6 C 3,684 20.8 C AM 2,576 14.1 B 2,644 14.6 B Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. 3 PM 4,274 23.7 C 4,307 24.0 C AM 2,361 13.1 B 2,385 13.1 B Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy. 3 PM 3,204 17.5 B 3,264 17.9 B AM 2,540 14.1 B 2,557 14.2 B Oak Valley Pkwy to SR-60 3 PM 2,670 14.8 B 2,729 15.1 B AM 2,916 24.7 C 3,031 25.9 C I-215 to Day St. 2 PM 2,955 24.6 C 2,970 24.9 C

2 AM 3,160 27.4 D 3,165 27.5 D Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. PM 3,394 30.4 D 3,409 30.8 D

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-53 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-19 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction 2 AM 2,044 16.7 B 2,049 16.8 B Frederick St. to Heacock St. PM 2,295 18.8 C 2,310 19.0 C 2 AM 4,756 62.5 F 4,761 63.7 F Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. PM 4,889 68.6 F 4,904 70.6 F 2 AM 3,279 28.9 D 3,284 29.2 D Perris Blvd. to Nason St. PM 3,738 35.6 E 3,753 36.2 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,284 30.2 D Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,753 37.8 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,284 30.2 D Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,753 37.8 E Westbound Westbound

SR-60 Freeway Freeway SR-60 2 AM 3,287 30.2 D 3,292 30.3 D Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,753 37.8 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,284 30.2 D Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,753 37.8 E 2 AM 1,291 10.8 A 1,301 10.9 A Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. PM 1,771 14.8 B 1,797 15.1 B 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,289 30.2 D Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,764 38.3 E AM 3,687 20.2 C 3,699 20.4 C I-215 to Day St. 3 PM 4,397 25.0 C 4,404 25.0 C AM 1,704 13.9 B 1,716 14.1 B Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. 2 PM 2,937 24.9 C 2,944 25.1 C Eastbound Eastbound

SR-60 Freeway Freeway SR-60 AM 2,512 20.7 C 2,524 20.9 C Frederick St. to Heacock St. 2 PM 3,153 27.3 D 3,160 27.6 D

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-54 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-19 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume Density2 LOS Volume Density2 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 491 4.0 A 503 4.1 A Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. 2 PM 1,308 10.7 A 1,315 10.8 A 2 AM 3,279 28.9 D 3,291 29.2 D Perris Blvd. to Nason St. PM 3,738 35.6 E 3,745 36.0 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,291 30.3 D Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,745 37.6 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,291 30.3 D Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,745 37.6 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,291 30.3 D Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,745 37.6 E 2 AM 3,279 30.1 D 3,291 30.3 D Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. PM 3,738 37.5 E 3,745 37.6 E 2 AM 3,279 31.5 D 3,301 32.0 D Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. PM 3,738 39.1 E 3,750 39.4 E 2 AM 3,279 31.5 D 3,301 32.0 D Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 PM 3,738 39.3 E 3,760 39.6 E Notes: 1 Number of lanes are in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. 2 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). BOLD = Unacceptable Level of Service

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-55 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

As shown on Table 3.16-19, the study area mainline segments are anticipated to operate at acceptable service levels for Existing Plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions (i.e., LOS D or better) under Without and With Project conditions, except for the previous segments listed under Existing (2017) and Existing plus Project conditions.

Freeway Merge/Diverge Analysis Ramp merge and diverge operations have been evaluated for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) and Existing Plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions at the I-10/ Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange, as shown in Table 3.16-20, below.

3.16-56 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-20: I-10 Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge Analysis for Opening Year (2018) EAP and EAPC Conditions

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Existing plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2018) Cumulative (2018)

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I-10 Lanes on Direction Ramp or Segment Freeway1 Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Off-Ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 18.5 B 23.6 C 19.9 B 27.7 C EB On-Ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 18.0 B 24.3 C 19.3 B 26.9 C On-Ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 26.0 C 20.5 C 29.9 D 23.7 C WB Off-Ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 20.6 C 18.7 B 22.3 C 21.0 C Notes: 1 Number of lanes is in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. No future improvements are currently planned. 2 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-57 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

As shown on Table 3.16-20, all the freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better for both Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (2018) and Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions.

Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Consistent with Caltrans requirements, the progression of vehicles has been assessed to determine potential queuing impacts at the freeway ramp intersections on the off-ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard. The traffic progression analysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro (Version 9), has been used to assess the potential impacts/needs of the intersections with traffic added from the project. (See Traffic Study Sections 2.4 and 2.5 for additional detail). The progression analysis was performed for the off-ramps at the I-10 Freeway at Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange to assess peak-hour vehicle queues that may potentially impact the freeway mainline if spillback were to occur. Progression analysis findings are presented in Table 3.16-24 for the Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (2018) and Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions, with recommended improvements.

As shown on Table 3.16-24, there are no potential queuing issues anticipated during either the AM or PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) or Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) traffic conditions, with recommended improvements.

Internal Circulation and Queuing on Cherry Valley Boulevard All truck traffic is expected to come from the I-10, to the west of the project. Because the project site is located less than a mile from the I-10 Freeway/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchanges, Cherry Valley Boulevard provides a direct route for the project trucks to access the State Highway System (SHS). As such, based on proposed site layout, trucks would access the project through a left turn at the fully signalized intersection of Cherry Valley Boulevard and “A” Street. Trucks and delivery vehicles would call, radio or drive up to the various gates to check in. In addition to the total 1,237 parking spaces that will be included as part of the project, both project buildings would be designed to accommodate cross-dock usage, with 136 dock doors for Building 1 and 170 dock doors for Building 2. Depending on the operation, other truck traffic might need to wait outside of gates but within private Street A within the project site. Analysis by Urban Crossroads indicates that as many as 32 to 42 trucks could queue along the private road.

There is potential for buildings to be divided for multiple tenant’s use, but the division of buildings would only occur internally. Exterior circulation and access points would remain unchanged with the center signalized intersection remaining as the entrance. Signage that is consistent with the signage that exists today on Cherry Valley Boulevard, would prohibit trucks from parking or queuing on public streets.

Interim Improvements at I-10 Freeway Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard and Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley Boulevard Intersections While ultimate improvement plans have not yet been finalized for the I-10 interchange at Cherry Valley Boulevard, a roundabout concept is being proposed by the City of Calimesa. The California Highway Design Manual states that Roundabout intersections on the state highway system must be developed in accordance with National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672

3.16-58 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic entitled “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd ed.,” dated October 2010 (NCHRP Guide 2). The NCHRP Guide provides geometric design guidelines to accommodate large vehicles such as semi- trailer combinations. The NCHRP Guide 2 provides design techniques to accommodate large trucks while maintaining low design speeds to ensure effective and safe operation for all modes of travel. Thus, any future roundabout design for the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange will be required to include geometric design elements consistent with NCHRP Guide 2 to accommodate the desired design vehicle and ensure overall safety for all road users. As timing of future improvements to the interchange are uncertain, the project applicant proposes, and mitigation measures TRANS-1a and 1b require, payment of the project’s fair share toward the construction of the interchange improvements or, if a fair share contribution program has not been established (and provided that the agencies with jurisdiction over the improvements allow such construction), construction of the following interim improvements at the I-10 at Cherry Valley interchange to mitigate project impacts:

• Install traffic signals at I-10 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections at Cherry Valley Boulevard;

• Restripe to provide eastbound and westbound left turn pockets within the existing width of the Cherry Valley Boulevard bridge;

• Add a southbound right turn lane on the off ramp at the intersection of I-10 EB ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard;

• Add a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of I-10 WB ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard;

• Realign Calimesa Boulevard approximately 550 feet east of I-10 westbound ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection; and

• Add an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard.

