Silverlakes Equestrian Sports Park Draft Environmental Impact Report

Transcription

1 Introduction This section describes the existing setting for transportation and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding roadways and intersections. escriptions and analyses in this section are based on information contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated September 25, 2008 prepared by Kunzman Associates, which is included in this EIR as Appendix H Existing onditions Roadway Network The roadway network consists of a hierarchy of roadways with classifications ranging from freeway to arterial to collector to local roadways. The main roadways in the project vicinity are shown in Exhibit Regional Access reeways serve regional and inter-city trips and are under the jurisdiction of the State of alifornia epartment of (altrans). Interstate 15 (I-15) provides direct access to the project area and is a northwest-southeast freeway that bisects western Riverside ounty. The I-15 reeway is approximately 150 feet east of the Proposed Project site and is a part of an interconnection of freeways providing access to Orange, San Bernardino, and San iego ounties. reeways connecting to the I-15 include State Route (SR) 91 approximately five miles south of the project area which enters Orange ounty from the east, and the SR-60 reeway 4.5 miles east of the project area which connects to the I-215 reeway to the east and the I-10 reeway to the north. Study Area Hierarchy and Roadways Arterials handle high traffic volumes, provide intra-city circulation and convey local traffic to major activity centers, highways, and freeways for regional access. In the project vicinity, Hamner Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway. ollector streets are next in the hierarchy of street classifications. They carry less traffic than arterials and provide a higher level of access to local land uses. In the project vicinity, 68 th Street, itrus Street, 6 th Street, Limonite Avenue, and Schleisman Road are classified as collector streets. Local roadways follow collector streets in the hierarchy of street classifications. Local streets carry the least amount of traffic but provide the highest level of local access. In the project vicinity, A Street is a local street that serves the existing residential neighborhoods northwest of the Proposed Project site. Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

2 Existing Intersection onditions Level of Service riteria The ity of Norco uses the methodology for calculating intersection congestion from the Highway apacity Manual (HM) based on the seconds of delay experienced at each leg of a particular intersection. The HM was last published in 2000 by the Research Board as Special Report 209. In the HM method, the intersection with the greatest delay is the most limiting and determines the overall Level of Service (LOS) of that particular intersection. The HM method differs from the volume-to-capacity (V/) ratio method that relates the total traffic volumes for critical turning movements to the maximum capacity for those movements through an intersection. The V/ ratio method is also commonly used in traffic studies but can only be used for signalized intersections. Unsignalized intersections (stop-controlled) are evaluated by measuring delay in seconds as described in the HM method. Table describes LOS class (A through ) based on the volume-to-capacity ratio or seconds of delay with LOS A being the best (i.e., free flowing) and LOS being the worst (i.e., totally congested). The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for the Proposed Project used seconds of delay (i.e., the HM methodology) to calculate traffic conditions and impacts. Table : Intersection Level of Service efinitions Level of Service (LOS) escription of Traffic Movement A ree flow with no delays. Users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream. B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays. Stable flow but the operation of individual users becomes affected by other vehicles. Modest delays. Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by other vehicles. elays may be more than one cycle during peak hours. E Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Long delays and vehicle queuing. orced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity. Stop and go traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing. Source: KA Volume-to- apacity Ratio (V/) Intersection Type HM elay in seconds/ vehicle) < > > > > > 1.00 > Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

3 Study Intersections Based upon the TIA, four intersections were identified that are impacted by trips generated without the Proposed Project. These intersections are listed in Table , along with their existing traffic controls, seconds of delay, and LOS values. The locations of these intersections are shown in Exhibit , and daily traffic volumes on area roadways are shown in Exhibit Table : Study Area Intersections - Existing onditions Intersection Hamner Avenue (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 68th Street (EW) Schleisman Road (EW) A Street (EW) itrus Street (EW) 6th Street (EW) I-15 reeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 6th Street (EW) I-15 reeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 3 6th Street (EW) Existing Traffic ontrol 1 SS SS Evening Peak Hour elay (sec) LOS 2 elay (sec) Saturday Peak Hour LOS 2 Source: Table 1, KA =Traffic Signal; SS = ross Street Stop. 2. elay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffic, Version (2008). Per the 2000 Highway apacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. or 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 = elay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service. Table summarizes the existing traffic operations during the evening (Thursday) and Saturday peak hours for the study area intersections. Based on existing community traffic characteristics, the evening peak hour is expected between 1:00 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. and Saturday peak hour is expected between 10:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. According to the TIA analysis, the following four (4) intersections currently operate at less or worse than LOS during one or more peak hours: Hamner Avenue at A Street (the future extension of Schleisman Road); Hamner Avenue at itrus Street; Hamner Avenue at 6th Street; and I-15 reeway Northbound Ramps at Limonite Avenue. Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

