For Transportation Commission Meeting [August 7, 2019]
TO: Honorable Chairperson and Commission
APPROVAL: Sean Grayson, Acting Public Works Director
FROM: Azzam Jabsheh, P.E., T.E., Associate Civil Engineer
Title
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis - Truck Parking/Storage on the South Side of Jurupa Avenue at the Southwest Corner of Lilac Avenue.
(ACTION ITEM)
Body
BACKGROUND:
On May 17, 2018, the Consultant Engineer submitted a county scoping agreement for the project, which is in the County of San Bernardino (County) area just west of the Rialto City limits. The City of Rialto (City) provided comments on the scope and a revised scoping agreement with the County was submitted for Rialto review on June 14, 2018. It was followed by a TIA prepared for the County on March 4, 2019. The City completed a review of the TIA and sent comments on March 6, 2019. The County notified the City that the City comments were included in the County review of the TIA. The project is the development of an 8.89-acre parcel with a 500 square foot office building, 6 passenger car parking spaces and 143 semi-truck/trailer parking spaces. Completion date is estimated to be 2020.
The site location is shown on Page 3 of the TIA in Figure 1, which is included as Attachment 1, while the site plan is shown on Page 4 in Figure 2 of the TIA, which is included as Attachment 2.
The site will have one (1) driveway onto Lilac Avenue. The driveway was analyzed as full access. The driveway onto Lilac Avenue is dimensioned as 60 feet wide and provides for truck and passenger vehicles. The driveway is shown with radius returns. There are proposed gates to the truck parking areas and they are set back from the street but not dimensioned. It appears the larger truck parking area may be designated for a single user while the smaller area may be planned for mixed usage on an availability basis.
The ITE Trip Rate Manual does not have a truck parking facility listed so the trip impacts were estimated using data from a similar type of facility located in Perris and are shown on Page 18 Table 3 of the TIA, which is included as Attachment 3. The analysis used the trip rates from what is listed as a similar facility. Total daily trips are estimated at 393 PCE with the AM/PM peak hour being 35/38 PCE trips. The intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue was identified as an impacted intersection with LOS E in the PM peak hour.
Traffic and intersection counts were provided and were collected in February of 2018. This project will be conditioned by the County for improvements but by inclusion of City comments needs to address impacts and fair share costs for Riverside Avenue widening and other intersection improvements.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
While this is a County project and wholly within the County, the TIA did indicate there are impacts at intersections and along roadways within the City. As a part of the City review, these impacts were noted and have been included in the County review.
The City commented that a significant amount of traffic was being sent north and south along Riverside Avenue. Had the project been within City limits, it would have been conditioned to pay a fair share for the improvement of Riverside Avenue to six (6) lanes, the railroad bridge and intersection improvements along Riverside Avenue. Similar projects within City limits can either calculate the fair share percentage or the City has allowed payment of the estimated amount per trip from the local DIF study (Iteris) that is being proposed.
The developer questioned the payment of the proposed local DIF and observed that the local DIF is allocated to trips throughout the City and includes improvements throughout the City. This project is only creating trips below the I-10 freeway and generally along Riverside and Slover Avenues.
The developer’s consultant took the estimates from the Iteris study of the local DIF, used only the improvements below the I-10 Freeway, and estimated this to be 62.3% of the total estimated in the Iteris DIF study. They then proposed that the local DIF (estimated to be $375.50 per trip) be set at 62.3% of the proposed fee (reflecting the costs below the I-10 Freeway). This would then equate to $233.94 per trip. Further, they wanted to reduce the percentage to 50% or $187.75 per trip as the fair share contribution. In a letter suggesting the reduction, the number of PCE trips is stated to be 374 trips whereas the TIA sets this number at 393 PCE trips.
Conclusion
This project, while in the County area and subject to County conditions, was also submitted to the City for review and comment. The City commented that there were impacts to Riverside Avenue and intersections along Riverside Avenue as well as impacts on the railroad bridge between Slover Avenue and the I-10 Freeway.
Rather than do detailed analysis of costs and percentages of new traffic, it was suggested that the project pay the proposed local DIF fee as the improvements contemplated are included in that fee. The developer pointed out that this project was not in the City and would only benefit and affect improvements south of the I-10 Freeway along Riverside Avenue and proposed that only the percentage of the local DIF below I-10 Freeway be included in their calculation. The percentage was calculated at 62.3% using data from the Iteris local DIF study. Taking 62.3% of the proposed fee ($375.50) yields a fee of $233.94 per trip. Using the estimated 393 trips at $233.94 equals $92,170.98 for a fair share representation.
The developer also suggested that this facility might also alleviate on-street parking and be of further benefit to the City, which might be considered to reduce the fair share payment amount
The reduction of the proposed local DIF to represent only project south of the I-10 Freeway seems to be a reasonable request, as it does not appear impacts will be generated north of the I-10 Freeway by this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Transportation Commission:
• Set final conditions and recommendations related to approval.
• Require fair share contribution for improvements in the amount of $92,170.98 (reflecting 62.3% of local DIF estimated costs)
• Recommend approval to the City Council.