(See Exhibit 3.16-7 and Exhibit 3.16-8, respectively.) As shown in Table 3.16-15, the new traffic signals and other improvements described above would significantly increase the capacity of the I-10 at Cherry Valley interchange ramp intersections such that even with the addition of project traffic, delay and level of service will be improved to better than current conditions.

The Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection located to the immediate west of the I-10 WB ramps is currently controlled by an all-way stop. Roberts Road is proposed to be realigned further west from its current location on Cherry Valley Boulevard. With the installation of the traffic signal at I-10 WB ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard, the all-way stop at Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection must be converted to a cross-street stop until the ultimate realignment of Roberts Road. This intersection is anticipated to operate under acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) under EAP (2018), near-term (2022) and near-term (2022) plus Sunny Cal traffic conditions with a cross-street stop control.

Near-Term (2022) Traffic Conditions Near-term (2022) conditions and Near-term (2022) conditions plus traffic from the proposed Sunny- Cal development consisting of 497 single-family detached residential dwellings has also been

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-59 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 included. These two additional scenarios were included at the direction of Riverside County staff, and are intended to demonstrate the feasibility of proposed project mitigation that would include construction of interim improvements at both the I-10 Freeway at Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange ramps and the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley.

The intersection analysis results for these three intersections are summarized in Table 3.16-21, which indicates that the I-10 Freeway at Cherry Valley Boulevard intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) under near-term (2022) conditions, with installation of traffic signals. The intersection of Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better with realignment of Calimesa Boulevard and a cross-street stop control.

3.16-60 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx Feet

Source: Urban Crossroads, June 2016. Exhibit 3.16-7 Cherry Valley Boulevard and I-10 Ramps I Concept Striping with Protected Left Turn Phasing 34260005 • 03/2017 | 3.16-7_cherry_vally_phasing.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CALIMESA BL.

NEW EDGE OF PAVEMENT

12'

12' MA

TCH EXISTING

6' NEW EDGE OF PAVEMENT 6'

12'

6'

14'

6'

12'

12'

12'

14'

375' 12'

12'

4'

12'

6'

12'

12' 300' 12'

12'

6' 12' 180' OPENING

TS 12'

12'

250' 6' NEW EDGE OF PAVEMENT BL. Y VALLEY CHERR

INTERSTATE 10

Feet 0 20 40 80 120 160 LEGEND:

Source: Urban Crossroads, June 2016. Exhibit 3.16-8 Realigned Calimesa Boulevard and I Cherry Valley Boulevard Concept Striping 34260005 • 05/2017 | 3.16-8_realigned_calimasa.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-21: EAP (2018) and Near-Term (2022) Conditions

1 Intersection Approach Lanes Delay2,5 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. Existing CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 19.3 89.9 C F EAP (2018) With Improvements TS 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 25.8 25.3 C C Near Term (2022) with Improvements TS 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 37.8 26.4 C C 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. Existing CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 28.8 F D EAP (2018) With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 17.4 16.2 B B Near Term (2022) with Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 21.7 15.3 C B 3 Calimesa Blvd./Cherry Valley Blvd. Existing CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 13.8 13.0 B B EAP (2018) With Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 14.4 14.6 B B Near Term (2022) with Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 15.1 15.4 C C Notes: 1 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; 1 = Improvement 2 Per the 2010 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. The intersections have been analyzed using the Synchro software. 3 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal 4 With the proposed widening of Cherry Valley Boulevard to provide the eastbound left turn lane, it is anticipated that storage for up to two vehicles will be available in the painted median. Two-stage gap acceptance with up to 2 vehicles in median storage assumed for SBL turns from Calimesa Blvd. 5 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-65 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Near Term (2022) Plus Sunny Cal Development Traffic Conditions Near-term (2022) Plus Sunny Cal traffic conditions were evaluated for the I-10 Freeway at Cherry Valley Boulevard intersections and the Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley Boulevard intersections only. The intersection analysis results for these three intersections are summarized in Table 3.16-22, which indicates that the I-10 Freeway at Cherry Valley Boulevard intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) under near-term (2022) Plus Sunny Cal traffic conditions, with installation of traffic signals and other improvements as set forth in TRANS-1a. The intersection of Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard is currently operating at an acceptable LOS and is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better with the addition of ambient growth and project traffic. However, Calimesa Boulevard is located approximately 150-feet from the intersection of I-10 WB ramps and Cherry Valley Boulevard, which could result in potential queuing issues with the installation of traffic signals. As such, the realignment of Calimesa Boulevard 550-feet to the east with existing cross-street stop control is proposed in order to increase the distance between Calimesa Boulevard and the I-10 WB ramp, which would mitigate potential queuing issues for westbound traffic towards the interchange as set forth in TRANS-1b. Nonetheless, although mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the County and the Applicant cannot control the timing or implementation of these improvements.

Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing The available stacking length and the 95th percentile queues for both Near-Term (2022) and Near Term (2022) Plus Sunny Cal Development Conditions are summarized in Table 3.16-23 below for the three intersections analyzed under the 2022 scenarios. As shown, 95th percentile queues can be accommodated within available stacking distance under Near-Term (2022) and Near Term (2022) Plus Sunny Cal Development Conditions with completion of the recommended improvements.

3.16-66 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-22: Near-Term (2022) Plus Sunny-Cal Conditions

1 Intersection Approach Lanes Delay2,5 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. Existing CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 19.3 89.9 C F Near Term (2022) plus Sunny-Cal with TS 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 30.8 30.8 C C Improvements 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. Existing CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 28.8 F D Near Term (2022) plus Sunny-Cal with TS 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 41.3 21.2 D C Improvements 3 Calimesa Blvd./Cherry Valley Blvd. Existing CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 13.8 13.0 B B Near Term (2022) plus Sunny-Cal with CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 18.1 19.8 C C4 Improvements Notes: 1 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; 1 = Improvement 2 Per the 2010 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. The intersections have been analyzed using the Synchro software. 3 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal 4 With the proposed widening of Cherry Valley Boulevard to provide the eastbound left turn lane, it is anticipated that storage for up to two vehicles will be available in the painted median. Two-stage gap acceptance with up to 2 vehicles in median storage assumed for SBL turns from Calimesa Blvd. 5 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-67 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-23: Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis for Near-Term Conditions, With Improvements

EAP (2018) Near Term (2022) Near Term (2022) plus Sunny-Cal

th th th Available 95 Percentile 95 Percentile 95 Percentile Stacking Queue (Feet) Acceptable?1 Queue (Feet) Acceptable?1 Queue (Feet) Acceptable?1 Distance Intersection Movement (Feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM WBL 150 80 132 Yes Yes 89 100 Yes Yes 110 155 Yes Yes2 WBT 560 8 96 Yes Yes 8 103 Yes Yes 10 142 Yes Yes I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. SBL/T 1,145 206 310 Yes Yes 202 334 Yes Yes 249 496 Yes Yes SBR 350 91 217 Yes Yes 81 272 Yes Yes 107 332 Yes Yes EBL 250 213 171 Yes Yes 241 167 Yes Yes 257 176 Yes2 Yes EBT 560 50 76 Yes Yes 64 72 Yes Yes 69 151 Yes Yes I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. NBL/T/R 1,030 137 145 Yes Yes 163 144 Yes Yes 246 164 Yes Yes WBT 545 101 103 Yes Yes 103 79 Yes Yes 209 145 Yes Yes WBR 375 231 101 Yes Yes 304 110 Yes Yes 354 123 Yes Yes Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Blvd. EBL 300 39 34 Yes Yes 45 40 Yes Yes 43 43 Yes Yes Notes: 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. 2 It should be noted that the additional 15 feet could be accommodated in the turn pocket transition. 3 1 = Storage Length Improvement Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-68 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Analysis This section discusses the methods used to develop horizon year (2040) traffic forecasts for without and with project conditions and the resulting intersection, roadway segment and freeway mainline operations.