4 uture Traffic onditions Pursuant to discussions with ity of Norco staff, areawide growth calculations were added to existing volumes in the vicinity of the site for Opening Year (2010) traffic conditions. Opening Year (2010) traffic volumes have been calculated based on 2 percent annual growth added to existing volumes over a two-year period. Table shows the Year 2010 traffic conditions on area intersections without the Proposed Project. Table : Opening Year (2010) Traffic Impacts Without the Proposed Project Intersection Hamner Avenue (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 68th Street (EW) Schleisman Road (EW) A Street (EW) itrus Street (EW) 6th Street (EW) I-15 reeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 6th Street (EW) I-15 reeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 6th Street (EW) Existing Traffic ontrol 1 SS SS Evening Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour elay LOS 2 elay LOS Source: Table 9, KA =Traffic Signal; SS = ross Street Stop. 2. elay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffic, Version (2008). Per the 2000 Highway apacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. or 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 = elay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service. According to Table , seven (7) intersection will operate at less or worse than LOS during one or both peak hours in 2010 (project opening year): Hamner Avenue at Limonite Avenue; Hamner Avenue at A Street (the future extension of Schleisman Road); Hamner Avenue at itrus Street; Hamner Avenue at 6th Street; I-15 reeway Northbound Ramps at Limonite Avenue; I-15 reeway Southbound Ramps at Limonite Avenue; and I-15 reeway Southbound Ramps at 6th Street. E Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

5 Planned Improvements Tables 9 and 10 in the Project TIA listed various regional roadway and/or striping improvements that would be needed whether or not the Proposed Project was built (Kunzman 2008). All of the regionally warranted improvements are constructed or will be constructed through the Riverside ounty ommission (RT) and are funded through Uniform Mitigation ee (TUM) program, which all projects in the region have or will contribute to as a condition of development. As such, the need for the listed improvements is not generated by the Proposed Project, but is generated by regional growth now occurring in the Norco/Eastvale area. A list of regional improvements is summarized on pages 34 and 35 of the TIA. Traffic Signal Warranted According to the TIA, a traffic signal is warranted and will be under construction at the intersection of Hamner Avenue at itrus Street by the end of A traffic signal may also be warranted at the intersection of Hamner Avenue and the current location of Schleisman Road. Public The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) operates transit service for the ity of Norco. RTA is responsible for providing efficient and effective transit service that is available to all citizens in western Riverside ounty. At present, Route 38 runs along Hamner Avenue and Limonite Avenue, and Route 3 runs along 6 th Street, providing service near the Proposed Project site. Both Route 3 and 38 connect the southern and eastern portion of the ity via Arlington Avenue and La Sierra Avenue. Additionally, RTA provides a direct route to the University of alifornia Riverside (UR) campus through Routes 1 and 51. With multiple transfers, riders can connect to surrounding cities via the I- 15 and 60 reeways, including Ontario, Pomona (north); orona (south); Riverside, Moreno Valley, Loma Linda (east); and hino, hino Hills (west)(rta website 2008). Metrolink Metrolink is a mass transit rail system consisting of 12 stations and 11 lines, and was established to develop a regional transit service and to reduce the congestion on highways and improve mobility throughout the southern alifornia region. Local transit lines include the San Bernardino Line, Riverside Line, Antelope Valley Line, Ventura ounty Line, Orange ounty Line, Inland Empire- Orange ounty Line, 91 Line (Riverside - ullerton - owntown L.A.). Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) currently provides local transportation to Metrolink substations. The closest substation to the Proposed Project is at the Montclair Transenter Station located at entral Avenue and Holt Avenue, approximately 12 miles northwest of the Project site. Metrolink also connects to other various local mass transit agencies, including Omnitrans, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, intercity buses (Greyhound), Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA), SunLine Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and the Mountain Area Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