Roadway Improvements The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for horizon year (2040) traffic conditions are consistent with those shown on Exhibit 3-1 of the Traffic Study, with the exception of project driveways, the future intersection of Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard, and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the project or cumulative development projects (refer to Exhibit 3.16-9).

The following new intersection is included under the Horizon Year (2040) traffic scenario only, and is analyzed within the April 18, 2017 letter report entitled “San Gorgonio Crossing Supplemental Traffic Analysis—Future Beckwith Avenue,” included in Appendix I:

10. Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard

Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts This scenario includes the refined post-processed volumes obtained from the County of Riverside Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) for 2040 using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing. The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing (2017) conditions and Horizon Year (2040) conditions. In many cases, the traffic model zone structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements at each study area intersection along arterial roadways unless refinement and reasonableness checking is performed. Therefore, the Horizon Year (2040) peak hour forecasts were refined using the long-range forecasts, along with existing peak-hour traffic county data collected at each study area intersection. Future estimated peak hour traffic data was used for new intersections and intersections with an anticipated change in travel patterns in an effort to further refine the Horizon Year (2040) peak hour forecasts. Lastly, Horizon Year (2040) turning volumes were compared to Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) volumes in order to ensure reasonable growth as part of the refinement process. A minimum of 10 percent growth between Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions has been used to account for traffic generated by cumulative development projects and the ambient growth between Existing and Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) conditions.

The weekday ADT volumes, which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040) without project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-1 of the Traffic Study. Exhibits 7-2 and 7-3 of the Traffic Study show the AM and PM peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes for Horizon Year (2040) without project traffic conditions.

Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts This scenario includes the refined post-processed volumes obtained from the RivTAM plus traffic generated by the project. The weekday ADT volumes that can be expected for horizon year (2040) with project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-4 of the Traffic Study, and Exhibits 7-5 and 7-6

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-69 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 show the AM and PM peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes for horizon year (2040) with project traffic conditions.

Intersection Operations Analysis LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their peak-hour operations under horizon year (2040) without and with project conditions, with existing roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Exhibit 3-1 of the Traffic Study. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 3.16-24, which indicates that the following intersection locations will experience unacceptable LOS E or worse conditions during one or both of the peak hours under horizon year (2040), both without and with project traffic conditions:

1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard-LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements not included in TUMF)

1. I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements fully included in TUMF)

2. I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements fully included in TUMF)

3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements partially included in TUMF)

7. Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements partially included in TUMF)

8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements partially included in TUMF)

9. Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (improvements partially included in TUMF)

10. Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (improvements partially included in TUMF)

3.16-70 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-24: Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

2040 Without Project 2040 With Project

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,5 Level of Delay2,5 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service (secs.) Service Traffic Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Roberts Road/Cherry Valley CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Boulevard3 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Boulevard I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Boulevard Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 59.6 36.6 F E 81.5 71.3 F F Valley Boulevard Driveway 1/Cherry Valley CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 Not Applicable 16.8 23.4 C C Boulevard Patton Road/Street 2/Cherry TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable4 Not Applicable4 Valley Boulevard Driveway 3/Cherry Valley CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 Not Applicable 14.8 18.1 B C Boulevard Union St. (NS)/Cherry Valley CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Boulevard Nancy Ave. (NS)/Cherry Valley AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 >100.0 >100.0 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Boulevard Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley TS 1 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 0 118.6 142.0 F F 119.4 144.7 F F Boulevard Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F >100.0 >100.0 F F Valley Boulevard

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-71 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-24 (cont.): Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

2040 Without Project 2040 With Project

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2,5 Level of Delay2,5 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service (secs.) Service Traffic Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d = de facto Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2010 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. TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All-Way Stop CSS = Cross-street Stop BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 The intersection of Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Blvd. is proposed to be relocated further west under Horizon Year Traffic Conditions. 4 Existing intersection configuration is not applicable due to the addition of a 4th leg (Future Patton Road). Analysis of the intersection a 4 leg is shown in T3.16-26. 5 Average control delay calculated to be greater than 100.0 seconds using equations from the HCM methodology for CSS controlled intersections can result in delay values that increase exponentially once LOS “F” is reached. As these values are not accurate estimates of actual average control delay anticipated to be experienced, the values are not reported in this table. As such, calculated delay values greater than 100.0 seconds are simply indicated as “>100.0.” Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-72 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx Source: Urban Crossroads, November 2017. Exhibit 3.16-9 Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard Intersection Location

34260005 • 05/2017 | 3.16-9_beckwith_intesection.cdr TSG CHERRY VALLEY LP • SAN GORGONIO CROSSING RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Traffic signal warrants for Horizon Year (2040) conditions are based on Caltrans planning-level ADT volumes. For Horizon Year 2040 without project conditions, the following intersections appear to warrant a traffic signal:

10. Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard

Basic Freeway Segment Analysis The SCAG 2016–2040 RTP and SANBAG have future plans in place for the widening of I-10 Freeway through the study area; however, a schedule for the widening of the I-10 Freeway between Haven Avenue in the City of Ontario and the San Bernardino and Riverside County line has not been set. The I-10 Corridor Project proposes to add a carpool lane (high-occupancy vehicle or HOV lane) in each direction. As indicated on the SCAG 2016–2040 RTP, the additional carpool lanes between Haven Avenue and Ford Street in the City of Redlands is anticipated to be completed in 2020. The additional carpool lane between Ford Street and the San Bernardino and Riverside County line is anticipated to be completed in 2030. As such, the future expansion of the I-10 Freeway has been assumed for the long-range Horizon Year (2040) analysis only. Based on discussions with Caltrans staff, the freeway mainline volumes can potentially be reduced up to fourteen (14) percent with the addition of a single HOV lane. Segment analysis results for the AM and PM Peak Hours are summarized in Table 3.16-25.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-75 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-25: Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume2 Density3 LOS Volume2 Density3 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 10,117 71.1 F 10,124 71.3 F I-215 to Waterman Ave. 4 PM 11,184 113.4 F 11,204 114.8 F 4 AM 10,978 117.3 F 10,985 117.8 F Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. PM 11,479 150.6 F 11,499 152.9 F 4 AM 10,419 90.6 F 10,426 90.9 F Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. PM 9,723 66.2 F 9,743 67.7 F 4 AM 10,568 99.6 F 10,575 100.0 F Mountain View Ave. to California St. PM 8,790 50.0 F 8,810 50.3 F AM 11,364 53.2 F 11,371 54.0 F California St. to Alabama St. 5 PM 9,218 33.6 D 9,238 33.8 D AM 10,559 99.1 F 10,566 99.4 F Alabama St. to Orange St. 4 PM 6,702 30.2 D 6,722 30.4 D 4 AM 11,731 183.0 F 11,740 187.7 F Orange St. to Cypress Ave. Westbound Westbound

I-10 Freeway PM 6,240 26.6 D 6,268 26.7 D 4 AM 8,165 43.1 E 8,175 43.2 E Cypress Ave. to Ford St. PM 9,309 60.2 F 9,337 60.7 F 4 AM 8,165 43.1 E 8,175 43.2 E Ford St. to Wabash Ave. PM 9,309 60.2 F 9,337 60.7 F 4 AM 8,165 43.5 E 8,175 43.6 E Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. PM 9,309 61.1 F 9,337 61.6 F 4 AM 6,048 26.8 D 6,058 26.9 D Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. PM 4,308 18.1 C 4,336 18.3 C AM 8,012 105.6 F 8,028 106.8 F Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 3 PM 6,982 63.9 F 7,026 65.2 F

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-76 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-25 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume2 Density3 LOS Volume2 Density3 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction 3 AM 5,240 31.6 D 5,263 33.5 D W. County Line Rd to Calimesa Blvd. PM 3,991 22.2 C 4,050 23.2 C 3 AM 4,801 27.7 D 4,829 29.3 D Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. PM 3,798 21.0 C 3,867 22.0 C 3 AM 8,077 104.9 F 8,109 107.2 F Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. PM 9,205 523.4 F 9,280 688.9 F 3 AM 7,027 61.4 F 7,080 62.9 F Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy. PM 8,862 249.3 F 8,888 259.8 F AM 3,119 17.3 B 3,157 17.5 B Oak Valley Pkwy to SR-60 3 PM 3,197 17.5 B 3,239 17.8 B AM 10,432 42.4 E 10,448 43.0 E I-215 to Waterman Ave. 5 PM 10,769 45.5 F 10,778 45.6 F AM 9,643 63.3 F 9,659 63.7 F Waterman Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave. 4 PM 11,021 110.2 F 11,030 110.6 F AM 8,623 48.8 F 8,639 49.6 F Tippecanoe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. 4 PM 10,321 86.8 F 10,330 87.0 F AM 10,140 82.0 F 10,156 82.4 F Mountain View Ave. to California St. 4 PM 10,364 82.9 F 10,373 83.3 F Eastbound Eastbound

I-10 Freeway AM 7,518 35.1 E 7,534 35.2 E California St. to Alabama St. 4 PM 11,705 171.2 F 11,714 172.6 F AM 6,954 31.1 D 6,970 31.2 D Alabama St. to Orange St. 4 PM 11,473 149.9 F 11,482 151.0 F AM 7,664 37.9 E 7,685 38.1 E Orange St. to Cypress Ave. 4 PM 10,322 78.3 F 10,335 78.7 F

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-77 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-25 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume2 Density3 LOS Volume2 Density3 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction AM 8,165 43.1 E 8,187 43.3 E Cypress Ave. to Ford St. 4 PM 9,309 60.2 F 9,322 60.4 F AM 8,165 43.1 E 8,187 43.3 E Ford St. to Wabash Ave. 4 PM 9,309 60.2 F 9,322 60.4 F AM 8,165 43.5 E 8,187 43.8 E Wabash Ave. to Yucaipa Blvd. 4 PM 9,309 61.1 F 9,322 61.4 F AM 8,165 44.9 E 8,187 45.2 F Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 4 PM 9,309 63.9 F 9,322 64.2 F AM 5,775 37.9 E 5,812 40.2 E Live Oak Canyon Rd. to W. County Line Rd. 3 PM 8,031 92.1 F 8,051 93.3 F AM 3,022 16.5 B 3,075 17.2 B W. County Line Rd to Calimesa Blvd. 3 PM 4,817 27.7 D 4,844 29.4 D AM 3,042 16.6 B 3,105 17.4 B Calimesa Blvd. to Singleton Rd. 3 PM 4,547 25.6 C 4,578 27.2 D AM 6,297 46.2 F 6,358 47.4 F Singleton Rd. to Cherry Valley Blvd. 3 PM 10,366 — F 10,399 — F AM 5,870 39.5 E 5,894 40.2 E Cherry Valley Blvd. to Oak Valley Pkwy. 3 PM 8,900 264.3 F 8,960 293.0 F AM 3,162 17.3 B 3,179 17.6 B Oak Valley Pkwy to SR-60 3 PM 3,324 18.4 C 3,383 18.8 C AM 7,080 — F 7,085 — F I-215 to Day St. 2 PM 3,810 36.9 E 3,825 37.1 E

2 AM 5,290 91.1 F 5,295 91.5 F Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. PM 4,224 46.0 F 4,239 46.4 F

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-78 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-25 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume2 Density3 LOS Volume2 Density3 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction 2 AM 3,570 32.2 D 3,575 32.5 D Frederick St. to Heacock St. PM 4,110 41.5 E 4,125 42.3 E 2 AM 5,920 239.7 F 5,925 242.5 F Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. PM 6,086 380.7 F 6,101 400.1 F 2 AM 4,082 42.6 E 4,087 42.7 E Perris Blvd. to Nason St. PM 4,653 59.3 F 4,668 59.8 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,087 45.0 E Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,668 64.5 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,087 45.0 E Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,668 64.5 F Westbound Westbound

SR-60 Freeway Freeway SR-60 2 AM 4,082 49.9 E 4,295 50.1 F Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,668 64.5 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,087 45.0 E Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,668 64.5 F 2 AM 3,460 30.6 D 3,470 30.8 D Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. PM 2,670 22.5 C 2,696 22.9 C 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,092 45.1 F Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,679 65.9 F 3 AM 4,589 26.4 D 4,600 26.5 D I-215 to Day St. PM 5,472 34.4 D 5,479 34.5 D 2 AM 2,764 22.8 C 2,776 22.9 C Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd. PM 3,656 34.5 D 3,663 34.7 D Eastbound Eastbound

SR-60 Freeway Freeway SR-60 2 AM 3,600 33.1 D 3,612 33.3 D Frederick St. to Heacock St. PM 4,090 42.4 E 4,097 42.5 E

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-79 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-25 (cont.): Basic Freeway Segment Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Without Project With Project Time Mainline Segment Lanes1 Period Volume2 Density3 LOS Volume2 Density3 LOS Freeway Freeway Direction 2 AM 3,540 30.6 D 3,552 30.7 D Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. PM 4,220 42.6 E 4,227 42.7 E 2 AM 4,082 42.6 E 4,094 42.9 E Perris Blvd. to Nason St. PM 4,653 59.3 F 4,660 59.6 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,094 45.2 F Nason St. to Moreno Beach Dr. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,660 64.1 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,094 45.2 F Moreno Beach Dr. to Redlands Blvd. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,660 64.1 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,094 45.2 F Redlands Blvd. to Theodore St. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,660 64.1 F 2 AM 4,082 44.9 E 4,094 45.2 F Theodore St. to Gilman Springs Rd. PM 4,653 63.8 F 4,660 64.1 F 2 AM 4,082 47.0 E 4,104 47.6 F Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. PM 4,653 68.5 F 4,664 69.1 F 2 AM 4,082 47.0 E 4,104 47.6 F Jack Rabbit Tr. to I-10 PM 4,950 86.5 F 4,962 87.5 F Notes: 1 Number of lanes are in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions 2 I-10 Eastbound and Westbound volumes from the I-215 Freeway to W. County Line Road shown on this table have been reduced to account for the proposed HOV lane in each direction. 3 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). BOLD = Unacceptable Level of Service.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-80 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

As shown on Table 3.16-25, all I-10 and SR-60 Freeway segments analyzed were found to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “E” or worse) during either the AM or PM Peak Hours for both Without and With Project traffic conditions with the exception of the following segments, which will operate at an acceptable LOS (Table 3.16-26):

Table 3.16-26: I-10 and SR-60 Freeway Segments Operating at Acceptable LOS

ID Freeway Direction Segment 11 I-10 Westbound Yucaipa Blvd. to Live Oak Canyon Rd. 14 I-10 Westbound W. County Line Rd. to Calimesa Blvd. 17 I-10 Westbound Oak Valley Pkwy. to SR-60 30 I-10 Eastbound W. County Line Rd. to Calimesa Blvd. 34 I-10 Eastbound Oak Valley Pkwy. to SR-60 44 SR-60 Westbound Gilman Springs Rd. to Jack Rabbit Tr. 46 SR-60 Eastbound I-215 to Day Street 47 SR-60 Eastbound Day St. to Frederick St./Pigeon Pass Rd.