6 Bicycles Bicycle access is generally categorized using the following classes of access facilities: lass I (bike path) provides exclusive right-of-way for bicyclists and pedestrians, with cross flows of motorists minimized. lass II (bike lane) provides a restricted lane within the paved section of the right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles, with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited but with vehicle parking and cross flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. lass III (bike route) provides a right-of-way, designated by signs or permanent markings that are shared by pedestrians and motorists. urrently, there are few bicycle-related improvements or trails in the project area. The Project site only contains dirt and paved roads at present. Pedestrians/Equestrians The ity of Norco contains over 95 miles of pedestrian/equestrian trails, the most per capita of any city in Southern alifornia. The ity of Norco and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) have been working with the rest-to-oast Partnership assisting in the efforts to complete the entire Santa Ana River rest-to-oast Trail including connection to three county parks districts including Orange ounty, San Bernardino ounty, and Riverside ounty. The closest trail to the Proposed Project is the Santa Ana River Trail. The Silverlakes Project proposes to connect with the Santa Ana River Trail system, which runs directly south of the Project site and through the ity of Norco. Regulatory ramework State altrans established performance standard for all state highway facilities is the transition between LOS and. If a state highway facility operates below the transition between LOS and, the altrans threshold is to maintain the lower level of service. ity of Norco The irculation Element of the ity s General Plan contains the following goals and policies on traffic and circulation that relate to the Proposed Project: GOAL 1: A circulation network of equestrian trails and streets, integrated with the planned land uses that provide for a safe, efficient, and economic movement of people and goods. Policy 1.1: evelop a circulation system of equestrian trails connecting all residential lots into a citywide network that connects residential areas with commercial areas, public facilities, and open space/recreational elements Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

7 Policy 1.2: Establish a trail system that is separate and safe from vehicular traffic with appropriate (signalized as necessary) road and intersection crossings to maintain circularity of the trail system. Policy 1.3: evelop a circulation system of ity streets, excluding freeways, capable of serving existing and future increases in traffic. Policy 1.4: ollow appropriate ity standards in designing and constructing future street improvements. Policy 1.5: Take a leadership role in the preparation of a regional traffic mitigation program designed to resolve regional traffic issues, which impact the ity of Norco. Policy 1.6: Logically relate local street patterns with arterial and collector streets shown in the irculation Network. Through traffic on interior residential streets should be minimized and an improved circulation system developed which does not significantly deteriorate rural lifestyles in the ity's rural residential areas. Policy 1.7: Establish a signalized arterial street system that provides an acceptable level of service during peak hours under build out conditions. Policy 1.8: evelop, and update as necessary, a program for general mitigation fees for roads and traffic signals. Policy 1.9: Encourage a minimum Level of Service for roadway segments and a minimum Level of Service for intersections at peak hours under build out conditions. Policy 1.10: evelop a five-year capital improvement program, which maintains or improves the Level of Service and transit performance standards adopted by the ounty of Riverside as a part of its ongestion Management Program. Policy 1.11: Encourage the reduction of vehicle trips through implementation of emand Management (TM) strategies, such as requiring major employers to prepare Management Plans with provisions for carpooling, vanpooling, flexible work hours, etc. Policy 1.12: Support, where feasible, the regional emand Management strategies developed by the Riverside ounty ommission. Policy 1.14: ontinue to encourage the ounty and ity of Riverside to include in their respective general plans, and then construct a bridge crossing of the Santa Ana River to connect Arlington Avenue to an east-west extension of Schleisman Avenue. Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

8 Policy 1.15: Encourage the utilization of Opticom Traffic ontrol System on all signalized intersections within the ity. Policy 1.17: ity should not encourage traffic calming, street closure and unnecessary stop signs at the expense of emergency response. Analysis: The Proposed Project is a public facility with plans to connect to the Santa Ana River Trail, which connects to additional existing circulation networks of equestrian trails and streets. The Proposed Project will not interfere with the future extension of Schleisman Avenue. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal and its policies in regards to the circulation network of equestrian trails and streets, integrated with the planned land uses that provide for a safe, efficient, and economic movement of people and goods. GOAL 2: Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes. Policy 2.1: Encourage the use of the ity s equestrian circulation system for uses other than recreational where feasible, such as the installation of hitching posts, water troughs, and feed bins along equestrian trails that are close to commercial centers and public gathering places. Policy 2.2: ontinue to cooperate with the Riverside Transit Agency for the provision of public bus service (fixed route and ial-a-ride). Policy 2.3: Establish bus shelters at RTA stops to increase public recognition and use of the local and regional transit system. Policy 2.4: ooperate with altrans and the ounty of Riverside in providing sites and improvements for Park-and-Ride facilities. Policy 2.5: ontinue to maintain and improve the ity's system of equestrian trails to also meet the needs of pedestrians within the community. Policy 2.7: Support the development of the rest to oast Trail (equestrian, biking and hiking) through the Santa Ana River corridor. Policy 2.8: Prepare a bicycle transportation plan in conjunction with the rest to oast Trail to provide ity access to the trail for both equestrians, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and to qualify for state and federal funding to help pay for the trail improvements. Policy 2.10: ontinue to cooperate in the development of the Santa Ana River Equestrian Trail through the ity Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