However, because all of the freeway segments identified as unacceptable would operate at an unacceptable LOS without the project under horizon year (2040) conditions, the project is not anticipated to result in any additional freeway segment deficiencies beyond those which are already expected to occur.

Freeway Merge/Diverge Analysis Ramp merge and diverge operations have been evaluated for horizon year (2040) traffic conditions at the I-10 Freeway and Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange. As shown on Table 3.16-27, it is anticipated that the following ramp junctions along the I-10 Freeway are projected to operate at unacceptable service levels for both horizon year (2040) without and with project conditions:

• I-10 Freeway–Eastbound, off-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours • I-10 Freeway–Eastbound, on-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours • I-10 Freeway–Westbound, on-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours • I-10 Freeway–Westbound, off-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours

Because all of the junctions would operate at unacceptable levels without the project, the project is not anticipated to result in any additional deficiencies.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-81 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-27: I-10 Freeway Ramp Junction Merge/Diverge Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

2040 Without Project 2040 With Project

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I-10 Lanes on Direction Ramp or Segment Freeway1 Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Density2 LOS Off-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 38.6 F 78.2 F 39.2 F 78.5 F EB On-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 35.2 E 61.4 F 35.5 E 62.0 F On-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 52.3 F 63.1 F 52.5 F 63.8 F WB Off-ramp at Cherry Valley Boulevard 3 45.8 F 64.0 F 46.4 F 64.3 F Notes: 1 Number of lanes is in the specified direction and is based on existing conditions. No future improvements are currently planned. 2 Density is measured by passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-82 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impacts under Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) conditions, and potentially significant cumulative impacts under Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018), and Horizon Year (2040).

EAP (2018) Freeway Ramps As discussed above, the following intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or worse) under Existing 2017 conditions, as well as under Existing plus Ambient plus Project 2018 conditions:

1. I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 2. I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (PM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F

No new deficiencies would occur due to the addition of 2.0 percent ambient growth along with project traffic under EAP 2018 conditions. However, the project would contribute more than 50 peak-hour trips to the existing deficiencies at the above freeway ramps, resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing cumulatively significant impacts.

EAPC (2018) Local Intersections The following intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS with addition of cumulative traffic from pending and approved, but not yet constructed known development projects in the area, in addition to the ramp deficiencies previously identified under EAP 2018 traffic conditions:

1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 1. I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 2. I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Peak Hour only) LOS E

Horizon Year (2040) Freeway Ramps and Local Intersections The project would also result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing cumulatively significant impact at the following intersections, which are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) with and without Project conditions:

1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 1. I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 2. I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 7. Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 9. Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 10. Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-83 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

The addition of project traffic is not anticipated to result in any intersection deficiencies beyond those previously identified under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions.

Freeway Mainline Segments There are 19 freeway mainline segments that are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS under Existing 2017 traffic conditions and are anticipated to continue to operate at unacceptable LOS through Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions without and with the project. In addition, under Opening Year Cumulative (2018) conditions, the project would result in a worsening of the LOS for an additional six segments, in addition to the 19 segments that currently operate at an unacceptable LOS. As the project is expected to contribute peak-hour trips to the existing deficiencies on the regional state highway system, the project’s incremental contribution to this impact is considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

MM TRAN-1a and MM TRAN-1b are required to mitigate impacts to the I-10 Eastbound and Westbound ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard as well as impacts to the Cherry Valley Boulevard and Calimesa Boulevard intersection under the scenarios described above. MM TRAN-1c is required to reduce impacts to the other intersections listed below. However, some of the proposed improvements are not within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and/or are not specifically included within the TUMF or DIF fee programs at this time. Therefore, while the project would contribute its fair share of fees to support the implementation of necessary improvements, the applicant and the County cannot fully control the timing or implementation of the improvements listed in other jurisdictions, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures MM TRAN-1a (a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, and provided that a fair share contribution program has been established that provides for full funding and a schedule for construction of the future new interchange at the I-10 eastbound and westbound intersections at Cherry Valley Boulevard, the project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share toward the construction of such improvements. The traffic impact report determined the project’s contribution to the impact is 5.8 percent at the I-10 eastbound ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard and 10.1 percent at I-10 westbound ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard. The County shall determine whether a fair share program exists at the time the applicant submits for building permits and, if one does exist, the payment shall be made as determined in the applicable fee program.

(b) If a fair share contribution program has not been established at the time the applicant submits for building permits, and provided that both Caltrans and the City of Calimesa authorize construction within their respective jurisdictional control and sufficient interest in the land which will permit the improvements to be made is acquired prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall construct the following interim improvements prior to the issuance of final occupancy permits:

3.16-84 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

(i) install traffic signals at I-10 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections at Cherry Valley Boulevard, (ii) restripe to provide eastbound and westbound left turn pockets within the existing width of the Cherry Valley Boulevard bridge, (iii) add a southbound right turn lane on the off ramp at the intersection of I-10 eastbound ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard, and (iv) add a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of I-10 westbound ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard.

The project applicant shall endeavor to secure, at the applicant's expense, sufficient title or interest in the land. The project applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the appropriate property owner, as reasonable, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to permit construction of the improvements. The applicant shall be required to construct the referenced improvements only if: (1) the City of Calimesa and Caltrans authorize construction of the improvements; and (2) sufficient title or interest in land for the right-of-way necessary to permit construction of the improvements is secured; and (3) the improvements contemplated under MM TRAN-1b(b) below are required to be constructed.

MM TRAN-1b (a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, and provided that a fair share contribution program has been established that provides for full funding and a schedule for construction of the future new interchange at the I-10 eastbound and westbound intersections at Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection improvements for this intersection. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share costs to realign Calimesa Boulevard approximately 550 feet east of the I-10 westbound ramps and construct an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley Boulevard. The traffic impact report determined the project’s contribution to the impact is 11.7 percent. The County shall determine whether a fair share program exists at the time the applicant submits for building permits and, if one does exist, the payment shall be made as determined in the applicable fee program.

(b) If a fair share contribution program has not been established at the time the applicant submits for building permits, and provided that the City of Calimesa authorizes construction within its jurisdictional control and sufficient interest in the land which will permit the improvements to be made is acquired prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall construct the following improvements prior to the issuance of final occupancy permits: (i) realign Calimesa Boulevard approximately 550 feet east of the I-10 westbound ramps; and (ii) construct an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Cherry Valley Boulevard.

The project applicant shall endeavor to secure, at the applicant's expense, sufficient title or interest in the land. The project applicant shall negotiate in good

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-85 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

faith with the appropriate property owner, as reasonable, in order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to permit construction of the improvements. The applicant shall be required to construct the referenced improvements only if: (1) the City of Calimesa authorizes construction of the improvements; and (2) sufficient title or interest in land for the right-of-way necessary to permit construction of the improvements is secured; and (3) the improvements contemplated under MM TRAN-1a(b) above are required to be constructed.

MM TRAN-1c Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the project applicant shall participate in the County’s DIF and TUMF Fee programs as applicable for the following improvements. For improvements not included in a fee program, the project applicant shall participate in the payment of a fair share contribution towards future improvements.

I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct a westbound left turn lane. • Construct a southbound right turn lane. • Modify the intersection to provide free flow movement for the southbound right turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound though lane. • Construct an eastbound right turn lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane.

I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct an eastbound left turn lane. • Construct a westbound right turn lane. • Construct a northbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through turn lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane. • Construct a westbound right turn lane.

Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct an eastbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through lane. • Construct a southbound right turn lane. • Construct a westbound right turn lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane. • Modify the traffic signal in order to provide overlap phasing for the westbound right turn lane.

3.16-86 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Street 2/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct a westbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane. • Construct a southbound left turn lane. • Construct a southbound right turn lane. • Construct a northbound left turn lane. • Construct a northbound through lane.

Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct a northbound left turn lane. • Construct a southbound left turn lane. • Construct an eastbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through lane. • Construct a westbound left turn lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane.

Nancy Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct an eastbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through lane. • Construct a westbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through lane.

Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Construct a second eastbound through lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane. • Modify traffic signal in order to provide overlap phasing for the EB right turn lane.

Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard

• Install a traffic signal. • Construct a southbound left turn lane. • Construct an eastbound left turn lane. • Construct a second eastbound through lane. • Construct a second westbound through lane. • Construct a westbound right turn lane.

The County shall ensure that the improvements specified will be constructed at that point in time necessary to avoid identified impacts.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-87 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

The widening of Cherry Valley Boulevard to its ultimate roadway classification as a 4-lane, 2-lanes of travel in each direction, divided arterial highway is currently included in the County’s TUMF program. As such, additional eastbound and westbound through lane improvements at study area intersections along Cherry Valley Boulevard are recognized in the County’s TUMF program. The installation and/or modification of traffic signals and turn lanes would be subject to payment of fair share.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Local Roadway Segments and Intersections Significant and unavoidable impact. The transportation impacts associated with the development of the project were determined based on the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Year 2018, Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative Year 2018 and Horizon Year 2040 Without and With Project analysis. As summarized in Table 3.16-23, Table 3.16-24 and Table 3.16-25, above, the development of the project would contribute to two (2) potentially significant cumulative impacts under Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2018) conditions, three (3) potentially significant cumulative impacts under Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2018) conditions, and six (6) additional cumulatively significant impacts under Horizon Year 2040 traffic conditions, without mitigation.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1a through TRAN-1c requires the applicant to pay its fair share and to participate in the County’s DIF and TUMF fee programs as applicable to fund the improvement costs for the impacted intersections. The fair share calculations are provided in Table 3.16-28, below. However, as outlined within Table 3.16-27, some of the proposed improvements are not specifically included within the TUMF or DIF fee programs at this time. Therefore, while the project would contribute its fair share of fees to support the implementation of necessary improvements, the applicant and the County cannot fully control the timing or implementation of the improvements listed and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the following:

Opening Year (2018) EAP Plus Cumulative-Local Intersections 1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM Peak Hour only) LOS E

The above impact (Opening Year (2018) EAP Plus Cumulative) is considered a cumulative impact.

3.16-88 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-28: Summary of Intersection Improvements

Recommended Improvements Improvements Horizon Year (2040) With in TUMF or Fair Share # Intersection Location Jurisdiction Existing (2017) EAP (2018) EAPC (2018) Project DIF1? %2 1A Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Blvd.5 Calimesa — − Convert AWS to − Same − N/A No 0.0% CSS 3 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. Caltrans − Traffic Signal − Same − Same − Same − WB left turn lane − Same − Same − Same − SB right turn lane − Same − Modify the intersection to provide free flow 4 movement for the SB Yes (TUMF) 5.8% right turn lane. − 2nd EB through lane − EB right turn lane − 2nd WB through lane 3 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Blvd. Caltrans − Traffic Signal − Same − Same − Same − EB left turn lane − Same − Same − Same − WB right turn − Same − Same lane − NB left turn lane Yes (TUMF)4 10.1% − 2nd EB left turn lane − 2nd EB through lane − 2nd WB through lane − WB right turn lane

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-89 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-28 (cont.): Summary of Intersection Improvements

Recommended Improvements Improvements Horizon Year (2040) With in TUMF or Fair Share # Intersection Location Jurisdiction Existing (2017) EAP (2018) EAPC (2018) Project DIF1? %2 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Calimesa and — - EB left turn lane − Same − Same No Blvd. County of − Traffic Signal − Same No Riverside − SB right turn lane No − 2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) − 2nd WB through lane Yes (TUMF) 11.7% − WB right turn lane No − Modify the traffic No signal in order to provide overlap phasing for the WB right turn lane. 5 Street 2/Cherry Valley Blvd. County of — − Traffic Signal − Same − Same No Riverside − WB left turn lane − Same − Same No − SB left turn lane − Same − Same No − SB right turn lane − Same − Same No − NB left turn lane No 12.7% − NB through lane No − 2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) − WB left turn lane No − 2nd WB through lane Yes (TUMF) 7 Union St. (NS)/Cherry Valley Blvd. County of — — — − Traffic Signal No 1.8% Riverside − NB left turn lane No − SB left turn lane No − EB left turn lane No

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-90 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-28 (cont.): Summary of Intersection Improvements

Recommended Improvements Improvements Horizon Year (2040) With in TUMF or Fair Share # Intersection Location Jurisdiction Existing (2017) EAP (2018) EAPC (2018) Project DIF1? %2 − 2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) − WB left turn lane No − 2nd WB through lane Yes (TUMF) 8 Nancy Ave. (NS)/Cherry Valley Blvd. County of — — −Traffic signal − Same No 1.6% Riverside − EB left turn lane No − 2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) − WB left turn lane No − 2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) 9 Beaumont Ave./Cherry Valley Blvd. County of — — — − 2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) 1.5% Riverside nd − 2 WB through lane Yes (TUMF) − Modify the traffic No signal in order to provide overlap phasing for the EB right turn lane. 10 Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry County of — — — -Traffic signal No 11.2% Valley Blvd. Riverside -SB left turn lane No -EB left turn lane No -2nd EB through lane Yes (TUMF) -2nd WB through lane Yes (TUMF) -WB right turn lane No Notes: 1 Improvements are identified as being included in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program or as a County of Riverside DIF facility. 2 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of County of Riverside. See Traffic Impact Analysis Table 9-2 for Fair Share Calculations. 3 As shown on Traffic Impact Analysis Tables 6-5, 6-6, and 7-4 and discussed in the TIA, a preliminary roundabout interchange design has been analyzed for EAP (2018), EAPC (2018), and Horizon Year (2040) With Project conditions as an alternative to the improvements listed in this table. As the I-10 Freeway and Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange is a TUMF facility, the Project’s TUMF payment will be the same regardless of the improvement alternatives implemented. Further discussion of the roundabout alternative at the I-10 Freeway and Cherry Valley Boulevard

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-91 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-28 (cont.): Summary of Intersection Improvements

Recommended Improvements Improvements Horizon Year (2040) With in TUMF or Fair Share # Intersection Location Jurisdiction Existing (2017) EAP (2018) EAPC (2018) Project DIF1? %2 interchange can be found in Traffic Impact Analysis Section 6.8 Recommended Improvements for EAP and EAPC (2017) Conditions and Section 7.8 Recommended Improvements for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions. 4 I-10 Freeway and Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange is identified in the WRCOG Pass Area TUMF zone. 5 The intersection of Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Blvd. is proposed to be relocated further west. Conversion from all-way stop to cross-street stop is recommended with traffic signals at the ramps. Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-92 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Horizon Year (2040)-Local Intersections Additionally, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing cumulatively significant impacts at the following intersections, which are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) without and with Project conditions:

1A. Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (only partially identified in TUMF).

3. Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (only partially identified in TUMF)

7. Union Street/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (only partially identified in TUMF)

8. Nancy Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (only partially identified in TUMF)

9. Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours (only partially identified in TUMF)

10. Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard (only partially identified in TUMF)

Mitigation Measure TRAN-1b further provides that, in the event a fair share program has not been established in the City of Calimesa for the Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection, then the project applicant is required to construct certain interim improvements to mitigate the project’s cumulative impacts, provided that the agencies with jurisdiction over the improvements allow for such construction.

Thus, the implementation of recommended mitigation measures at the impacted intersections would mitigate the direct, cumulative, and long-term impacts of the project on local roadway segments and intersections to a less than significant level. However, the Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard intersection is partially under the jurisdiction of the City of Calimesa, which the County of Riverside does not control. Moreover, the land necessary for the realignment is privately owned and not under the control of the applicant or County. Thus, even though the project attempts to fully mitigate its impact to the greatest extent feasible as required by CEQA, the mitigation is technically infeasible because the County of Riverside cannot control the timing of the improvements. Other recommended improvements are not currently fully included as part of the TUMF program, as shown in Table 3.16-28 above.

For those reasons, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to the three intersections identified above under Existing plus Project plus Ambient plus Cumulative (2018) conditions, and the six intersections identified above under Horizon Year (2040) conditions.

I-10 Freeway Ramps Significant and unavoidable impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAN-1a and TRAN-1b require the applicant to pay its fair share by participating in a fair-share contribution program to fund

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-93 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 the improvement costs. Mitigation Measures TRAN-1a and TRAN-1b further provide that, in the event a fair share contribution program has not been established for the I-10 at Cherry Valley interchange, then the project applicant is required to construct certain interim improvements to mitigate the project’s cumulative impacts, provided that the agencies with jurisdiction over the improvements allow for such construction.

The installation of these interim traffic improvements contemplated in TRAN-1a(b) and TRAN-1b(b) would mitigate project impacts to less than significant levels, significantly increasing the capacity of the I-10 at Cherry Valley interchange ramp intersections, such that even with the addition of project traffic, delay and level of service will be improved to better than current conditions.

However, the I-10 Interchange is located within the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City of Calimesa—namely, I-10 Freeway Eastbound and I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard and I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard within the jurisdiction of the City of Calimesa and Caltrans. Therefore, because the County of Riverside itself does not control these areas, neither the applicant nor the County can guarantee the provision or timing of the specified improvements. For example, the County cannot control when or whether WRCOG and/or the City of Calimesa establishes the Fair Share Contribution Program (under TRAN-1a and TRAN-1b, Option 1), nor can the County grant the requisite permits for construction of the improvements that would be constructed on Caltrans’ and Calimesa’s property (under TRAN-1a, and TRAN-1b Option 2). Furthermore, the land necessary for the realignment within the City of Calimesa is privately owned and not under the control of the applicant or County.

Thus, even though the project attempts to fully mitigate its impact to the greatest extent feasible as required by CEQA, the mitigation is technically infeasible because the County of Riverside cannot control the timing of the improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable impact to I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard and I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard.

EAP (2018) 1. I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F 2. I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) LOS F

These impacts are considered significant as the project contributes traffic to the existing deficiency.

EAPC (2018) 1. I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM, PM Peak hours) LOS F 2. I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard (AM, PM Peak hours) LOS F

Horizon Year (2040) The project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the following ramp-to-arterial intersections because they are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions:

3.16-94 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

1. I-10 Eastbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours 2. I-10 Westbound Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard—LOS F AM and PM Peak Hours

I-10 Freeway Mainline Segments Significant and unavoidable impact. There are 19 freeway mainline segments that are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS under Existing traffic conditions and are anticipated to continue to operate at unacceptable LOS through Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions, even without the project. In addition, under Opening Year Cumulative (2018) conditions, the project would result in a worsening of the LOS for an additional six segments, in addition to the 19 segments that currently operate at an unacceptable LOS under existing conditions. As the project is expected to contribute peak-hour trips to the existing deficiencies on the regional SHS, the project’s incremental contribution is considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

Level of Service Standards

Impact TRAN-2: The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

Impact Analysis Each county in California is required to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that analyzes the links between land use, transportation, and air quality. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the County of Riverside’s Congestion Management Agency. The RCTC prepares and periodically updates the county’s CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System guidelines and state CMP legislation (RCTC 2013).

According to the 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program, Table 2-1, CMP System of Highways and Roadways, the roads adjacent to the project site (Cherry Valley Boulevard and Calimesa Boulevard) are not listed as part of the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. The I-10 is located approximately 0.35 of a mile west of the project site. However, that portion of I-I-10 within the vicinity of the project site is not listed as being part of the CMP System of Highways in Riverside County. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Riverside County CMP, and potential impacts would be less than significant. See Table 3.16-29, Table 3.16-30, and Table 3.16-31, below.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-95 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-29: Recommended Improvements for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2018) Conditions

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard -Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F -With Improvements TS 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 25.8 25.3 C C 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F -With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 17.4 16.2 B B 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard -Without improvements CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 24.9 28.5 C D With improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 14.4 14.6 B B Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d= de facto Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2000 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. The signalized I-10 ramp locations at Cherry Valley Boulevard have been analyzed using the Synchro software. 3 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 4 The roundabout concept is preliminary, and is based on the 2025 interim concept previously presented in the Roundabout Feasibility Study for Interstate 10 and Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange published by Omni‐means, Ltd. (September 2013). If a roundabout were to be selected for implementation, additional design and operational analysis consistent with both the Caltrans Geometric Design Guidance, Final Report (June 2007), and Report 672 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (Second Edition) published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will need to be performed. Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-96 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-30: Recommended Improvements for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1A Roberts Road/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements AWS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 55.9 52.3 F F - With Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 28.0 18.4 D C 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 51.1 44.6 D D 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 39.8 20.6 D C 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 15.1 15.1 A B 8 Nancy Avenue (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without improvements AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 44.1 12.3 E B - With improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 12.8 15.8 B B

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-97 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-30 (cont.): Recommended Improvements for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2018) Conditions

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d= de facto Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2000 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. The signalized I-10 ramp locations at Cherry Valley Boulevard have been analyzed using the Synchro software. 3 CSS = Cross-street Stop TS = Traffic Signal 4 The roundabout concept is preliminary, and is based on the 2025 interim concept previously presented in the Roundabout Feasibility Study for Interstate 10 and Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange published by Omni‐means, Ltd. (September 2013). If a roundabout were to be selected for implementation, additional design and operational analysis consistent with both the Caltrans Geometric Design Guidance, Final Report (June 2007), and Report 672 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (Second Edition) published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will need to be performed. Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-98 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-31: Recommended Improvements for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 I-10 EB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 0 1 1>> 0 2 1 1 2 0 38.5 54.4 D D With Roundabout Alternative4 RA 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 11.6 52.8 B D 2 I-10 WB Ramps/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 23.7 23.8 C C With Roundabout Alternative RA 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 2.8 4.1 A A 3 Calimesa Boulevard/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 81.5 71.3 F F - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1> 4.1 10.1 A B 5 Patton Road/Street 2/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Not Applicable - With Improvements Without Project TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 22.7 36.4 C D - With Improvements With Project TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 28.0 36.9 C D 7 Union Street (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 16.2 19.4 B B

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-99 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Table 3.16-31 (cont.): Recommended Improvements for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service Traffic # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 8 Nancy Avenue (NS)/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 11.9 27.3 B C 9 Beaumont Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements TS 1 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 0 87.0 113.1 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 d 1 1 d 1 2 1> 1 2 0 37.1 43.6 D D 10 Future Beckwith Avenue/Cherry Valley Boulevard - Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 >100.0 >100.0 F F - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 32.3 24.7 C C Notes: 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can be either 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 d= de facto Right Turn Lane >> = Free Right Turn Lane 1 = Improvement 2 Based on the 2000 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. The signalized I-10 ramp locations at Cherry Valley Boulevard have been analyzed using the Synchro software. 3 CSS = Cross-street Stop TS = Traffic Signal 4 The roundabout concept is preliminary, and is based on the 2035 interim concept previously presented in the Roundabout Feasibility Study for Interstate 10 and Cherry Valley Boulevard Interchange published by Omni‐means, Ltd. (September 2013). If a roundabout were to be selected for implementation, additional design and operational analysis consistent with both the Caltrans Geometric Design Guidance, Final Report (June 2007), and Report 672 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (Second Edition) published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will need to be performed. Source: Urban Crossroads, 2017.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-100 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Air Traffic Patterns

Impact TRAN-3: The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

Impact Analysis The project is not expected to affect air traffic either in terms of operations or passenger use, because additional trips associated with the project will consist of vehicle trips, and will not impact air traffic. The closest airport to the project site is the Banning Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 9.6 miles southeast of the project site. There are no private airfields located within two miles of the project site. Because of the project’s distance from the nearest airport, the project would not have an impact on air traffic.