9 Policy 2.11: Provide safe and convenient equestrian/pedestrian access between residential neighborhoods and the parks, open space and schools which service those neighborhoods. Policy 2.12: Provide safe crossings of major arterials for pedestrians and equestrians. Analysis: The Proposed Project will be a public facility with plans to connect to the Santa Ana River Trail, which connects to additional existing circulation networks of equestrian trails and streets. The Proposed Project will cooperate with the Riverside Transit Agency. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal and its policies encouraging the use of alternate transportation modes. Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

10

11 Source: Kunzman Associates (September 25, 2008). NORTH Michael Brandman Associates / _Ex_Trans_Ntwk.ai eet Not to Scale Exhibit Existing Network ITY O NORO SILVERLAKES EQUESTRIAN SPOR PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAT REPORT

12

13 Source: Kunzman Associates (September 25, 2008). NORTH Michael Brandman Associates / _EAT.ai eet Not to Scale Exhibit Existing Average aily Traffic ITY O NORO SILVERLAKES EQUESTRIAN SPOR PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAT REPORT

14

15 Thresholds of Significance According to the alifornia Environmental Quality Act (EQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental hecklist, to determine whether impacts to population and housing are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated: a.) ause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b.) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 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.) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g.) onflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? In addition, Policy 1.9 of the ity s irculation Element encourages the maintenance of LOS or better during peak hours on local roads and at local intersections Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. Traffic Increase Impact T-1 ause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [EQA Threshold 15(a)] Impact Analysis The project related traffic was analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Kunzman Associates (KA 2008) as outlined in Appendix H. The traffic report presented a traffic impact study methodology, an analysis, findings, recommendations, and supporting data. The TIA examined the following three scenarios: ocumentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

16 Evaluation of traffic conditions for the year at opening (2010) of the Proposed Project; and etermination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve ity of Norco level of service requirements. The TIA compared the proposed mixes of different land uses. The Proposed Project facility will be used as a 1,300 stall equestrian facility for "A Show" events and as a 400 stall equestrian facility for ounty Show events. The facility will include 10 soccer fields for practice during the week and 14 soccer fields for games on the weekends with a 400 stall equestrian facility for ounty Show events allowing for simultaneous use. The facility will be used on the weekends for soccer tournaments and League up soccer events utilizing 28 soccer fields. The 10 soccer fields used for practice with a 400 stall equestrian facility for ounty Show events was used in preparing the TIA to provide the most conservative analysis for weekday conditions. The planned 28-field soccer facility to be used for a League up event was considered in preparing the TIA to provide the most conservative (i.e., worst case ) analysis for weekend conditions. The TIA was conducted using the alifornia epartment of Warrant 3 Peak Hour traffic signal warrant analysis, as specified in the Manual of Uniform Traffic ontrol evices 2003 alifornia Supplement, dated May 20, The proposed 1,300 stall equestrian facility to be used for "A" Shows is projected to generate approximately 2,692 daily vehicle trips, 293 of which will occur during the evening peak hour and 281 of which will occur during the Saturday peak hour. The proposed soccer plan in which 10 fields would be used during the week for practice is projected to generate approximately 1,485 daily vehicle trips, 743 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed soccer plan in which all 28 soccer fields would be used for weekend League up events is projected to generate approximately 10,412 daily vehicle trips, 1,736 of which will occur during the Saturday peak hour. The proposed soccer development in which all 28 fields would be used for tournament events on the weekend is projected to generate approximately 8,611 daily vehicle trips, 1,436 of which will occur during the Saturday peak hour. The proposed park use plans will provide for a mixed-use capacity including a 400-stall ounty Show equestrian event. Ten soccer fields to be used for practices during the week or 14 soccer fields to be used for weekend tournaments is projected to generate approximately 6,345 daily vehicle trips, 1,179 of which will occur during the evening peak hour and 1,364 of which will occur during the Saturday peak hour. According to the TIA, some of the study area intersections are not projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours for Opening Year (2010) without planned improvements. Therefore, impacts due to increased traffic are potentially significant and mitigation is required Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

17 With recommended mitigation measures, impacts to traffic from the Proposed Project would be reduced to LOS or better during peak hours per ity irculation Element Policy 1.9. Table shows the LOS impacts of the project on local streets with implementation of recommended improvements. Table : Opening Year (2010) Traffic Impacts with the Proposed Project Intersection Hamner Avenue (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 68th Street (EW) Schleisman Road (EW) A Street (EW) Project Trailer Access itrus Street (EW) Project RV Access (EW) 6th Street (EW) I-15 reeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 6th Street (EW) I-15 reeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW) 6th Street (EW) Source: Table 12, KA Existing Traffic ontrol SS SS Evening Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour elay LOS elay LOS A B A B B B It should be noted that the intersection of Hamner Avenue and 6 th Street is already operating at unacceptable levels of service. According to Table 9 of the TIA (KA 2008), the opening year of 2010 for the intersection of Hamner Avenue and 6 th Street is already LOS () during PM peak, and is projected to be at LOS for both PM peak and Saturday mid-day peak in 2010 without the Project ever being developed. The TIA determined that LOS at this intersection could be brought into compliance with General Plan irculation Element policy l.9 with implementation of the proposed lane/intersection improvements (i.e., LOS or better). However, the proposed improvements are not financially or physically feasible at this location, as there is insufficient right-of-way. Even though the Proposed Project would only add an incremental amount of traffic to this intersection, this impact cannot be feasibly mitigated and is therefore considered significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures The following onsite and offsite traffic-related improvements and other measures are based on the Project Traffic Impact Assessment, as depicted in igure 41and 42 of the TIA (KA 2008): Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

18 MM T-1a Prior to the opening of the park for public use, all of the site access improvements will be constructed and useable by project traffic. These include the following: a) onstruct Hamner Avenue from the north project boundary to the south project boundary at its ultimate half-section width as an Urban Arterial (110 foot right-ofway), including landscaping and parkway improvements. b) Provide sufficient off-street (i.e., onsite) parking to meet the ity of Norco parking code requirements. c) Provide onsite traffic signing and striping as necessary for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians, in and out of the Project site. d) Review sight distances at all Project access points relative to altrans and/or ity of Norco standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. MM T-1b The Project shall make appropriate fair share contributions to the ity of Norco and the ounty of Riverside for the following offsite improvements: Hamner Avenue at Limonite Avenue One northbound right turn overlap; Hamner Avenue at Schleisman Road One northbound right turn lane with overlap; Hamner Avenue at A Street One northbound through lane and one southbound through lane; Hamner Avenue at itrus Street - One northbound right turn lane, two southbound left turn lanes, one eastbound through lane, one eastbound right turn overlap, two westbound left turn lanes, and one westbound through lane; I-15 reeway (SB) at 6 th Street One southbound right turn lane and one westbound left turn lane; and I-15 reeway (NB) at 6 th Street One northbound left turn lane. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and unavoidable impact (infeasible to mitigate Hamner Avenue at 6 th Street) Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

19 Level of Service Standards Impact T-2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [EQA Threshold 15(b)] Impact Analysis The trip generation for the Proposed Project was added to the surrounding roadway network according to the anticipated trip distribution patterns of the Project. These new trips were then added to the existing traffic volumes to arrive at the near-term with project traffic volumes. The following seven (7) study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS E or ) during the peak hours for Opening Year (2010) without project traffic conditions: Hamner Avenue (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW), A Street (EW), and itrus Street (EW).. I-15 reeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW), 6th Street (EW). I-15 reeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW), 6th Street (EW). The study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours for Opening Year (2010) with project traffic conditions, except for the following study area intersections that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours: Hamner Avenue (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW), Schleisman Road (EW), A Street (EW), itrus Street (EW), and 6 th Street (EW). I-15 reeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW), 6 th Street (EW). I-15 reeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Limonite Avenue (EW), 6 th Street (EW). or the Opening Year (2010) without project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is projected to be warranted at Hamner Avenue (NS) at A Street (EW). As outlined in T-1, the intersection of Hamner Avenue and 6 th Street is already operating at unacceptable levels of service. According to Table 9 of the TIA (KA 2008), the opening year of 2010 for the intersection of Hamner Avenue and 6 th Street is already LOS () during PM peak, and is projected to be at LOS for both PM peak and Saturday mid-day peak in 2010 without the Project ever being developed. The TIA determined that LOS at this intersection could be brought into compliance with General Plan irculation Element policy l.9 with implementation of the proposed lane/intersection improvements (i.e., LOS or better). However, the proposed improvements are not financially or physically feasible at this location, as there is insufficient right-of-way. Even though the Proposed Project would only add an incremental amount of traffic to this intersection, this impact cannot be feasibly mitigated and is therefore considered significant. Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

20 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures MM T-1a through MM T-1b. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and unavoidable impact. Air Traffic Patterns Impact T-3 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? [EQA Threshold 15(c)] Impact Analysis The Proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. See analysis under Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, impacts to air traffic patterns will be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Hazards Impact T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [EQA Threshold 15(d)] Impact Analysis The project has the potential to change local traffic patterns, increase traffic levels, or change a location that results in substantial safety risks. However, the traffic analysis by Kunzman Associates determined that the project would not create significant impacts as long as the proposed improvements were made, including contributions to area-wide traffic signals. As proposed, the Project would be readily accessible to emergency vehicles at several points along Hamner Avenue. The project is compatible with the ity of Norco goals and policies regarding public health and safety. Additionally, roadway and intersection designs will meet the city s roadway design criteria requirements insuring that roadway hazards are not created. Therefore, hazardous impacts will be less than significant Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

21 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Emergency Access Impact T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access? [EQA Threshold 15(e)] Impact Analysis Hamner Avenue, Limonite Avenue, 68th Street, Schleisman Road, A Street, itrus Street, 6th Street, and the I-15 reeway SB Ramps primarily serve the existing area. As part of general development in the area, a number of local roadways and signals will eventually be constructed or improved, thus enhancing emergency access and reducing impacts to emergency access to less than significant levels. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Parking apacity Impact T-6 Result in inadequate parking capacity? [EQA Threshold 15(f)] Impact Analysis The Proposed Project will be constructed as a public facility. The total amount of parking spaces in this project will meet the ity of Norco parking criteria requirements, ensuring that parking capacity will not be impacted. Therefore, project impacts related to parking are less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

22 onflict with Alternative Impact T-7 onflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [EQA Threshold 15(g)] Impact Analysis The project does not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. There are forms of alternative transportation available near the Project site. Additionally, the project is compatible with the ity s goals and policies on alternative transportation. The Proposed Project will not conflict with alternative transportation and therefore, impacts are less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

23 Authors: The table of contents below is for authors and editors to use. To refresh, place your cursor in the table of contents area and press Introduction Existing onditions Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table : Intersection Level of Service efinitions Table : Study Area Intersections - Existing onditions Table : Opening Year (2010) Traffic Impacts Without the Proposed Project Table : Opening Year (2010) Traffic Impacts with the Proposed Project Exhibit : Existing Network Exhibit : Existing Average aily Traffic Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

24 Bibliography: Please record your references as you draft your section. Author's Name. Year. Report Title. Author's Name. Year. Report Title. Author's Name. Year. Report Title. Author's Name. Year. Report Title. General Instructions We use an author date system within the narrative of the text and a similar format for recording the entry in the references. Web resources In the narrative: (elano Union School istrict 2006) In the bibliography: Website name. Year. The web address you visited. The date you accessed the site. or example: elano Union School istrict Website Accessed April 23, Personal communications In the narrative: (Sayers, pers. comm.) In the bibliography: ontact s last name, first name. Title, firm or company. Personal communication: form of pers comm ( , telephone, fax, etc.). ate of communication. or example: Sayers, orothy. Managing Editor, Bloomsbury Industries. Personal communication: . April 23, Reports in the narrative: (A J Environmental, Inc. 2005) In the bibliography: irm s name as author; if person, last name, initials only. Year published. Title of Report. Month day published (if known.) or example: A J Environmental, Inc ity of Bakersfield Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Bakersfield OHV Park, Kern ounty, alifornia, August Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc

25 Michael Brandman Associates H:\lient\3399-ity of Norco _Sec04-15.doc