Additionally, the project would not directly involve waterborne or rail traffic. Although the project may involve the storage and/or distribution of goods that have traveled by either rail or by water at some point, it is not expected to alter such traffic as it would merely accommodate existing consumer demand for such goods, and would not create or contribute to such demand.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact.

Hazards Due to Design Feature

Impact TRAN-4: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Impact Analysis The project involves the conversion of undeveloped land to an industrial development. The project will include improved circulation of existing roads that will be designed in accordance with County standards.

The project would provide substantial improvements to Cherry Valley Boulevard along its frontage, and payment of TUMF and DIF fees would provide additional funding for improvements to the local

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-101 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 road systems, as outlined under Impact TRAN-1. It should also be noted that the project is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, state and federal gasoline sales taxes generated from the project would further support ongoing County Road maintenance efforts, which would further reduce hazards from poorly maintained roadways.

The roads in the project vicinity are generally straight or include gentle vertical and horizontal curves, and do not have design feature hazards such as sharp curves such that the project would substantially increase these hazards. However, the project does propose site access improvements from Cherry Valley Boulevard to provide vehicles access to the project site.

Roadway improvements adjoining the project site that are required as mitigation measures to ensure that hazardous conditions are not created are assumed to be constructed in conjunction with site development, and are described below. These improvements should be in place prior to occupancy.

The recommended site-adjacent roadway improvements for the project are:

• Cherry Valley Boulevard—Construct Cherry Valley Boulevard from the westerly project boundary to the easterly project boundary at its ultimate half-section width as an Arterial Highway (128-foot right-of-way) consistent with the County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element. Construct a raised median on Cherry Valley Boulevard to enforce right- in/right-out access at Driveway 1 and Driveway 3.

• Street 2—Construct Street 2 from the project’s Private Roadway to Cherry Valley Boulevard as a Public Street at its ultimate full-section width as an Industrial Collector (78-foot right-of-way).

• Private Roadway—Construct project’s Private Roadway from northerly project boundary to its connection with Street 2 as a 56-foot paved section.

• Driveway 3—Construct Driveway 3, north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, at its ultimate full- section width as an Industrial Collector (78-foot right-of-way).

The Traffic Study for the project recommends site access driveway improvements for the project, which have been incorporated as mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts from the addition of site access driveways as part of the project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures In conjunction with adjacent project development activity or as needed for project access purposes, the project applicant shall ensure that the following site access driveway improvements are constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project:

3.16-102 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

MM TRAN-4a Driveway 1 at Cherry Valley Boulevard—Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the intersection with right-in/right-out access only in conjunction with the following geometrics:

• Northbound Approach: not applicable. • Southbound Approach: One right turn lane. • Eastbound Approach: One through lane. • Westbound Approach: One shared through-right turn lane.

MM TRAN-4b Street 2 at Cherry Valley Boulevard—Install a traffic signal and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:

• Northbound Approach: not applicable. • Southbound Approach: One left turn lane and one right turn lane. • Eastbound Approach: One left turn lane with a minimum of 250 feet of storage and one though lane. • Westbound Approach: One shared through-right turn lane.

MM TRAN-4c Driveway 3 at Cherry Valley Boulevard—Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the intersection with right-in/right-out access only in conjunction with the following geometrics:

• Northbound Approach: not applicable. • Southbound Approach: One right turn lane. • Eastbound Approach: One through lane. • Westbound Approach: One shared through-right turn lane.

MM TRAN-4d On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.

MM TRAN-4e Sight distance at each project access driveway shall be reviewed with respect to Caltrans and County of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. MM TRAN-4a to MM TRAN-4e will ensure adequate sight distance and appropriate placement of driveways, stop signs, traffic signals, and pavement striping to ensure that the project does not substantially increase roadway hazards due to a design feature.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-103 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Transportation and Traffic Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534

Emergency Access

Impact TRAN-5: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Impact Analysis The project will include improvements on streets adjacent to the project site and will include three site access points for the project site. Construction of the project may cause temporary delays along Cherry Valley Boulevard; however, the County requires temporary road construction and traffic congestion management plans during construction to minimize delay. With the project’s required preparation of a traffic congestion management plan, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact regarding circulation during construction. In order to ensure that such plan properly addresses potential environmental impacts, Mitigation Measure TRAN-5 requires the preparation of a traffic control plan, which would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Considering the temporary nature of project construction, and established County and City requirements for traffic control on public roadways during construction, the project is expected to have a less than significant impact on emergency access during construction. Emergency access to serve the operational project site will be developed in accordance with applicable ordinances, standard conditions of approval, and permits related to emergency access.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures MM TRAN-5 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall provide a detailed construction traffic control plan to the County of Riverside for approval. A construction traffic control plan shall be prepared for all aspects of project construction, including physical improvements on the site itself, as well as any off- site traffic improvements required to be completed directly by the project applicant. The construction traffic control plan shall describe in detail the location of equipment staging areas, stockpiling/storage areas, construction worker and equipment parking areas, roadways that would be potentially affected, safe detours around the project and/or roadway construction site, as well as provide temporary traffic control (e.g., flag person) and appropriate signage during construction-related truck hauling activities. The traffic control plan shall ensure adequate and uninterrupted access to all nearby residences throughout the construction period. The purpose of these measures is to safely guide motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, minimize traffic impacts, and ensure the safe and even flow of traffic during construction, consistent with County standards and requirements.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Preparation of a traffic congestion management plan as required by MM TRAN-5 will ensure that construction traffic and activities do not adversely affect safe and efficient traffic flow during construction.

3.16-104 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx San Gorgonio Crossing Recirculated Draft EIR No. 534 Transportation and Traffic

Public Transit, Bikeways, or Pedestrian Facilities

Impact TRAN-6: The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bikeways or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Impact Analysis There are no existing public transit stops, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities at the project site or in the area. The project will not impact any local or regional bike trail, as is demonstrated by Figure C-6, Bikeways and Trails Plan, of the County of Riverside General Plan, and Figure 8 in The Pass Area Plan.

The Pass Transit System provided by the City of Beaumont includes Routes 3, 4, 7, and 9, which come within 2 miles of the project site at closest approach. As this project and the surrounding area develop, the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) and the Pass Transit System may reassess the potential demand for these facilities in the area, and may establish new or extended routes near the project area. Development coordination with RTA and the Pass Transit System will determine the need for future bus turnouts. The design of the project includes curbs and sidewalks where required, thereby encouraging alternate methods of transportation for future development. Development of the project will comply with the development standards for the County of Riverside. These standards require sidewalks, and all access will be in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessibility.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3.16-105 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3426\34260005\EIR\8 - RDEIR\34260005 Sec03-16 Transportation.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK