Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 Altair Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN Final Environmental ImpactReport SCH • 2014111029 Prepared for October 2017 City of Temecula ESA u. 7 a� III c � - _ F y�pflC ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No, 2014111029 Prepared for October 2017 City of Temecula 550 West C Street �� Suite 750 San Diego,CA 92101 619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Bend Oakland San Francisco Camarillo Orlando Santa Monica Delray Beach Pasadena Sarasota Destin Petaluma Seattle Irvine Portland Sunrise Los Angeles Sacramento Tampa Miami San Diego OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY I ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions.ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry,a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry.ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S.Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change(BC3).Internally,ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations.This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Altair Specific Plan Final EIR Page Chapter1: Introduction .....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process........................................................1-6 1.3 Method of Organization ........................................................................................1-7 1.4 Focus of Comments..............................................................................................1-8 1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................1-9 Chapter2: Errata................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description ..............................................................2-1 2.2 Draft EIR— Impact Analysis Additions and Corrections........................................2-8 Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources......................................................2-8 Draft EIR Section 3.4, Cultural Resources.......................................................2-12 Draft EIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emission and Climate Change.........2-15 Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................2-16 Draft EIR Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning................................................2-17 Draft EIR Section 3.11, Population and Housing.............................................2-19 Draft EIR Section 3.12, Public Services...........................................................2-21 Draft EIR Section 3.13, Traffic and Transportation..........................................2-22 Draft EIR Section 3.14, Utilities and Water Supply Assessment......................2-23 Energy Consumption/Conservation.................................................................2-25 Chapter 3: Response to Comments .................................................................................3-1 3.1 Response to Comments Structure........................................................................3-2 3.2 Common Responses ............................................................................................3-2 3.3 Response to Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR.................................3-24 Appendix A. Nature Center Analysis B. Nature Center Biological Assessment C. Nature Center Traffic Impact Assessment D. Nature Center Air Quality/GHG Worksheets E. Nature Center Energy Consumption Worksheets Altair Specific Plan I ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Figures 2-1 South Parcel Nature Center Site Plan.........................................................................2-3 Tables 1-1 Nature Center/South Parcel........................................................................................1-4 1-2 Land Use Change Comparison...................................................................................1-6 1-3 Summary of Draft EIR Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................1-10 2-1 South Parcel Nature Center Land Use Summary.......................................................2-2 2-2 Estimated Petroleum Use .........................................................................................2-26 2-3 CEDU 2014 Mid Case Demand Baseline Forecasts of SCE Electricity Demand......2-28 2-4 Consistency with General Plan Energy Goals and Policies ......................................2-30 2-5 Estimated Petroleum Use .........................................................................................2-35 2-6 CEDU 2014 Mid Case Demand Baseline Forecasts of SCE Electricity Demand......2-38 3-1 List of Comments Received on the Draft EIR .............................................................3-1 Altair Specific Plan II ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Report(Final EIR)has been prepared pursuant to the State of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) of 1970 (as amended)(California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project addressed in this report is the Altair Specific Plan(project or Altair). The City of Temecula is the CEQA lead agency for this EIR. The proposed project includes approval of a Development Agreement, a Tentative Tract Map, a General Plan Amendment to amend the existing Land Use Policy Map and the existing Roadway Plan; and a zone change to replace the existing zoning designations(BP—Business Park; OS- Open Space; SP-8-Westside Specific Plan)with new zones and associated use and development regulations and standards for the Specific Plan area. 1 .1 Background On May 2,2016,the City of Temecula(the lead agency)released for public review a Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR) for the project.Following a 45-day review period,the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR closed on June 17,2016. Twenty-six comment letters were received on the proposed project. The revisions to the Draft EIR,Response to Comments, and Appendices constitute the Final EIR for the proposed project and are included as Chapter 2,Errata, and Chapter 3,Response to Comments. The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the lead agency that must be considered by decision makers before approving or denying the proposed project. Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies the Final EIR shall consist of the following: (a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft. (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the lead agency. Altair Specific Plan ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Section 15004 of the CEQA Guidelines states that before the approval of any project subject to CEQA,1 the lead agency must consider the final environmental document,which in this case is the Final EIR. This Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. This Final EIR incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public,and contains appropriate responses by the lead agency to those comments. The information provided in public comments and the responses and revisions contained in this Final EIR do not constitute significant new information under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 or CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5(b),in that there are no new significant environmental impacts,no "substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact"that cannot be mitigated, and no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures put forth in public comments that are considerably different than previously analyzed. Similarly,there have been no changes in the environmental setting,which forms the basis of the EIR's analysis. The information and descriptions added instead merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR. Final EIR — Specific Plan South Parcel Nature Center Use Following circulation of the Draft EIR for public review,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and comments received at previous City Council project workshops (July 28,2016; September 27, 2016; and February 14,2017)to propose a Nature/Culture/Sustainability Center(NCS),herein referred to as the"Nature Center" on the South Parcel,replacing the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. Notwithstanding this Nature Center land use proposal for the South Parcel,the City Council retains the right to consider the previously proposed institutional land use on the South Parcel in its public hearing deliberations. The Draft EIR circulated in May 2016 for this project analyzed a community college with up to 5,000 students and 400 employees for the South Parcel and included impacts and mitigation measures that were documented based upon this worst-case land use.A majority of the comments received on the Draft EIR concerned the South Parcel land use. In response to community concerns regarding land uses proposed for the South Parcel,the Nature Center use has been proposed,which would limit permitted uses at the site and has been separately described and evaluated in this Final EIR and in Appendix A. The Nature Center use is also discussed in the Final EIR response to public comments. The Nature Center use is consistent with the series of permitted uses allowed under the Specific Plan as originally proposed,because this reduced intensity use and its environmental impacts are analyzed within the scope of those impacts already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR.Nevertheless, in order to provide a t The word"approval"is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean"the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person..."In addition,the CEQA Guidelines state that"[w]ith private projects,approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract,grant,subsidy,loan, or other form of financial assistance,lease,permit,license,certificate,or other entitlement for use of the project." Altair Specific Plan 1-2 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction clear distinction from the civic/institutional use evaluated in the Draft EIR,Appendix A has been provided for the public and decision makers for informational purposes and to support the findings of the City in the event the Nature Center use is selected for the Specific Plan South Parcel area. It is important to note that the Nature Center use would be considered a permitted use under the proposed South Parcel Civic/Institution use, as all of the uses contemplated for the South Parcel were already expressly identified in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR. Refer to Table 1-2 in the Final EIR Land Use Change Comparison. The Civic/Institutional use for the South Parcel was chosen for evaluation in the Draft EIR not only because it is a desired use for the South Parcel but also because it represents the most-intense use that would be allowed under the Specific Plan and was evaluated in the Draft EIR. Draft EIR — Specific Plan South Parcel Civic Use Under the original Draft EIR,which was circulated for public review in May 2016,the majority of the South Parcel would be conserved as natural or manufactured open space,resulting in a development area of approximately 19 acres and a buildable footprint of approximately 9 acres after initial site preparation(manufactured slopes,retaining walls, landscape buffers, etc.). See Figures 2-2 and 2-3 of the Draft EIR. The proposed zoning for this parcel under the proposed project is Specific Plan—Institutional(SP-I)and Specific Plan—Natural Open Space(SP-NO). Under the proposed project,the South Parcel could be developed as an educational facility that would accommodate up to 5,000 students, or an office/research and development campus. In addition to, or in lieu of, an educational/research facility, other institutional uses may include,but are not limited to, a convention center,hospital, and/or cultural center. Regardless of the use(s), the site would allow a maximum of 450,000 building square feet;with buildings up to five stories in height. Project features incorporated into project design,to buffer wildlife activity in the conserved areas of the site,include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high berm on the southern side of the building area, and the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the building area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds.At the southerly end of the site,the project would improve an existing unimproved utility maintenance road described as`B" Street South and"C" Street to a Local Road(60-foot right-of-way) standard. These improvements would provide access to Village G and the South Parcel. Portions of`B" Street South and"C" Street would cross over offsite MWD property. Those offsite portions would be improved to MWD standards and require permanent easements from the District. Nature Center Use Description As described above,the proposed new land use for the South Parcel includes a Nature Center, two parking lots,trails and bicycle paths, and park and recreation facilities. The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings to a maximum building area of 20,000 square feet and a two-story maximum building height. In addition, similar to the proposed project,this new proposed use would preserve approximately 39.88 acres of natural open space. The components of the Nature Center use for the South Parcel are discussed in greater detail below and are shown in Figure 2-1,Nature Center Site Plan, and Table 1-1,Nature Center/South Parcel. Altair Specific Plan 1-3 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction TABLE 1-1 NATURE CENTER/SOUTH PARCEL Component Area(acres) Natural Open Space Area Undisturbed Open Space 33.84 Camino Estribo(unimproved) 1.40 Trails 2.00 Subtotal—Natural Open Space Area 37.24 Disturbed Area Graded Area(not including Nature Center Pad/Streets/Trails) 11.22 Nature Center Pad(including parking lot) 3.70 Trails 1.21 B&C Street 0.70 Drainage Improvements 0.85 Subtotal—Disturbed Area 17.68 Total 54.92 NOTES: 1. Fill Area:850 cubic yards(cy)cut/512,700 cy fill 2. Fill area would be revegetated 3. Nature Center Parcel:16.17(includes disturbed area+1.68 acres of Natural Open Space Area) 4. Open Space Parcel:38.75 5. Nature Center Building:12,000 square feet(sf)footprint/20,000 maximum—2-story 6. Nature Center Parking:120 spaces 7. Final Natural Open Space Trails to be sited in consultation with Pechanga 8. 10 percent maximum trail grade SOURCE:Ambient,2017 Nature Center Building and Parking Lot The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings up to a maximum building area of 20,000 square feet and a maximum building height of two-stories. The Nature Center land use would provide a public benefit to the City by offering educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture,the natural environment, and sustainability of the region, as well as provide recreational trails and facilities within the preserved area of the site. The trail would be self- contained to the Civic Site via out and back,or loop trail to and from the Nature Center. If more than one building is proposed,the buildings would be designed to be cohesive through orientation and architecture. The Nature Center buildings would also be designed similar to other Nature Centers in the region,including compatible materials and colors, and would incorporate integrated indoor and outdoor spaces to connect the site to the surrounding natural setting. Further,the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. One parking lot would be constructed to provide 120 parking spaces for employees and visitors to the Nature Center in accordance with the City of Temecula's Parking Standards. The buildings,parking lots, and hardscape areas would have stormwater treatment facilities designed to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Trails and landscaping would be designed Altair Specific Plan 1-4 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction to minimize erosion and vegetation/habitat impacts. Operation of the Nature Center would be limited from dawn until two hours after dusk, and would have minimal nighttime lighting. The expected monthly average number of visitors is 7,213. Special events could be held at the Nature Center that could draw larger-than-average crowds. Open Space The Nature Center land use would preserve approximately 39.88 acres as natural open space, which is the same as provided under the South Parcel use. The preservation of a significant portion of the South Parcel as natural open space would aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of wildlife movement between the Cleveland National Forest and the Palomar Mountains. The project site would create approximately 1.15 miles of new trails. Currently,the project site contains 0.80 mile of existing trails. Therefore, at build-out,the Nature Center land use would include a total of 1.95 miles of trails. Table 1-1 provides the details of the Nature Center planning area. Access/Circulation/Trails The South Parcel is bounded by Camino Estribo and open space to the west, "C" Street and a stormwater easement(open space)to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east and south. Vehicular access to the South Parcel would be provided via the existing road referred to as`B" Street South from the proposed Western Bypass. All proposed onsite trails are loop trails and do not provide direct access to open space areas west, south,or east of the South Parcel. Project Construction/Phasing Plan The Altair Specific Plan would be developed in four phases over an approximate 10-year timeframe,with the phased construction of streets,utilities, and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective phase. It is anticipated that development would start at the north end of the project and proceed southerly. While four construction phases are anticipated,it is possible that these phases would be divided into sub-phases to better accommodate development. This would not change the proposed duration of build-out(estimated to be 10 years), intensity of construction activities, or the amount of development. Since the South Parcel is located in the southern end of the Specific Plan area, it is assumed that this site would be developed during the third phase of project construction. Grading Plan The area of disturbance for the Nature Center planning area(including fill area,Nature Center pad,parking lot,trails,B Street South, C Street, and drainage improvements)would be 17.68 acres as described above in Table 1-1. A total of approximately 850 cubic yards (cy) of soil would be excavated, and 512,200 cy of fill would be used on site from other areas of the project site. Land Use Change Comparison Table 1-2,Land Use Change Comparison,provides a comparison of the Civic/Institutional use analyzed within the Draft EIR and the Nature Center Alternative analyzed within this document. Altair Specific Plan 1-55 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction TABLE 1-2 LAND USE CHANGE COMPARISON Allotted Civic/Institutional Use Nature Center Use Use Change Comparison Uses (Draft EIR) (Final EIR) (Civic Use to Nature Center) 450,000 SF building(s) 20,000 sf building(s) 95 percent reduction in maximum Most- building square footage Intense 5-story building heights 2-story building heights Use 5,000 students N/A—students 60 percent reduction in maximum building height University Nature Center/Exhibits Permitted Uses: Hospital and Medical Trails/Bicycle Paths Park& Nature Center/Exhibits Office Recreational Facilities Trails/Bicycle Paths Parking Lot Hotel Conference Rooms Park&Recreational Facilities Trails/Bicycle Paths Library Nature Center/Exhibits Museum and Galleries Conditionally Permitted If Consistent Park&Recreational Restaurant with Nature Center Use: Facilities Offices Conference Rooms Permitted Conference Facilities Parking Lot Library Uses Library Museum and Galleries Museum and Galleries Restaurant Religious Institutions Offices Restaurant Offices Community Garden Athletic Fields and Game Courts Parking Lot or Structure As summarized in Table 1-2, implementation of the Nature Center land use would result in a 95 percent or greater reduction of the maximum allowable building size and a 60 percent reduction in the maximum building height. In addition,the Nature Center land use would limit the amount of permitted uses on the site to just this land use. The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment and is included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.Nature Center—specific impacts and associated mitigation measures are documented in this assessment and are herein incorporated into the Final EIR by reference.All environmental impacts associated with the Nature Center use on the South Parcel are similar or reduced in comparison to the Civic Use evaluated in the Draft EIR. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality,biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas/climate change, noise,traffic,public services, and utilities are substantially reduced in comparison to the Civic Use evaluated in the Draft EIR. 1 .2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process The Final EIR allows the public an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR,the response to comments, and other components of the EIR,including revisions and/or corrections to the Draft EIR,prior to approval of the project.All parties who provided comments on the Draft EIR will receive responses to those comment a minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearing, The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, Altair Specific Plan 1-6 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction either in whole or in part,if the project is approved. After completing the Final EIR and before approving the project,the lead agency must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: • The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; • The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and • The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines,no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact)for each of those significant effects,accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social,technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. 1 .3 Method of Organization This Final EIR for the proposed project contains information in response to concerns raised by written comments sent to the City of Temecula. The Final EIR is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter 1,Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed project, information about the certification of the Final EIR, and a brief discussion of the intended uses of the Final EIR. Chapter 1 also contains the final Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. • Chapter 2,Errata,discusses the revisions to the proposed project and Draft EIR, including text changes and/or additions proposed by the City of Temecula, as lead agency,and text changes and/or additions in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. Chapter 2 does not contain any changes to the appendices. • Chapter 3,Response to Comments, contains a matrix of agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas addressed by those comments. Chapter 3 also includes a copy of each written comment Altair Specific Plan 1-7 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction letter and a written response to each comment. Because the proposed South Parcel Nature Center land use was developed following circulation of the Draft EIR,Final EIR response to comments have been structured to respond to all comments that pertain or relate to the proposed South Parcel land uses both in the context of the original proposed institutional use and the currently proposed Nature Center use. 1 .4 Focus of Comments Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the purpose of public review of a draft environmental document: The purposes of review of EIRs and negative declarations include: a. Sharing expertise, b. Disclosing agency analyses, c. Checking for accuracy, d. Detecting omissions, e. Discovering public concerns, and f. Soliciting counter proposals. Sections 15204(a) and 152O4(c)of the CEQA Guidelines further state: (a) In reviewing Draft EIRs,persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time,reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, analysis, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts,reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064,an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 152O4(f) of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency may submit proposed mitigation measures, limited to the resources subject to the statutory authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance Altair Specific Plan 1-8 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction objectives for the measures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference materials. 1 .5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts,and recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3,Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the Draft EIR. An analysis has been prepared for the South Parcel Nature Center use and is contained in Appendix A. The air quality/GHG assessment,biological assessment, and traffic impact analysis have been updated to evaluate the South Parcel Nature Center use and also are contained as appendices. Project impacts(associated with development of the site with the South Parcel Civic Use), recommended mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1-3, Summary of Draft EIR Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.As shown in Table 1-3,the project evaluated in the Draft EIR with the South Parcel Civic Use would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to (1)operational air quality, (2)greenhouse gas emissions, (3) construction noise/vibration, and(4)traffic(Rancho California Road/Ynez Road). Altair Specific Plan 1-9 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction TABLE 1-3 SUMMARY OF FINAL EIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Aesthetics Impact AES-1:The project Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all development within the Less than would create a new source of project area: Significant light and glare throughout the . Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such that no light spillage will project area. occur on adjacent properties. • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain"sharp cut-off'fixtures,and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening,closing, and night light/security lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock,photocell,and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping,onsite architectural massing,and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting,the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula.The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No.655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include,but not be limited to,the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens. o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all lamp locations,orientations,and intensities,including security, roadway,and task lighting. o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield. o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,expressed as lumens per acre. o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used,especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan,Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No.655. Altair Specific Plan 1-10 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Air Quality Impact AQ-1:Operational Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1a: No wood burning fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Significant and activities occurring after the Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 b:The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units shall include the following: Unavoidable buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings. contribute substantially to any b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings.Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both existing or projected air quality interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. violation. c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks,flextime,telecommuting,and/or work-at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed.(non-quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c:All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d:All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent;or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy,for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development,such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1e:The lease or purchase agreements for all multi-family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi-family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non-residential buildings.Additionally,building management shall encourage a ride-share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities.(non- quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as,but not limited to,special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles.(non-quantifiable) c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces(per multi-family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles.(non-quantifiable) Impact AQ-2:Emissions of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2:The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance(grading)activities Less than localized criteria pollutants for all project development phases.During drought conditions,defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by Significant from construction of the project the Rancho California Water District,use of reclaimed water or non-water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such could expose sensitive that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable.Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought receptors to substantial conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that pollutant concentrations. (1)Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site;and(2)Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. Altair Specific Plan 1-11 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Biological Resources Impact 113I0-1:Activities Mitigation Measure MM-113I0-1:To the extent feasible,clearing and grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian Less than associated with construction of breeding season,which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing activities are necessary during Significant the project could have a the breeding season,a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified significant impact on special biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys.The survey shall occur no more than status avian wildlife and 7 days prior to any clearing,grubbing,construction or ground-disturbing activities. If active nest(s)(with eggs or fledglings) migratory birds including are identified within the project area,the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged(matured to a Cooper's hawk,northern state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival).A 500-foot construction harrier,white-tailed kite,and setback from any active raptor nesting location(or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist,based on species, California horned lark. construction activity,the birds'response/habituation to human presence,and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest)shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed,as determined by a qualified biologist.A 300-foot construction setback(or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist,based on species,construction activity,and the birds'response/habituation to human presence,and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest)shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified,construction may commence.All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material(flagging,staking,construction fencing,etc.)and verified by a qualified biologist.Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible,as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City,noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. Impact BIO-2:The project Mitigation Measure MM-113I0-2:Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified Less than could have a significant impact biologist using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Significant on burrowing owl or suitable Conservation Plan Area(EPD,2006)no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence burrowing owl habitat during or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified,no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may construction. commence. If a burrowing owl is detected,the City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site,the applicant shall implement the following measure: • Take of active nests shall be avoided.Passive or active relocation(use of one way doors and collapse of burrows),as approved by the RCA,may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season(March 1 -August 31).If active relocation is selected,translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies.Translocation sites will be identified,taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas,presence of burrowing mammals,existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species.Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development. Altair Specific Plan 1-12 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact 13I0-3:The Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1,MM-13I0-6b, MM-BIO-7a,MM-1310-7b,MM-1310-7c, MM-NOI-1a and MM-N01- Less than urban/wildland interface 1b. Significant associated with the Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-3:The following Best Management Practices shall be adhered to: construction and operation of the project could have a • Prior to the issuance of any clearing,grubbing,or grading permit for the project,a qualified biologist(Project Biologist) significant effect on mountain with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites,shall be retained by the applicant to lions and other wildlife. oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project.The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event of non-compliance. • The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities,including,but not limited to:vegetation removal,tree removal or trimming,grading,and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site,and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing.Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly.Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course,and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project-proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas.Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. Impact 13I0-4: Implementation Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project,the applicant shall obtain all Less than of the project could have a necessary agency permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters,wetlands and riparian resources,including USACE,CDFW, Significant substantial adverse effect on and RWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio.Impacts to unvegetated channel riparian/riverine habitat. shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio.Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options:on-or off-site habitat restoration;purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program;and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies(USACE,RWQCB,and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum,the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values,and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements Altair Specific Plan 1-13 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign-off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project,a DBESP shall be approved by the RCA to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat.The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description,demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project,including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects,such as edge treatments,landscaping,elevation difference,minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted,used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation,including habitat type,location,functional lift,and long-term stewardship responsibility • A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts,the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition Impact BI0-5:The project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a and MM-BIO-4b. Less than could have a significant impact Significant on federally protected wetlands. Impact BI0-6: Implementation Implement Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a, MM-1310-4b and MM-1310-7c. Less than of the proposed project could Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project,or any phase thereof,the Significant have a substantial adverse applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees,as determined by the City of Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, effect on sensitive natural to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species.As provided for in the RCA's applicable fee ordinance communities identified in local and/or adopted resolutions,the applicant may request discretionary approval from the RCA fee credits for land conserved or regional plans, policies, onsite that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP.Any such request and approval shall not otherwise regulations,or by CDFW or diminish or void the applicant's obligation to pay the required Local Development Mitigation fees. USFWS. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO 6b:At the time of final map recordation for the project,or any phase thereof,lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project(Conserved Lands)and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA.Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077,7161,7078,7164,7258,7264,7355 and 7356. Altair Specific Plan 1-14 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact 13I0-7:The project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-1310-6b, MM-NOI-1a,MM-NOI-1b and MM-NOI-3. Less than could interfere with the Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7a:The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main Significant movement of wildlife species, development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. and with established migratory wildlife corridors.The project Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-7b:The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the could have direct and indirect Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands,to keep animals within the wildlife impacts to the movement of corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project,the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed mountain lion and other wildlife fencing plan for review and approval by the City Community Development Department, RCA,CDFW,and USFWS.The in Proposed Linkage 10. fencing plan shall include,at a minimum,the fencing location,fencing specifications,plant list,and method and timing of installation. Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-7c:A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant.The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass.The Plan shall include at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas • Equipment and methods for planting • A planting plan,including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation • Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas,including removal of invasive species and irrigation(if necessary) • A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach • Identification of entity responsible for installation,maintenance,and monitoring Impact 13I0-8:The project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-1310-6b, MM-NOI-1a,MM-NOI-1 b and MM-NOI-3. Less than could interfere with the Significant movement of wildlife species, and with established migratory wildlife corridors.The project could have direct and indirect impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Impact 13I0-9:The project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-13104a,MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a and MM-1310-6b. Less than would have an onsite shortfall Significant of conserved acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat. Impact BIO-10: Project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a and MM-BIO-4b. Less than impacts to riparian/riverine Significant habitat could result in the project being inconsistent with the MSHCP. Altair Specific Plan 1-15 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact BIO-11:Project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-1310-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, MM-NOI-1a, Less than impacts at urban/wildland MM-N0I-11b, MM-NOI-3, MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2,and MM-HYD-3. Significant interface areas could result in the project being inconsistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Impact BIO-12:The project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-1310-6b, MM-1310-7c, MM-NOI-1a and MM-NOI-1 b. Less than could have a significant effect Significant on Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,and,therefore,could be inconsistent with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. Impact BIO-13:Project design Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1,MM-BIO-4a,MM-BIO-4b,MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c. Less than and construction of the Significant Western Bypass,a Covered Activity,could result in the project being inconsistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1:The project Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 a—Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist:Prior to issuance of a grading permit and Less than area is considered moderately prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity,the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist,defined as an Significant to highly sensitive for cultural archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology(Department of resources. In addition,a the Interior,2012),and as approved by the City of Temecula,to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological portion of the project area is resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians(Pechanga Tribe).The within the Origin Landscape Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate TCP,one of the most sacred the find and determine the appropriate next steps,in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. areas for the Pechanga Tribe. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 b—Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor:At least 30 days prior to The lack of identified intact seeking a grading permit,the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull subsurface archaeological permits for the proposed grading and excavation,and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources materials reduces the Treatment and Monitoring Agreement.The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources,the likelihood of encountering designation,responsibilities,and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading,excavation and buried archaeological ground disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling;terms of compensation for the monitors,including resources during project overtime and weekend rates,in addition to mileage reimbursement;and treatment and final disposition of any cultural implementation,but does not resource,sacred sites,and human remains discovered on the site.The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to preclude the possibility that stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next archaeological resources may steps,in consultation with the Project archaeologist.Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and be present in areas not subject permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources,in-place preservation to archaeological investigation. and/or re-burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in In the event that perpetuity. archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 c—Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training:The qualified archeologist or an during project implementation, archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist,and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall Altair Specific Plan 1-16 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation disturbances to such conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the resources could result in a project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be substantial adverse change to encountered,and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological historical resources as defined resources or human remains.The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the by CEQA.Disturbances to training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.All new construction personnel that begin work on the archaeological resources Project following the initial training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the would require consideration of project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. impacts to any archaeological Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 d—Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Re-survey of the South resources individually and as Parcel:Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity,a contributors to the larger qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing National Register-listed activities including,but not limited to,brush clearance and grubbing,grading,trenching,excavation,and the construction of archaeological district(P-33- fencing and access roads as indicated in MM-CUL-la and lb.The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re- 11443—MCAA),as well as survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance,after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground consideration as contributors disturbing activities.This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and to the National Register-listed appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed.Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an Origin Landscape TCP. archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project,and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist.If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart,additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Native American Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs.After monitoring has been completed,the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring,which shall be submitted to the City,Pechanga,and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California,Riverside. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-le—Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities,the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist,who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery,during normal working hours.The qualified archaeologist,in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe,shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs,customs,and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif.Pub. Res.Code§21083.2(b).Preservation in place may be accomplished by,but is not limited to,complete avoidance,incorporating the resource into open space or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option,a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist,in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe.The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource.The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important,are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied.The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis,reporting,and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If—Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP:The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area.This includes,but is not limited to off-site improvements,staging activities,trenching,geotechnical work,Riverside County Flood Control improvements,Water Department impacts, Public Works projects,biological and fire control programs,and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP.Should any of these activities,or others as indicated,be proposed,the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Altair Specific Plan 1-17 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact CUL-2:The potential Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a—Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program(PRIMP):The applicant shall Less than exists for unique implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP(Kennedy and Wirths,2013)during project Significant paleontological resources to implementation.The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba be located beneath the ground Formation(Qp)as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP.In addition,because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba surface in the project area, Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources,initial excavations into specifically within the the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist(defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate sandstone facies of the Pauba Paleontology Standards,2010)to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique Formation(Qp),which has paleontological resources.The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources high sensitivity for sensitivity training,either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. paleontological resources. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist,or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified Construction activities could paleontologist.Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to result in the inadvertent recover the fossil specimens.The qualified paleontologist,based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other discovery and damage of factors,may reduce or discontinue monitoring,as warranted,if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of these paleontological encountering fossiliferous deposits is low.Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils resources,which would be a observed,and any discoveries.Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an significant impact. accredited facility.The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b—Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction,regardless of the depth of work,work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Impact CUL-3: Because the Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3—Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project construction,the Less than proposed project would involve applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15O64.5(e)of the CEQA Significant ground-disturbing activities,it Guidelines,which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section is possible that such actions 5097.98(as amended by AB 2641).The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the could unearth,expose,or remains.If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority,the disturb previously unknown County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours.The NAHC shall designate human remains interred a Most Likely Descendant(MLD)for the remains,who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site outside of a formal cemetery. to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods.Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD,the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances,is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards,and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified,or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition,or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner,the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant geology,soils,or seismicity impacts. Altair Specific Plan 1-18 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impact GHGA:The project Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy Significant and could generate greenhouse for the project,the project applicant shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S.Green Unavoidable gas emissions,either directly Building Council. If the application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites,the project applicant shall continue with the or indirectly,that may have a certification,and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build-out. significant impact on the If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied,the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following environment measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent (15%)reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1)Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2)Subsidize public transit and expand transit network(e.g.,help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); 3)Provide an enhanced pedestrian network,including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4)Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones; 5)Install bicycle parking and storage,as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6)Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces; 7)Where practicable,install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy(e.g.solar photovoltaics); 8)Install energy efficient boilers and appliances,including programmable thermostat timers; 9)Install energy efficient street and area lighting,including LED traffic lights,motion detection lighting,and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10)Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11)Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12)Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures(e.g.,faucets,toilets,and showers); 13)Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14)Where practicable,reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. Impact GHG-2:The project Implement MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e,and MM-GHG-1 Less than could potentially conflict with Significant the goals of the City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan to reduce GHG emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. Altair Specific Plan 1-19 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYDA: Future Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit,a final drainage study shall be prepared by a Less than development occurring under registered civil engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual and submitted to Public Works with the Significant the proposed Specific Plan initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County,and engineering standards.The final study shall identify could result in impacts to storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site,and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities hydrology. intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values;the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance,and may include,for example: 1)Non-structural,structural,source control and treatment control BMPs; 2)Infiltration basins,detention basins,vegetated swales,and media filters; 3)Pervious concrete,storm drain stenciling or signage,protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall;and 4)Other low impact development(LID)BMPs,including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity,then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. Impact HYD-2:Construction Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2:The developer shall obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Less than of future development Permit.When the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre,the Construction General Significant occurring under the proposed Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer,which would examine Specific Plan could result in existing site conditions,identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water impacts to water quality. discharges during construction and would describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control,sediment control,waste management and good housekeeping BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or other pollutants to mix with storm water runoff during construction. Impact HYD-3:Operation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3:As a condition of approval,each future development project will be required to generate a Less than future development occurring project-specific Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP),as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and Significant under the proposed Specific as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which will ensure that the project implements specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project-specific WQMP water quality. shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Land Use and Planning Impact LU-1:The project Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-13I0-2,MM-13I0-3,MM-BIO-4a,MM-BIO-4b,MM-BIO-6a, MM-BIO-6b,MM- Less than could be inconsistent with the BIO-7a,MM-BIO-7b, MM-1310-7c,AES-1,NOI-1a, NOWb,and NOI-3. Significant MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands,wildlife linkages,and riparian/riverine resources. Altair Specific Plan 1-20 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Noise and Vibration Impact N0I-1:Construction Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for a phase or sub phase(project- Significant and activities occurring at each specific future development within a construction phase),the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the Unavoidable individual development site in development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction(see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that the project area would City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded,the applicant shall submit a construction-related potentially expose their exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities,along respective adjacent or nearby with the appropriate inspection fee(s),to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception receptor(s)to substantial from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code.Factors the City shall increases in ambient noise consider when granting a noise exception include,but are not limited to,the consideration of the level of noise,duration of levels. noise,constancy or intermittency of noise,time of day or night,place,proximity to sensitive receptors,nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction-related exception request is not approved by the City,design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards.These measures may include,but are not limited to,the erection of noise barriers/curtains,use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b:The applicant shall comply with the following noise reduction measures during construction: • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible(e.g.,operation of compressors and generators,cement mixing,general truck idling)shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized.Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers.When impact tools(e.g.,jack hammers,pavement breakers,and caisson drills)are necessary,they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable,an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used;this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA.External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible;this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA.Quieter procedures,such as use of drills rather than impact tools,shall be used whenever feasible,as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors,type and number of equipment used,and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds,incorporate insulation barriers,or other measures to the extent feasible,as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors,type and number of equipment used,and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula,and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors,to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration.The liaison's telephone number(s)shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices(including construction hours,sound buffers,neighborhood notification,posted signs,etc.)are implemented. Altair Specific Plan 1-21 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact N0I-2:Construction Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2a:The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration,such as Significant and activities in the project area large bulldozers,loaded trucks,and caisson drills,shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of Unavoidable may expose their respective institutional structures during construction activities to the extent feasible.Small,rubber-tired construction equipment shall onsite and/or offsite sensitive be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects,where feasible. land uses to vibration levels Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2b:The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential that exceed applicable FTA structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities,to the extent feasible. vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance. Impact N0I-3: New Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project,the Less than developments within the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not Significant project area may introduce exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at noise levels that could exceed the adjacent properties would be exceeded,design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels the City's exterior noise associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards at adjacent standards.These measures may include,but are not limited to,the erection of noise walls,use of landscaping,and/or the properties to and/or near the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. new development sites. Impact N0I-4: New Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a:The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize Less than development within the project noise impacts from mechanical equipment,such as ventilation and air conditioning units,by locating equipment away from Significant area could expose nearby receptor areas,installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment,and incorporating the use of parapets into building sensitive receptors to noise design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more levels exceeding 5 dBA over than five decibels. ambient levels due to Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b:Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the project area,the operation of HVAC equipment; applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential or to noise levels from the development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would operation of mechanical be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. equipment such that interior noise residential noise levels could exceed 45 dBA Ldn. Impact N0I-5:With addition of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5:All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in Less than the Western Bypass that the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass. If this minimum setback Significant would run along the western distance cannot be achieved,other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use boundary of the project area, compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn,including,but not limited to,greater setback distances,the erection of noise walls or new development projects use of landscaping. proposed in the project area adjacent to the Western Bypass may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. Population and Housing Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant population and housing impacts. Altair Specific Plan 1-22 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Public Services Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant public service impacts. Traffic and Transportation Impact TRA-1: Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1:Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle Significant cause the average delay at length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to Front Street and Rancho mitigate impacts. California Road(Intersection #2)to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E to LOS F and would increase delay by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance during the PM peak hour. Impact TRA-2: Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project,the project proponent/developer shall Less than of the Specific Plan would install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)to the satisfaction of Significant cause the level of service at the City Engineer.Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the Ynez Road and Rancho developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. California Road (Intersection#5)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour. Impact TRA-3:Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3:Prior to the first building permit in Phase 3,the project proponent/developer shall install or Less than of the Specific Plan would provide funding for signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps Significant cause the level of service at I- and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.The 15 Northbound Ramps and project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Temecula Parkway (Intersection#10)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Altair Specific Plan 1-23 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact TRA-4:Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-4:Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle Significant cause the average delay at length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Since Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway operate an Adaptive Traffic Margarita Road and Temecula Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate Parkway(Intersection#14)to impacts. increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance,within unacceptable LOS F conditions,during the AM peak hour,and would cause the PM peak-hour level of service to degrade from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. Impact TRA-5: Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5:Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Significant cause the level of service for Street,converting the intersection from side-street stop-control to all-way stop control. the westbound First Street approach at unsignalized Pujol Street and First Street (Intersection#15)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Impact TRA-6:Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6:Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal timing Significant cause the average delay at optimization(phase timings and cycle length)at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road,to the satisfaction of the Ynez Road and Santiago City Engineer. Road(Intersection#17)to increase by more than the 2.0 second threshold of significance,within unacceptable LOS E conditions,during the PM peak hour. Altair Specific Plan 1-24 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact TRA-7:Development No feasible mitigation. Significant and of the Specific Plan would Unavoidable cause the level of service at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway(Intersection#25)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Impact TRA-8:Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8:Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for Significant cause the Cumulative(2025) eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road,for acquisition of right-of-way,and modification of existing traffic signal level of service at Ynez Road facilities at the intersection. and Rancho California Road (Intersection#5)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour.* Impact TRA-9:Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9:Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of a fourth through lane for eastbound and Significant cause the Cumulative(2025) westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road,for acquisition of right-of-way,and modification of existing traffic signal average delay at La Paz Road facilities at the intersection. and Temecula Parkway (Intersection#11)to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance, within unacceptable LOS E conditions,during the AM peak hour,and would cause the PM peak-hour level of service to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F. Impact TRA-10: Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall contribute 15 percent of the cost for the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Significant cause the Cumulative(2025) Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road,for acquisition of right-of-way,and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at level of service at Margarita the intersection. Road and Temecula Parkway (Intersection#14)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours.* Altair Specific Plan 1-25 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact TRA-11: Development No feasible mitigation. Significant and of the Specific Plan would Unavoidable cause the General Plan Build Out(2035)level of service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection#5)to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour,and would cause the average delay to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of Significance.* Impact TRA-12: Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to Significant cause the General Plan Build allow for right-in/right-out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive,to the Out(2035)level of service for satisfaction of the City Engineer.This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left the eastbound Ridge Park turning movements at the intersection. Drive approach at unsignalized Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive (Intersection#6)to degrade from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour,and to increase the PM peak-hour delay by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance,within unacceptable LOS F conditions. Impact TRA-13: Development Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,the project Less than of the Specific Plan would proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street and Significant cause the General Plan Build First Street. Out(2035)level of service for the westbound First Street approach at unsignalized Pujol Street and First Street (Intersection#15)to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Altair Specific Plan 1-26 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction Significance Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Impact TRA-14:The Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction Less than proposed project may conflict activities within the Specific Plan area,or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan,the project Significant with applicable plans and applicant(s)shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of congestion management the permit application.The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic programs by resulting in volumes entering the roadway system(including local roads)during AM and PM peak hours.At a minimum,the temporary but prolonged Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)shall include the following implementation measures: adverse effects on intersection . Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and LOS during project from the construction site. construction. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction,the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel,as necessary,to minimize traffic impacts.This may include detour signage, cones,construction area signage,flagmen,and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. • The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site.In the event a full road closure is required,the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions(i.e.,Caltrans,and/or County of Riverside)to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to utilities and water supply. • As a result of the reduced traffic impacts associated with the South Parcel Nature Center Use,the Impacts and Mitigation Measures, which were previously identified in the Draft EIR and Table 1-3 for Impact TRA-81MM TRA-8,Impact TRA-10/MM TRA 10 and, Impact TRA-11/MM TRA 11 would no longer apply. Altair Specific Plan 1-27 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 1.Introduction All environmental impacts associated with the Nature Center use on the South Parcel are similar or reduced in comparison to the Civic Use evaluated in the Draft EIR. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality,biological resources, cultural resources,greenhouse gas/climate change,noise,traffic, and public/services utilities are substantially reduced in comparison to the Civic Use evaluated in the Draft EIR. As a result of the reduced impacts associated with the South Parcel Nature Center use,the following Impacts and Mitigation Measures,which were previously identified in the Draft EIR and Table 1-3,would no longer apply: • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-8/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8,which identified construction of one additional exclusive right-turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: — Impact TRA-10/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10,which previously identified the construction of an exclusive right-turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-11: The Project would no longer create a significant and unavoidable impact at this intersection. Unavoidable adverse impacts will result associated with the Nature Center project to (1) operational air quality, (2) greenhouse gas emissions, and(3) construction noise/vibration. Altair Specific Plan 1-28 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 CHAPTER 2 Errata This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR. The following corrections and changes are made to the Draft EIR, and are incorporated herein as part of the Final EIR. The changes below were made to the Draft EIR in response to comments received and errata discovered after the Draft EIR was circulated. These corrections and clarifications represent additional information or revisions that do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the Draft EIR's significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion that significantly more severe environmental impacts will result from the proposed project. Instead,the errata made to the Draft EIR below merely"clarifies or amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications"in the already adequate Draft EIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15O88.5(b). The revisions that follow were made to the text of the Draft EIR.Amended text is identified by page number.Additions to the Draft EIR text are shown with underlining and text removed from the Draft EIR is shown with stfil ou . The following revisions to the text of the Draft EIR are hereby incorporated: 2.1 Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description Specific Plan South Parcel Following circulation of the Draft EIR for public review the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop (February 14,2017)to propose a Nature/Culture/Sustainability Center(NCS),herein referred to as the"Nature Center"on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more intense civic/institutional use.Notwithstanding this proposal,the City Council retains the right to consider the previously proposed institutional land use on the South Parcel in its public hearing deliberations. The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings up to a maximum of building area of 20,000 square feet and a maximum building height of two-stories. The Nature Center land use would provide a public benefit to the City by offering educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture,the natural environment, and sustainability of the region,as well as provide recreational trails and facilities within the preserved area of the site. The trail would be self- contained to the Civic Site via out and back,or loop trail to and from the Nature Center. If more than one building is proposed,the buildings would be designed to be cohesive through orientation and architecture. The Nature Center buildings would also be designed to be similar to other Altair Specific Plan 2-1 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Nature Centers in the region, including compatible materials and colors and would incorporate integrated indoor and outdoor spaces to connect the site to the surrounding natural setting. Further,the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. One parking lot would be constructed to provide 120 parking spaces for employees and visitors to the Nature Center in accordance with the City of Temecula's Parking Standards. The buildings,parking lots, and hardscape areas would have stormwater treatment facilities designed to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Trails and landscaping would be designed to minimize erosion and vegetation/habitat impacts. Operation of the Nature Center would be limited from dawn until two hours after dusk, and would have minimal nighttime lighting. The expected monthly average number of visitors is 7,213. Special events could be held at the Nature Center that could draw larger than average crowds. Table 2-1, South Parcel Nature Center Land Use Summary, summarizes the land use details of the Nature Center on the South Parcel. The South Parcel Nature Center site plan is shown in Figure 2-1, South Parcel Nature Center Site Plan. TABLE 2-1 SOUTH PARCEL NATURE CENTER LAND USE SUMMARY Component Area(acres) Natural Open Space Area Undisturbed Open Space 33.84 Camino Estribo(unimproved) 1.40 Trails 2.00 Subtotal—Natural Open Space Area 37.24 Disturbed Area Fill Area(not including Nature Center Pad/Streets/Trails) 11.22 Nature Center Pad(including parking lot) 3.70 Trails 1.21 B&C Street 0.70 Drainage Improvements 0.85 Subtotal—Disturbed Area 17.68 Total 54.92 NOTES: 1. Fill Area:850 cubic yards(cy)cut/512,700 cy fill 2. Fill area would be revegetated 3. Nature Center Parcel:16.17(includes disturbed area+1.68 acres of Natural Open Space Area) 4. Open Space Parcel:38.75 5. Nature Center Building:12,000 square feet(sf)footprint/20,000 maximum—2-story 6. Nature Center Parking:120 spaces 7. Final Natural Open Space Trails to be sited in consultation with Pechanga 8. 10 percent maximum trail grade SOURCE:Ambient,2017 Altair Specific Plan 2-2 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 I I C Street i j Western j Bypass \�� Natural it Open Space B Street./. \ �. \ South \ Primary I Secondary Fire . �\ Access � Access Only 1 � 1 Parking i I Trail From Offsite To Trail Network I Buildable Pad '-7 .' (5%-10%grade) Trail From Offsite Nature Center \` To Nature Center I I (5%-8%grade) Camino Reve it O engetated ce Estribo . \ i Trail From Nature Center . \ i To Trail Network (8%-10%grade) \ +° Trail From Nature Center To Trail Network (5% grade) Natural \ ♦ Open Space \ I Future Trails rvictinn Trails To Be Determined�J / 1 � I 1 _ Buildable Pad I 1 / ♦ / Revegetated Open Space Natural Open Space ■ M Camino Estribo I (existing unimproved road) 1 11 ♦ / 1 0 400 \ / i \ \ J Feet Altair Specific Plan.140106 SOURCE:Ambient,2017 Figure 2-1 Nature Center Site Plan 2.Errata The Nature Center land use would preserve approximately 37.24 acres as natural open space, which is the slightly more than provided under the Civic Site use. The preservation of a significant portion of the South Parcel as natural open space would aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of wildlife movement between the Cleveland National Forest and the Palomar Mountains. The project site would create approximately 1.15 miles of new trails. Currently,the project site contains 0.80 mile of existing trails. Therefore, at build-out, the Nature Center land use would include a total of 1.95 miles of trails. The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an analysis and is included in Appendix A,Nature Center Environmental Assessment, of this Final EIR. The air quality/GHG,biological assessment and traffic impact analysis have been updated to evaluate the South Parcel Nature Center use and are contain in the Appendix. Nature Center-specific impacts and associated mitigation measures are documented in this assessment and are herein incorporated into the Final EIR by reference. All environmental impacts associated with the Nature Center use on the South Parcel are similar or reduced in comparison to the Civic Use evaluated in the Draft EIR. Impacts to aesthetics, air quality,biological resources, cultural resources,greenhouse gas/climate change,noise,traffic, and public/services utilities are substantially reduced in comparison to the Civic Use evaluated in the Draft EIR. As a result of the reduced impacts associated with the South Parcel Nature Center use,the following Impacts and Mitigation Measures,which were previously identified in the Draft EIR, would no longer apply: • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-8/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8 which identified construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: — Impact TRA-10/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10 which previously identified the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-11: The Project would no longer create a significant and unavoidable impact at this intersection. The following additions and corrections to the Draft EIR are incorporated to the Project Description that is contained in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan 2-4 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Draft EIR page 2-21 is revised as follows: Water System The Altair Specific Plan is located within the service area of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The project is located within the District's Rancho-division and more specifically the 1305 Pressure Zone. The District's main source of domestic water is from the Metropolitan Water District's two existing San Diego Aqueduct pipelines4 and 5. These pipelines traverse the southern end of the project site between the South Parcel and Village G. The southerly end,the Altair Specific Plan will make two connections to the existing 30-inch transmission main within the proposed ROW of"C" Street and`B" Street South. This portion of the proposed system would provide domestic and fire service to Village G and the South Parcel. The central portion of the project would connect to the existing 2Q4-inch transmission main in the Pujol Street ROW at two locations. The southerly location will extend a 12-inch main northwesterly in the proposed Western Bypass to the park area(Open Space Lot 50 on the tentative tract map)between Village F and Village E. At this location the 12-inch main will traverse the project northerly within the Altair Vista public access and utility easement. The second connection would be with the existing 24-24-inch main in Pujol Street at First Street ... Offsite Water Improvements Offsite water improvements would be limited to two 12-inch main line connections to the existing 24-inch domestic transmission line within the existing Pujol Street ROW; one at the southern end of the Western Bypass and`B" Street North and the other at Pujol Street and First Street, in the central portion of the project adjacent to Village C. A third offsite connection would occur within the existing Ridge Park Drive ROW where the proposed Western Bypass intersects with Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga. This would also be a 12-inch connection to the existing 12-inch domestic water line at that location. Onsite water systems serving the various villages would be constructed by subsequent merchant builders and wetild be may become private systems. Draft EIR page 2-23 is revised as follows: Recycled Water Recycled water is provided by the Rancho California Water District(RCWD)via t eif Sant.. Rosa Treatment Plan. The District maintains an existing 2024-inch reclaimed water line in Vincent Moraga at Felix Valdez that is part of the District's 1381 Pressure Zone. The same system also extends southerly in Pujol Street to First Street.At the southerly end of the project, the City's approved Western Bypass bridge plans propose to bring two 20-inch recycled water lines westerly across Murrieta Creek from the existing 2420-inch recycled main line in Old Town Front Street ... At the northerly end of the project,recycled water would be provided by an offsite connection to the existing 2024-inch recycled main a4 the it4e.seetien of in Vincent Moraga a*d at the intersection of Felix Valdez. This northerly connection proposes an 8-inch line to be extended southerly to the project site within the proposed Western Bypass. Altair Specific Plan 2-55 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Sanitary Sewer The project is within the boundaries of Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. Project generated wastewater flows would be transported via a proposed network of onsite and offsite gravity pipes and interconnections with the District's existing offsite Pujol Street lift station. The existing Pujol Lift Station is tributary to the nearby San4,, Dos Wa4e R eel..,. a4 e,. Dl ,.+Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility that is operated by RGEMWD. Draft EIR page 2-29 is revised as follows: 2.3.6 Project Conservation Features wildlife fnevemen4 and genefie diversity of mountain lions in the region. These featufes, , 1. San Diego ambrosia tr-ansloentiom The applieaH4 will 4aasleea4e the San Diego air-eady eensef-ved!a-ad within 10 miles of the pr-ejeet site. The feeepter-site will be fef City feview a-ad approval prior-to implementing the tr-ansleeafien eff-ei4. The RG their-over-all management and monitor-ing eff-et4s for-the MSHCP pr-esef-ve. is adjacent to a NICHCP Gr-iter-ia Cells. The e fft; ,..1„ed a4$1 cn nnn applieaa4 has air-eady paid$150,000 into eser-ew toward the $335,000 amettat provided i assignment to the RGA of the P&SA. Therefore,the assignment to the RCA is vahied $150,000. 4. Additional funding for conservation effor-tsl The pr-ejeet applieaH4 will provide- $200,000 in funding to the City to be used to fund any of the fellewing eenserva4ion .fiyit•e s identified, ,..,1er-item 2 Altair Specific Plan 2-6 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata allow wildlife (ineluding mountain lien)to safely tfwel between the San4a Mafgar-ita G. Aequisifien by the City a-ad the RCA of!a-ads within the Speeial Linkage Area setith. The currently proposed project(including the South Parcel Nature Center Use)proposed Project Conservation Features are summarized as follows and hereby, i�rporated into the Final EIR: • South Parcel land use intensity is substantially reduced through the replacement of the civic/institutional use and replacement with a Nature Center use • 55-acre reduction in hillside escarpment/MSHCP impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP • San Diego ambrosia translocation. The applicant will translocate the San Diego ambrosia population to minimize impacts to this species. The translocation will occur on already conserved land within 10 miles of the project site. The receptor site will be selected in conjunction with the City,the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)and resource agencies. The applicant will prepare a translocation plan for City review and approval prior to implementing the translocation effort. The RCA will be responsible for any long-term management and monitoring obligations as part of their overall management and monitoring efforts for the MSHCP preserve. • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the RCA for conservation • Additional funding for conservation efforts ($500,0000)to be used for a wildlife connectivity study,engineering feasibility, and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the proposed project • These summarized Project Conservation Features contribute to the functionali , of the MSHCP linkages west and south of the proposed project and further contribute to the proposed project's consistency with the reserve assembly goals and objectives outlined in the MSHCP. In addition,MM-B10-6b(87.20 acres of onsite open space conservation) and MM-B10-7c(Slope restoration of approximately 20 acres of graded slopes along the Western Bypass(adjacent to conserved open space)with native upland habitat that once established will be offered to the RCA at no cost)further contribute to the project's consistency with goals and objectives outlined in the MSHCP. With the above summarized Project Conservation Features and mitigation measures, and the following financial contribution to a Wildlife CFD,the proposed project is consistent with the reserve assembly goals and objectives of the MSHCP. Altair Specific Plan 2-7 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata The Wildlife Conservation Fee will be assessed into perpetuity. The following summarizes the proposed financial contribution for the first 100 years towards engineering of the Interstate-15 wildlife crossing and/or wildlife corridor improvements, and/or acquisition of lands for conservation efforts within the Special Linkage Area south of the project site and/or other wildlife conservation efforts in Riverside County within 10 miles of the project site: A) Payment to City Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit: $ 500,000 B) Payment to Wildlife Community Facilities District(CFD)years 1-20: $ 1,590,000 C) Payment to Wildlife CFD years 21-50: $ 4,530,000 D) Payment to Wildlife CFD years 51-100: $ 17,130,000 Total Funding Toward Wildlife Conservation/Connection: $ 23,750,000 Note: The above fee amounts assume$43/unit/year, the maximum buildout of 1,750 units and an annual 2%escalation.Actual buildout unit number and escalation may vary. Thesesfees are in addition to the require MSHCP miti a tion fees. Fee A above may be reduced to $200,000 in the event that EIR is challenged. Additional project description information has been incorporated as follows: 2.2 Draft EIR — Impact Analysis Additions and Corrections Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources The following information pertaining to the Western Pond Turtle is hereby augmented and added to the Draft EIR: Western Pond Turtle The western pond turtle uses"[a]djacent upland areas ... for overwintering and estivation sites. Temecula Creek at the confluence of Murrieta Creek appears to be a key area, along with the Santa Ana River, Santa Rosa Plateau, and San Jacinto River(Dudek 2003). Where the Civic Site abuts Murrieta Creek,the western edge of the creek has steep side slopes that limit access to the upland areas for pond turtle,while the area to the east of the creek consists of gently sloping terrain that provides better access to upland areas. The terrain west of the creek and south of the Civic Site flattens out for a portion of the creek channel making the proposed conservation area in the southern portion of the site more accessible to pond turtles."(Apex. C,p. 38.) The western pond turtle is a"thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,marshes,rivers, streams& irrigation ditches,usually with aquatic vegetation,below 1800 in elevation"and they"[n]eed basking sites and suitable(sandy banks or grassy open fields)upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying."(Appx. C 1-11.) Altair Specific Plan 2-8 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata While generally the western pond turtle is known to use upland areas,the specific site conditions at the Project Site precludes usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by the species. The presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Thus,no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either alternative. The following information pertaining to the aquatic species is hereby augmented and added to the Draft EIR: The Draft EIR, on page 3.3-31 states: "No suitable habitat for the three amphibian species (arroyo toad,mountain yellow-legged frog, or California red-legged frog) occurs within the project area. Therefore, such species do not have a potential to occur."Draft EIR Appendix C-1 includes a discussion pertaining to the rationale as to why aquatic species are not anticipated to occur on site. The following information pertaining to the Particulate Tarplant is hereby augmented and added to the Draft EIR: Paniculate Tarplant: Particulate tarplant is a CNPS list 4.2 species. The CNPS List 4 is a watch list for species with limited distribution or occurring infrequently throughout a broader range. Particulate tarplant occurs from San Luis Obispo County south to the California-Mexico border and into Baja California, and is observed throughout western Riverside County in coastal sage scrub, grassland and vernal pool habitats. This species was observed in limited numbers on the northern portion of the site in the area that was previously graded as part of the Ridge Park Office Complex development. Given that the species is a List 4 species,was observed in limited numbers, and was observed primarily in a previously graded portion of the site,impacts are considered less than significant. Additionally,this species is anticipated to benefit from landscape scale conservation of sage scrub, grassland and vernal pool habitats through implementation of the MSHCP. Draft EIR page 3.3-49 is revised as follows: Proposed Linkage 10 Impacts Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection extending from the Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve (Core Area F)to the northwest of the Project to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve(Core Area G)to the southwest of the project. Linkage 10 also connects with Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,which runs along Murrieta Creek,connecting to areas to the north. This linkage is important for movement of bobcat and mountain lion between the two preserves and runs almost entirely on private lands. Proposed Linkage 10,when measured from the edge of proposed development(Western Bypass, South Parcel, and residential development)to actual homes to the west in Subunit 1,varies from 600 feet to well over 2,300 feet. The linkage north of the project site varies from 200 feet wide at its narrowest point at the northern end of the linkage to as much as 3,670 feet in width. Altair Specific Plan 2-9 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata The Western Bypass, and the Interstate 15/State Route 79 South interchange project are Covered Activities under the MSHCP and its original configuration was determined to be consistent with the goals for Proposed Linkage 10 under the original MSHCP approvals. Project design features of the Western Bypass that would reduce or avoid impacts as compared to the current approved alignment include: 1)terminating the northern section at Vincent Moraga Road/Rancho California Road,thereby eliminating 7,700 linear feet of the northern portion of the current approved alignment and avoiding eight drainage crossings,2)designing a split roadway to minimize grading impacts, and 3)pulling the alignment further east to increase the width of the wildlife corridor. These project design features would avoid 55 acres of impacts to sage scrub, chaparral and other habitats within Proposed Linkage 10,based on the City's previous grading study for the Western Bypass. In addition, overall impacts to wildlife movement along this stretch of Proposed Linkage 10 would be reduced over the current approved route due to a wider corridor. The construction of the Western Bypass would affect mountain lion and other wildlife movement through corridor width reduction,noise and light impacts and potential mortality due to the impacts with vehicles. Potential long-term indirect impacts could include the introduction of trash,which may potentially affect mountain lions and other wildlife. Other possible impacts include a reduction in hunting/feeding and effects on reproductive behaviors. Considerable data is available on mountain lion use within Linkage 10, all of Subunit 6,the area along the Santa Margarita River, and the Santa Ana Mountains,based on mountain lion point data developed as part of the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California Mountain Lion Project. This data for the Project area is display, e�plotted by HELIX on Figure 1 lb (Attachment A)of the MSHCP Consistency Report for the Altair Project prepared by HELIX and Figure 3.3-4.As seen on Attachment A, a mountain lion currently uses the lower portion of Murrieta Creek at least periodically,up to the approximate location of the alreadygpproved Western Bypass crossing of Murrieta Creek. This mountain lion would likely discontinue use of at least a portion of Murrieta Creek once the Western Bypass and Interstate 15/State Route 79 South interchange are constructed, even without development of the South Parcel. The South Parcel falls within both Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, and would be set back approximately 900 feet from the Santa Margarita River. This linkage area provides an east-west connection that crosses beneath 1-15 along the Santa Margarita River,that was assumed to maintain the gene pool and genetic diversity of the mountain lion population on both sides of the freeway as part of the review and approval of the MSHCP. However,based on radio collar data,there may no longer be mountain lion movement underneath I-15 at this location. There is a 100-foot vertical cliff between the Santa Margarita riverbed and the South Parcel situated on the plateau above. Future buildings on the South Parcel would not be directly visible from the Santa Margarita River bottom. In addition,the project applicant will construct a 10-foot tall berm and landscape buffer along the southern portion of the South Parcel, as part of the project,to screen adjacent conserved lands. Altair Specific Plan 2-10 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata DRAFT EIR page 3.3-54 is revised as follows: Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Impacts Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 is a riparian connection along Murrieta Creek, extending from the Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve(Core Area F)which lies to the northwest of the project, connecting to the Proposed Linkage 10 that provides the connection to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Core Area G)to the southwest of the project. It is already constrained due to urban development, agricultural use,nine existing vehicular bridges and one road through Murrieta Creek. It will be further constrained by the future construction of the Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta Creek and the Interstate 15/State Route 79 South interchange. DRAFT EIR page 4-7 is revised as follows: Biological Resources For Biological Resources,the geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is the area within the same watershed(i.e.bioregion). In general,the geographic area includes the City of Temecula and Murrieta, and projects within an approximately five-mile radius around the project site, within the same watershed, similar landscape position and within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). The project and the other cumulative projects fall within the jurisdiction of the MSCHP. The MSHCP involves the assembly and management of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The MSHCP permits development of lands and take of species"in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area"(Riverside County,2004). The Implementing Agreement authorized the "take of 146 species covered by the MSHCP (termed"covered species"), including state and federally listed species, as well as other identified sensitive species."The"take"authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the covered species. The MSHCP requires any new development to pay fees to support the financing for the MSHCP,to be applied toward acquisition and management of Conservation Area land. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act,the federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act. The effects of the proposed project,in combination with other cumulative projects in the geographic scope, could combine to cause or contribute to significant cumulative effects to biological resources. In particular, identified cumulative projects that are located within or near wildlife corridors and along riparian/riverine areas, such as LR1O-0014(Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan)and PA-08-0118 (Temecula Creek Inn), could have significant effects on special status species, sensitive vegetation communities, and wildlife movement associated with Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. The Western Bypass and the Interstate 15/State Route 79 South interchange(MSHCP covered activities) and other reasonably foreseeable future cumulative projects could have significant impacts to mountain lion and other wildlife movement within Linkage 10. Altair Specific Plan 2-11 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata It should be noted that cumulative projects would be required to adhere to and be consistent with the goals and objectives established in the MSHCP. As described in Section 3.3,Biological Resources of this EIR,the project would have potentially significant impacts to special status wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities and wildlife corridors. Mitigation measures have been identified for the project that would reduce impacts by avoiding,minimizing, or mitigating for any impacts in accordance with the MSHCP (Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-la through MM-BIO-Ic,MM-13I0-2a,MM-13I0-2b,MM-BOI- 3,MM-13I0-4,MM-13I0-5a, MM- 13I0-5b,MM-13I0-6,MM-13I0-7, and MM-13I0-8a through MM-13I0-8c). Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and result in the project being consistent with the MSHCP. Consistency with the MSHCP would provide assurance that the project would be in compliance with the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act,the California Endangered Species Act, and the National Community Conservation Program Act; and would adequately provide for the conservation and protection of the Covered Species Adequately Conserved and their habitats in the MSHCP Plan Area, as provided for in the Implementing Agreement. Therefore,when considered in addition to the anticipated impacts of other projects in the cumulative scenario,the project's incremental contribution to impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant Draft EIR Section 3.4, Cultural Resources Mitigation measures beginning on Draft EIR page 3.4-34 are revised as follows: Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-la—Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to Issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity,the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology(Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula,to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect rg adin in n the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lb—Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading ypermit,the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed .grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation,responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such Altair Specific Plan 2-12 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata evaluation shall include culturally ppropriate temporar and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re- burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lbc—Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified archeologist or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechan ag Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to be ig nning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-led—Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and lie Amer-in Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including,but not limited to,brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM-CUL- la and lb. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and'`a4ive A,f.o-: Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and'`ati-,�e Amer-i Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed,the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring,which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lde—Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities,the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist,who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working Altair Specific Plan 2-13 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata hours. The qualified archaeologist,the archaeological monitor, and/or Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist,in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Tf it is ,1ete,.mi e,1 tha4 the chae 1,..iearesource t to GEQ Aor-hister-ie property,.,,,.s,,.nt t Section 106 of N17D A)p .,.io i D1., o Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by,but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space,capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate miti.ag tion to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If—Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes,but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities,trenching, geotechnical work,Riverside Coun, Flood Control improvements,Water Department impacts,Public Works projects,biological and fire control programs, and an,, other or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated,be proposed,the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Page 3.4-37 is revised to read as follows: Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3—Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project construction,the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines,which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority,the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours . The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant(MLD) for the remains,who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods. Altair Specific Plan 2-14 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD,the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner,the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Draft EIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emission and Climate Change The following mitigation measure is hereby augmented and added to the Draft EIR on page 3.6- 17: Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project,the project applicant shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites,the project applicant shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied,the project Spenser-will be doomed applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent(15%)reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network(e.g.,help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share Programs); 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable,install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy(e.g. solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers, 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights,motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safely purposes; Altair Specific Plan 2-15 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard quipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water, 12) Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures(e.g., faucets,toilets, and showers), 13) Install water efficient irrigation , sty 14. Where practicable,reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. These changes to the mitigation are responsive to the request to add specific, enforceable measures. Further,these measures and existing design elements of the proposed project include many of the measures referenced in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change(January 2008), Table 16(e.g.,bicycle parking,bike lanes/paths,pedestrian network,higher density residential, electric vehicle recharging capabilities, drought resistant landscaping,no wood-burning stoves, energy and water efficient fixtures and appliances, solar capabilities onsite,nearby recreation and downtown, and exceedance of Title 24). Because LEED Certification is governed by a non- governmental entity, as well as the fact that this project may not qualify for LEED Certification due to its location(and not design), LEED Certification cannot be guaranteed.Nevertheless,the measures will be incorporated to help substantially lessen impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions(and air emissions and energy use). Whether or not LEED Certification is achieved,the project will still result in indirect and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions above thresholds commonly applied, and therefore this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality The following mitigation measure is hereby augmented and added to the Draft EIR on page 3.8- 20: Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City,Riverside County,and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site , and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include, for example. 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs; 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins,vegetated swales, and media filters; 3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage,protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and Altair Specific Plan 2-16 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata 4) Other low impact development(LID)BMPs,including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity,then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values-.,etil 7 be ,.,nsi e,.ea. Note that the hydrology engineer proposed striking the reference to the 100-year storm event because it is somewhat apples and oranges—the 100-year storm event is not what's mitigated, rather, different storm events are used to evaluate capacity and design criteria. The existing(and added)performance criteria should address this. Draft EIR Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning Draft EIR page 3.9-2 is revised as follows: Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035/Sustai nab le Communities Strategy In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 201�5 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS) (SLAG, 2012a6). The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation to comply with Senate Bill(SB) 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air Act. The RTP/SCS links its goals of sustaining mobility with its goals for fostering economic development; enhancing the environment;reducing energy consumption; promoting transportation-friendly development patterns; and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic,geographic and commercial limitations. In summary,the 201�5 2016-2040 RTP/SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more choices for where they will live,work, and play,and how they will move around. Draft EIR page 3.9-7 is revised as follows: Impacts Consistency with Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Below is a discussion of the project's consistency with applicable land use plans and policies. Southern California Association of Governments Table 3.9-3 lists the policies from SCAG's 201�5 2016-2040 RTP/SCS that are relevant to the proposed project,and provides a discussion of the project's level of consistency with each policy. SCAG policies focus largely on achieving job and housing balance within individual communities throughout the region, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs and reliance on the automobile, and promoting public transit use. SCAG also seeks to minimize environmental impacts through the use of"green"building techniques and landscaping practices,provide affordable housing, and minimize new development in open space Altair Specific Plan 2-17 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata areas with limited emergency access. As demonstrated in Table 3.9-3,the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of SCAG's 201�5 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As described in Section 3.9.2,the land use and housing goals of SCAG's RETP include goals for future growth and sustainability. The project's main objectives(listed in Chapter 2)would support the land use and housing goals of the RETP such as creating significant areas of mixed- use development and walkable, "people-scaled"communities;providing new housing opportunities,with building types and locations that respond to the region's changing demographics; and through preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive species. Table 3.9.3 on Draft EIR page 3.9-10 is revised as follows: TABLE 3.9-3 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH SCAG POLICIES Policy Statement of Consistency,Non-Consistency,or Not Number Policy Text Applicable Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035 2016-2040/Sustai nab le Communities Strategy RTP/SCS Align the plan investments and Not Applicable. Goal policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness RTP/SCS Maximize mobility and accessibility Consistent.The proposed project would involve construction of the G2 Goal for all people and goods in the Western Bypass that would link Rancho California Road with region. Temecula Parkway,which would allow through traffic to circumvent Old Town and is intended to relieve traffic congestion along Old Town Front Street. RTP/SCS Ensure travel safety and reliability Consistent.As noted above,the project would involve construction G3 Goal for all people and goods in the of the Western Bypass,which would relieve traffic congestion in region. Old Town and would increase safety for other modes of transportation both within the project site and in Old Town. Furthermore,the proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets program,which would enhance mobility for pedestrians,bicyclists,and motor vehicles. In addition,the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area. RTP/SCS Preserve and ensure a sustainable Consistent.With construction of the Western Bypass,the G4-Goal regional transportation system. proposed project would alleviate traffic congestion and associated air quality concerns and would also introduce a Complete Streets concept to the project area,providing multi-modal connections between the project site,Old Town,and City Hall. RTP/SCS Maximize the productivity of our Consistent.With construction of the Western Bypass and G4 Goal transportation system. implementation of bicycle and pedestrian routes,the proposed project would offer multi-modal transportation options to the users of the project area as well as relieving traffic congestion within the Old Town area of the city. RTP/SCS Protect the environment and Consistent.As noted above,the project would increase G6 Goal health of our residents by opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists and discourage improving air quality and dependence on motor vehicles. encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycle and walking). Altair Specific Plan 2-18 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata TABLE 3.9-3 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH SCAG POLICIES Policy Statement of Consistency,Non-Consistency,or Not Number Policy Text Applicable RTP/SCS Actively encourage and create Consistent. In Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code,the City of G7 Goal incentives for energy efficiency, Temecula has adopted the 2013 California Green Building where possible. Standards Code(CALGreen Code),which is intended to encourage sustainable building practices in several areas, including energy efficiency. Development occurring under the Specific Plan would be subject to the provisions of the CALGreen Code. RTP/SCS Encourage land use and growth Consistent.The proposed project is intended to be the G8-Goal patterns that facilitate transit and complementary residential component to the Old Town non-motorized transportation. commercial district.As noted above,the proposed project would implement a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian circulation network that connects the project area with Old Town and City Hall,allowing residents to walk or bike to these nearby amenities. In addition,the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area. RTP/SCS Maximize the security of the Not Applicable. Goal regional transportation system through improved system monitoring,rapid recovery planning,and coordination with other security agencies. Draft EIR Section 3.11, Population and Housing Table 3.11-1 on Draft EIR page 3.11-1 is revised as follows: TABLE 3.11-1 POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS Riverside County City of Temecula Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change 1990 1,193,000 — 27,099 — 2000 1,559,000 30.70 57,716 113.0 2010 2,189,641 40.50 100,158 73.50 2014 2,279,967 4.13 106,289 6.12 2020* 2,592480,000 438.77 109,800 116,300 3 33 9.41 2035* 3,324055,000 297223.18 119,900136,100 9,3317.02 *Adopted 201-2 2016 SCAG population projection(SCAG,20126). SOURCES:California Department of Finance,2014a and 2014b;US Census Bureau 2012;2014a and 2014b. Draft EIR page 3.11-2 is revised as follows: SCAG's population,housing,jobs, and income projections for the six-county southern California region estimate that Temecula will continue to experience growth over the next few decades (SCAG, 2012). The percent change in growth,however,is anticipated to be less than that Altair Specific Plan 2-19 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata experienced between 1990 and 2010. SCAG estimates Temecula's population will increase between 2014 and 2035 by an overall 44-.9 26.43 percent,reaching 118;900 136,100 by 2035. Riverside County's projected growth rate is expected to be above Temecula's growth rate, with an overall 45-8 31.95 percent growth from 2,279,967 persons in 2014 to 3,324055,000 persons in 2035. The proposed project's population growth is within the updated SCAG population projections. Draft EIR page 3.11-3 is revised as follows: TABLE 3.11-3 HOUSEHOLD TRENDS IN TEMECULA CITY 2020 2035 1990 2000 2010 (projected) (projected) Total Households 10,659 18,293 31,781 3436,300 37,200 42,500 SOURCE:US Census Bureau 2012 and 2014b;SCAG,20126. Draft EIR page 3.11-3 is revised as follows: Employment According to SCAG's Profile of the City of Temecula dated May 20135,there were a total of 42,583 45,360 jobs in 2013 in the City of Temecula,which reflects an44-.8-6.08 percent decrease from the 48,297 jobs in 2007. Approximately 18.7 percent of jobs were in retaili 16.36 percent were in education;43-H 11.9 percent were in professional management;and 4-34 16.0 percent were in leisure hospitality; 13 percent were in manufacturing 6.6 percent were in wholesale; 5.5 percent were in construction; 3.6 percent were in finance; 2.9 percent were in other; 1.9 percent were in information; 1.2 percent were in transportation; and 1.0 percent were in public(SCAG, 20125). Between 2007 and 20123,there were changes in the share of jobs by sector in the City of r, s time >, � oa � 13 t t 16.3 Temecula.�� .rcxrn� isrc-vr Eut�6irJv �aE�e�ccr�rvrirTTp'creciz�co� e&4 ,.hile the sh .o e Most notable was the change in construction jobs declineding from 9.1 percent to 5.25 percent. According to SCAG, average salaries for jobs in Temecula increased from$32,936$59,703 in 200-30 to $37,178 $67,659 in 2014-4, showing a 4-2-.9 13.3 percent change. The sector providing the highest annual salary per job in the city was^ref ssion,1 management a4 Q" 1 67 manufacturing at$66,000 whereas the sector with the lowest annual salary job was the leisure hospitality sector at 5-$17,000 (SCAG,2015).As of December 2014,the unemployment rate in the city of Temecula was 4.9 percent(EDD,2015). Draft EIR page 3.11-6 is revised as follows: Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household(see Section 3.11.1, above),the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. However, portions of the project site would be developed with multi-family housing,which typically does not Altair Specific Plan 2-20 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata have as large a household size as single-family housing; therefore,this range of potential new residents represents a conservative estimate for population generated by the project. As shown in Table 3.11-1,by the year 2035,the population of the city is expected to grow to 119,900 136,100 from the existing population of 106,289. This is an increase of 12,600 29,811 persons. Based on this number,the development of the proposed residential uses would constitute between 4S-7 and -3-7 15 percent of the population growth expected in the City between 2014 and 2035. Thus,the population associated with the proposed residential uses would be within the anticipated population growth for the City and would not exceed the projections on which the City has based plans related to provision of public services,utilities, and other amenities to maintain the current quality of life it provides its residents. Draft EIR Section 3.12, Public Services Table 3.12-2 on Draft EIR page 3.1 2-3 is revised as follows: TABLE 3.12-2 EXISTING TVUSD SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT AREA Enrollment School's Gross Seer Student Capacity 201z�o 3=2012014 September2013-90114 School/Type Location Grade Level October 2015 October 2015 Vail Elementary 29915 29835 Mira u t�through-5 595-590 4,424 625 Loma Drive 6-8 Margarita Middle School 30600 Margarita 6-8 857 870 4 9° 1.269 Road Temecula Valley High School 31555 Rancho 9-12 2-#95 2,733 3-,973 3,078 Vista Road SOURCE:TVUSD,2015a;TVUSD,2016. Draft EIR page 3.12-6 is revised as follows: TVUSD's current developer fee for residential development is $3.3648 per square foot. The current developer fee for commercial, industrial, and federally qualified senior housing is $0.5456 per square foot(TVUSD,2015M). Draft EIR page 3.12-14 is revised as follows: As of 24�42016, TVUSD's developer fees for residential development are $3.3648 per square foot of residential development and$0.5456 per square foot of commercial or industrial development(TVUSD, 2016-%). Given the payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the schools in the project area,the construction of an elementary school as a part of the project, and TVUSD's proposed construction of five new schools,TVUSD would be able to accommodate the students generated by the project and would not require further expansion of facilities. Therefore, project impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant. Altair Specific Plan 2-21 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Draft EIR Section 3.13, Traffic and Transportation Draft EIR page 3.13-10 is revised as follows: Southern California Association of Governments z^''�S 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Governments(SLAG) developed the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS),which is a long-range transportation plan that encompasses its member counties and is updated every four years. The following mitigation measure is hereby augmented and added to the Draft EIR on page 3.13- 18: Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road Rane e Cali f mi Read and jeffer-senA venue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. The change in this mitigation measure is to correct the intersection which requires the mitigation. This change does not change the actions required by the mitigation measure or the level of significance of the impact. Rather this change is a minor change to the text of the Draft EIR to provide clarification. Draft EIR page 3.13-26 is revised as follows: • The addition of the Eastern Bypass. The Eastern Bypass will run from Winchester Road and run along the southern boundary of the City via Butterfield Stage Road looping west towards the 1-15 where the construction of ramps is proposed. The SCAG''0'�5 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS) identifies a completion date of 2030. • The extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road to connect with Avenida Alvarado. Overland Drive is modeled as a four-lane,undivided Secondary Arterial between Ynez Road and Diaz Road; and Avenida Alvarado is modeled as a two- lane,undivided Collector. The SCAG 20'�5 2016-2040(RTP/SCS) identifies a completion date of 20196. Altair Specific Plan 2-22 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata South Parcel Nature Center As a result of the reduced impacts associated with the South Parcel Nature Center use,the following Impacts and Mitigation Measures,which were previously identified in the Draft EIR, would no longer apply: • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-8/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8 which identified construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: — Impact TRA-10/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10 which previously identified the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-11: The Project would no longer create a significant and unavoidable impact at this intersection. Draft EIR Section 3.14, Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Draft EIR page 3.14-1 1s revised as follows: Water Supplier The Rancho California Water District(RCWD)currently provides water for urban and agricultural uses in the City of Temecula. The RCWD's service area encompasses approximately 155 square miles and includes the City of Temecula,portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated areas of southwestern Riverside County. The RCWD currently has over 402,000 service connections with 940 miles of w tee mains, storage r-eset=oir-s faee r-esetwei and provides water to approximately 185,105 people(RCWD,2O16�a). RCWD operates 31 potable water pump stations and 48 active potable groundwater production wells. The RCWD maintains 39 potable water storage reservoirs with a capacity of 149.7 million gallons MG). In addition,the RCWD owns 1 open(surface)reservoir,Vail Lake,which is used to help recharge the groundwater basin,using natural runoff. The potable water system includes 903 miles of water pipelines that convey water from its source to water customers. RCWD operates 6 recycled water pump stations and 5 active recycledgroundwater production wells. RCWD maintains 4 recycled water storage reservoirs with a combined capacity of 7 .5 MG. RCWD owns 5 recycled water storage ponds with a total of 1,495 AFY of storage, including the Cole Creek Storage Pond. The recycled water system includes 58.9 miles of water pipelines that convey recycled water for irrigation. The recycled water supply is from tertiary facilities at Altair Specific Plan 2-23 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility(SRWRF)and the seasonal storage bonds constructed adjacent to the reclamation facility. Recycled water is also received from the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility(TVRWRF)under agreement with the Eastern Municipal Water District(EM)YD1. In Fiscal Year 2014/2015,RCWD water consistsed of leea4-native groundwater(3-36 percent), imported water(568 percent) and recycled water(4- 6 percent). Groundwater supply is derived from wells that tap into the"Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin and from Vail Lake excess runoff released periodically for percolation into the groundwater basin. Imported water consists of State Water Project(SWP)and Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)delivered through the Distfiet-(EMWD)-and Western Municipal Water District(WMWD). Highly treated wastewater (recycled water)is obtained from the SRWRF and the (TVRWRF). Well water and imported water are utilized for residential, commercial, landscape irrigation, and agricultural uses. Recycled water is primarily used to irrigate golf courses and larger landscaped areas (RCWD,2011). Table 3.14-1 summarizes RCWD's current and projected water supplies. Draft EIR page 3.14-2 is revised as follows: Historically,groundwater has supplied between 25 to 40 percent of the District's total water supply and imported water has supplied between 60 to 70 percent. Wastewater is considered a reliable and drought-resistant water source and, if recycled,will reduce the RCWD's reliance on potable water supplies. Recycled water has provided approximately lesser five percent of water supplied in the past;however, current and planned improvements will increase the use of recycled water up to an additional 4,50O AFY. Steps being taken ineltide implemefifing-a Reeyeled Wa4er-Site Retrofit Program, installing a miefefiltfa4ien4ever-se osmosis f4eilit-y to ad Nitfflieipal Wa4er-Distfiet for-additional feeyeled water supplies (RCALD, 2015b)-. Draft EIR page 3.14-3 is revised as follows: Water transfers and exchanges are a water management concept that helps to alleviate water shortages in the region and Santa Margarita Watershed. RCWD is etiffefifly developing recently installed two emergency interconnections with EMWD to be operated during periods of system failure. Water is also provided by EMWD and WMWD to RCWD on an annual basis for the wheeling of water to some of EMWD's and WMWD's water customers (RCWD, 2O15b). Draft EIR page 3.14-4 is revised as follows: The project would be served by the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility operated by EMWD. later-state 15)is within RGWD's wastewa4er-sefviee area. Wastewa4er-flows within this area are treated a4 RCWD's San4a Rosa Watef Reelama4ioa Faeilit-y. The pfejeet area would be sei=ved by Santa Rosa Wa4er-Reelamation Plan4. The San4a Rosa Watef Reelama4ien Plant was eenstf+tete Altair Specific Plan 2-24 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata in 1999 and has the eapaeity to 4ea4 five millieft gallons of wastewatef pef day. The plant eelleets eeadtteted daily to easiffe tha4 the water-fneets the Sta4e's standards for-feelaimed weAef-. RGALD> > The following energy information was included in the Draft EIR but was not consolidated into a separate Energy section. This information is hereby consolidated and included in the Draft EIR as a separate section for easy of the readability and to avoid confusion. Energy Consumption/Conservation The Draft EIR contained discussion of all energy source that will be utilized by the proposed project for in the air quality,traffic and utilities sections. This information has been consolidated into the following summary and is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions,the California Environmental Quality Act(Appendix F)requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects,with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy(see Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3)). Energy conservation implies that a project's cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars,but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects,cost effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs.A lead agency may consider the extent to which an energy source serving the project has already undergone environmental review that adequately analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production. Energy Efficiency Would the proposed project result in the inefficient use of energy resources? Petroleum The proposed project would result in the consumption of petroleum associated with the use of gasoline or diesel-powered trucks,worker vehicles, excavation/construction equipment and water trucks that would be used during construction activities. Table 2-2 presents the estimated maximum petroleum use for proposed project construction. The vehicle miles traveled for the project were provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix I to the Draft EIR)and used in the generation of emissions estimates for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts. While the sections do not specifically address petroleum consumption,the analysis does consider fuel consumption and vehicle miles traveled in the generation of project specific emissions estimates. Although implementation of the proposed project would result in the consumption of petroleum, the proposed project includes mitigation measures to increase efficiency of fuel usage. While the gallons of petroleum used are not specifically stated within the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and traffic sections,the implementation of mitigation measures ensure the efficient use of petroleum Altair Specific Plan 2-25 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata products. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 require the use of more fuel- efficient vehicles, encourage modified work schedules, and encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-3 would provide for signal timing optimization which would reduce vehicle idling and therefore reduce fuel usage. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the inefficient use of petroleum fuel for the duration of the proposed project. TABLE 2-2 ESTIMATED PETROLEUM USE Diesel Gasoline (gallons/year) (gallons/year) Total Total Construction 150,148 141,248 501,898 475,358a Operation 110,330 1,983,974 3,309,912 59,519,213 a- This total presents the total petroleum use over 30 years. SOURCE:ESA,2017. Electricity The proposed project's electrical consumption during operational activities was analyzed as part of the Greenhouse Gas analysis. Although the quantity of electrical consumption is not specifically stated,the modeling to assess GHG emissions quantifies the electrical usage onsite. Based on the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B of the Draft EIR),the proposed project would consume 12.2 million kWh per year under the unmitigated scenario. Depending on the extent of mitigation implemented, electrical consumption will be reduced to between 10.7 and 11.3 million kWh per year. Energy conservation measures would be implemented at the proposed project site to reduce proposed electricity consumption. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 will ensure that electricity is used as efficiently as possible for all electricity-consuming activities where energy-efficient practices are attainable. Natural Gas Proposed project natural gas consumption during operational activities was analyzed as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas analysis.Although the quantity of natural gas consumption is not specifically stated,the modeling to asses Air Quality and GHG operational emissions quantifies the onsite natural gas usage.Based on the CalEEMod outputs(Appendix B of the Draft EIR),the proposed project would consume 52.8 million kBTU per year under the unmitigated scenario. Depending on the extent of mitigation implemented,natural gas consumption will be reduced to between 26.8 and 31.3 million kBTU per year.Energy conservation measures would be implemented at the proposed project site to reduce proposed natural gas consumption.Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 will ensure that natural gas is used as efficiently as possible for all electricity-consuming activities where energy-efficient practices are attainable. Energy consumption worksheets are included in Appendix C of the Final EIR. Altair Specific Plan 2-26 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Transportation Energy Would the proposed project increase transportation energy use requirements? Proposed Project The proposed project would result in transportation energy use from the construction and operation activities. As shown in Table 2-2,the proposed project has the potential to use a maximum of 501,898 gallons of diesel and 475,358 gallons of gasoline during construction activities and 3,309,912 gallons of diesel and 59,519,213 gallons of gasoline over a 30-year operational period. These estimates present an increase in transportation energy use. However, the proposed project includes mitigation measures to increase efficiency of fuel usage and transportation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-I and GHG-1 require the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, encourage modified work schedules, and encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-3 would provide for signal timing optimization which would reduce vehicle idling and therefore reduce fuel usage. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project's increased transportation energy uses and would ensure that efficient transportation alternatives are implemented. Result in Need for Additional Energy Capacity Would the overall site cleanup increase demand(including peak and base period demands) on local and regional energy supplies that result in the need for additional capacity? Petroleum The proposed project has the potential to use a maximum of 501,898 gallons of diesel and 475,358 gallons of gasoline during construction activities and 3,309,912 gallons of diesel and 59,519,213 gallons of gasoline over a 30-year operational period. As of December 31,2015, California has 2,860 million barrels of crude oil left in the state's reserves (USEIA,2016a). In addition, according to the USEIA International Energy Outlook 2016,the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels through 2040 (USEIA,2016a). It is not anticipated that the proposed project would increase demand for petroleum supplies such that available local and regional energy supplies would not be capable of serving the proposed project. Electricity The proposed project would consume 12.2 million kWh per year under the unmitigated scenario. Depending on the extent of mitigation implemented,electrical consumption will be reduced to between 10.7 and 11.3 million kWh per year.While it is anticipated that these technologies would consume substantial quantities of energy,they would not result in SCE needing additional capacity to serve the proposed project. SCE monitors and maintains a vast electricity system that provides electricity to 15 million people(SCE,2016a).As an electricity supply company,SCE has the ongoing ability to generate or purchase energy based on demand within SCE's service area.To ensure energy availability and reliability for existing and future consumers,SCE engages in ongoing planning efforts that involve power use proposed projections,system upgrades,and changes to their power mix(SCE, 2016a).Table 2-3 shows the 2014 California Energy Demand Update(CEDU)mid scenario for SCE's electricity consumption and peak demand for selected years. Altair Specific Plan 2-27 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata As shown in Table 2, SCE's energy demand is forecasted to increase from 102,218 gigawatt hours (GWh)in 2016 to 113,612 GWh in 2025. This presents an increase of 11,394 GWh in consumption. SCE's coincident peak demand is forecasted to increase from 23,537 MW in 2016 to 26,030 MW in 2025. This presents an increase of 2,493 MW. While specific engineering/system design plans have not been specified for the proposed project, approximately 36,541,320 kWh(110 GWh)would be consumed over the same 9 years. This is equivalent to 0.96 percent of the forecasted increase in consumption for SCE's service area (11,394 GWh). Thus,the proposed project's electricity usage is anticipated to be substantially lower than SCE's forecasted demand and coincident peak demand for the SCE service area. The proposed project alone would not be capable of consuming so much electricity that SCE would not be able to provide energy to the SCE service area with the variety and abundance of energy resources currently available to SCE. TABLE 2-3 CEDU 2014 MID CASE DEMAND BASELINE FORECASTS OF SCE ELECTRICITY DEMAND Year(s) CEDU 2014 Mid Energy Demand Consumption(GWh) 2016 102,218 2020 106,875 2024 112,247 2025 113,612 Average Annual Growth Rates 2013-2016 0.99% 2013-2024 1.13% 2013-2025 1.13% Coincident Peak(MW) 2016 23,537 2020 24,724 2024 25,784 2025 26,030 Average Annual Growth Rates 2014-2016 1.29% 2014-2024 1.17% 2014-2025 1.15% SOURCE:CEC,2014b. Natural Gas Natural gas is provided to the proposed project site by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas). According to the 2014 California Gas Report,the most recent report available, Altair Specific Plan 2-28 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata California natural gas demand is expected to decrease at a modest rate of 0.2 percent per year from 2014 to 2035 for residential, commercial, electric generation, and industrial markets. This is due to increased energy efficiency programs, increasing reliance on renewable electric generation (e.g. solar and wind)as well as declining industrial demands as California continues its transition from a manufacturing-based to a service-based economy. California natural gas utilities including SoCal Gas,interstate pipelines and in-state natural gas storage facilities have increased their delivery and receipt capacity to meet natural gas growth. SoCal Gas is supported in its planning effort by the California Energy Commission,which provides Integrated Energy Policy Reports, with annual updates that evaluate future demand for natural gas and supply considerations. The 2014 California Gas Report indicates that,with only minor variations from year to year, SoCal Gas is proposed projected to provide approximately 982 billion cubic feet(bcf)per year of natural gas over the next 20-year planning horizon. The report also indicates that SoCal Gas has a substantially higher capacity available. The proposed project's estimated use of natural gas is based on generation factors provided in the 2013 SCAQMD California Emissions Estimator Model. As indicated therein,the proposed project would generate a demand for approximately 51.8 million cubic feet(kcf)per year,which represents approximately 0.01 percent of the estimated annual demand of 982 bcf/year. This amount is negligible and is within the anticipated service capabilities of SoCal Gas. The proposed project alone would not be capable of consuming so much natural gas that SoCal Gas would not be able to provide energy to their service area with the variety and abundance of energy resources currently available to them. Conflicts with Existing Energy Standards, Policies and Regulations Would the proposed project conflict with existing energy standards,policies and regulations? Proposed Project California SB 350 is not directly applicable to the proposed project. It requires that publicly owned utilities in California procure 33 percent of their electricity sales from eligible renewable sources by 2020, and 50 percent by the end of 2030. The proposed project would be provided electricity by SCE, a public utility. The renewable procurement status for SCE in 2014 was 23.2 percent. The percentage of RPS procurement currently under contract for 2020 is 36.9 percent (CPUC,2016). Thus,the proposed project's electricity supply would be provided by a public utility that is in compliance with the 2013 RPS goal and is on track to achieve the 2030 RPS goal. The California Energy Code includes standards mandating energy conservation measures in new construction for heating, cooling,ventilation,water heating, and lighting. Based on Mitigation Measure AQ-1,the proposed project would exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by a minimum of 15 percent, or would offset energy consumption by implementing onsite energy sources such that 9 percent of electrical usage was offset. Thus, it is anticipated that the proposed project would not conflict with the California Energy Code. Altair Specific Plan 2-29 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata As stated in Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change, The Temecula Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use, growth planning,reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions city-wide and advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project,which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code,would support the City's effort of reducing GHG emissions related to energy demand.Also, as discussed above,the Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions consistent with the Sustainability Plan. Additionally, eliminating hearths will also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency over Title 24 or incorporating renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Id,will also provide a reduction in GHG emissions. The reduction in GHG emissions occur due to the reduction in energy consumption. Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Table 2-4 presents a consistency analysis of all applicable energy goals and policies established in the Temecula General Plan.As shown,the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable energy goals and policies with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, GHG-1, and TRA-1 through TRA-3. TABLE 2-4 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN ENERGY GOALS AND POLICIES Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Air Quality Goal 4—Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy 4.1 —Encourage Community- Consistent.The proposed project would be consistent with this policy wide reductions in energy because it is required to,at a minimum,meet the most current Title 24 energy consumptions through conservation. efficiency standards.According to Mitigation Measure AQ-1,the proposed project may exceed these requirements. Policy 4.2—Promote local recycling Consistent.The proposed project would be required to comply with state and of wastes and the use of recycled local laws governing recycling and use of recycled materials.Therefore the materials. proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 4.3—Encourage energy- Consistent.The proposed project would be consistent with this policy efficient design in new development because it is required to,at a minimum,meet the most current Title 24 energy proposed projects. efficiency standards.According to Mitigation Measure AQ-1,the proposed project may exceed these requirements,or may implement onsite renewable energy.Additionally,the incorporation of this mitigation encourages the use of alternative fueled vehicles as well as implements electric charging stations to reduce fuel consumption. Altair Specific Plan 2-30 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Air Quality Goal 4—Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy 4.1 —Encourage Community- Consistent.The proposed project would be consistent with this policy wide reductions in energy because it is required to,at a minimum,meet the most current Title 24 energy consumptions through conservation. efficiency standards.According to Mitigation Measure AQ-1,the proposed project may exceed these requirements. Policy 4.2—Promote local recycling Consistent.The proposed project would be required to comply with of wastes and the use of recycled state and local laws governing recycling and use of recycled materials. materials. Therefore the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 4.3—Encourage energy- Consistent.The proposed project would be consistent with this policy efficient design in new development because it is required to,at a minimum,meet the most current Title 24 energy proposed projects. efficiency standards.According to Mitigation Measure AQ-1,the proposed project may exceed these requirements,or may implement onsite renewable energy.Additionally,the incorporation of this mitigation encourages the use of alternative fueled vehicles as well as implements electric charging stations to reduce fuel consumption. Implementation Policies AQ-3:Land Use Compatibility: Consistent.The proposed project is a mixed-use development and therefore Adhere to the policies and programs is consistent with the implementation policy.Mitigation Measures AQ-1 of the Land Use Element,including requires that transit routes be posted in common areas and that commercial development of mixed-use proposed uses encourage ride-share programs. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through projects where designated and TRA-3 require the implementation of signal timing options to reduce traffic feasible,to ensure that future land idling.With incorporation of the project itself as well as the additional use patterns and traffic increases are mitigation measures the project is consistent with this measure. accompanied by measures to improve air quality. AQ-7: Design Guidelines: Incorporate Consistent.The proposed project is a mixed-use development with internal strategies into City-wide design pedestrian management programs.Mitigation Measures AQ-1 requires that guidelines and development transit routes be posted in common areas,that commercial uses allow standards that promote a pedestrian- alternative work schedules where appropriate,and that commercial uses scale environment,encourage use of encourage ride-share programs.With incorporation of the project itself as well mass transit,and reduce as the additional mitigation measures the project is consistent with this dependence on the automobile. measure. AQ-8:Alternative Work Schedules: Consistent.The proposed project will implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Promote the use of alternative work which requires that employers allow alternative work schedules as appropriate weeks,flextime,telecommuting,and to the business being developed.Where implemented this will reduce trip work-at-home programs among requirements for those businesses. employers in Temecula and continue to enforce provisions of the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance,including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans(TRIPS)for qualifying development proposed projects and employers. AQ-11:Transportation Alternatives: Consistent.The proposed project is a mixed-use development with internal Work to achieve local performance pedestrian management programs.Mitigation Measures AQ-1 requires that goals for vehicle miles traveled transit routes be posted in common areas,that commercial uses allow (VMT)reduction,consistent with alternative work schedules where appropriate,and that commercial uses SCAG's Growth Management Plan encourage ride-share programs.With incorporation of the project itself as well recommended standards for the as the additional mitigation measures the project is consistent with this Western Riverside County subregion. measure. AQ-12:Alternative Fueled Vehicles: Consistent.The proposed project will implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Promote and encourage the use of which requires that five percent of all available off-street parking spaces alternative fuel vehicles.Consider (residential and non-residential alike)be equipped with charging stations to adoption of an ordinance requiring encourage the use of alternative fueled vehicles. provision of alternative fueling stations at or near major employment locations,shopping centers,public facilities,and mixed-use developments. Altair Specific Plan 2-31 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis AQ-15:Energy Efficient Design: Consistent.The proposed project is a mixed-use development that is Incorporate energy efficient design consistent with this policy because it is required to,at a minimum,meet the elements in residential,commercial most current Title 24 energy efficiency standards.According to Mitigation and light industrial and mixed-use Measure AQ-1,the proposed project may exceed these requirements,or may development proposed projects. implement onsite renewable energy.Additionally the incorporation of this mitigation encourages the use of alternative fueled vehicles as well as implements electric charging stations to reduce fuel consumption. Mitigation Measures The following measures contained within the Draft EIR and implemented in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation and Traffic sections will further reduce potential impacts related to energy consumption: Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-la:No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-lb: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units shall include the following: a) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime,telecommuting, and/or work-at- home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non-quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-lc: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Proposed project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into proposed project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-le: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi-family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi-family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non-residential buildings.Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride-share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities. (non-quantifiable) Altair Specific Plan 2-32 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as,but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non-quantifiable) c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi-family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non-quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project,the project applicant shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites,the project applicant shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied,the project spensef will be doomed applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent(15%)reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network(e.g.,help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share Programs); 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable,install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy(e.g. solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights,motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safely purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard quipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures(e.g., faucets,toilets, and showers), 13) Install water efficient irrigation , sty 14 Where practicable,reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. Altair Specific Plan 2-33 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata These changes to the mitigation are responsive to the request to add specific, enforceable measures. Further,these measures and existing design elements of the proposed project include many of the measures referenced in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change(January 2008), Table 16(e.g.,bicycle parking,bike lanes/paths,pedestrian network,higher density residential, electric vehicle recharging capabilities, drought resistant landscaping,no wood-burning stoves, energy and water efficient fixtures and appliances, solar capabilities onsite,nearby recreation and downtown, and exceedance of Title 24). Because LEED Certification is governed by a non- governmental entity, as well as the fact that this project may not qualify for LEED Certification due to its location(and not design), LEED Certification cannot be guaranteed.Nevertheless,the measures will be incorporated to help substantially lessen impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions(and air emissions and energy use). Whether or not LEED Certification is achieved,the project will still result in indirect and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions above thresholds commonly applied, and therefore this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the proposed project, the proposed project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the proposed project, the proposed project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3: Prior to the completion of Phase 2 of the proposed project, the proposed project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)at the intersection of I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The proposed project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Final EIR — Energy Consumption/Conservation Similar to the Civic Use,the Nature Center Scenario would result energy consumption from the construction and operation of the Nature Center and other land uses associated with this scenario. As discussed in the Air Quality Section of Appendix A to the Final EIR,the Nature Center scenario would have similar construction and operational activities as the Nature Center with the difference being that instead of institutional use as identified in the Nature Center,the Nature Center would be built. This results in less building square footage developed and less employment,therefore reducing the overall energy consumption compared to the Nature Center. The Nature Center Scenario would incorporate the same mitigation measures as the Nature Center with respect to energy consumption. Altair Specific Plan 2-34 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Analysis of Nature Center Energy Efficiency Would the Nature Center result in the inefficient use of energy resources? Petroleum The Nature Center would result in the consumption of petroleum associated with the use of gasoline or diesel-powered trucks,worker vehicles, excavation/construction equipment and water trucks that would be used during construction activities. Table 2-5 presents the estimated maximum petroleum use for Nature Center construction. The vehicle miles traveled for the project were provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix I to the Draft EIR)and used in the generation of emissions estimates for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts. While the sections do not specifically address petroleum consumption,the analysis does consider fuel consumption and vehicle miles traveled in the generation of project specific emissions estimates. Although implementation of the Nature Center would result in the consumption of petroleum,the Nature Center includes mitigation measures to increase efficiency of fuel usage. While the gallons of petroleum used are not specifically stated within the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Traffic sections,the implementation of mitigation measures ensure the efficient use petroleum products. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 require the use of more fuel- efficient vehicles, encourage modified work schedules, and encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-3 would provide for signal timing optimization which would reduce vehicle idling and therefore reduce fuel usage. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the inefficient use of petroleum fuel for the duration of the Nature Center. TABLE 2-5 ESTIMATED PETROLEUM USE Diesel Gasoline (gallons/year) (gallons/year) Total' Total' Nature Center Construction 150,148 140,221 501,898 471,763 Operation 87,789 1,506,701 2,513,666 45,201,025 Proposed Nature Center Use Construction 150,148 141,248 501,898 475,3588 Operation 110,330 1,983,974 3,309,912 59,519,213 Change Construction 0 (1,027) 0 (3,595) Operation (26,542) (477,273) (796,246) (14,318,189) a- This total presents the total petroleum use over 30 years for operational sources. SOURCE:ESA,2017. Altair Specific Plan 2-35 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Electricity Nature Center's electrical consumption during operational activities was analyzed as part of the Greenhouse Gas analysis. Although the quantity of electrical consumption is not specifically stated,the modeling to asses GHG emissions quantifies the electrical usage onsite. Based on the CaIEEMod outputs(Appendix B of the Draft EIR),the Nature Center would consume 8.1 million kWh per year under the unmitigated scenario. Depending on the extent of mitigation implemented, electrical consumption will be reduced to approximately 7.5 million kWh per year. Energy conservation measures would be implemented at the Nature Center site to reduce proposed electricity consumption. Compared to the proposed project,the Nature Center Scenario would require 4.1 million kWh less per year under the unmitigated scenario and 3.2 million kWh less under the mitigated scenario. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 will ensure that electricity is used as efficiently as possible for all electricity-consuming activities where energy-efficient practices are attainable. Natural Gas Nature Center natural gas consumption during operational activities was analyzed as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas analysis.Although the quantity of natural gas consumption is not specifically stated,the modeling to asses Air Quality and GHG operational emissions quantifies the onsite natural gas usage. Based on the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B of the Draft EIR),the Nature Center would consume 22.5 million kBTU per year under the unmitigated scenario. Depending on the extent of mitigation implemented,natural gas consumption will be reduced to approximately 17.8 million kBTU per year. Compared to the proposed project,the Nature Center Scenario would require 3.2 million kBTU less energy under the unmitigated scenario and 9.0 million kBTU less energy under the mitigated scenario. Energy conservation measures would be implemented at the Nature Center site to reduce proposed natural gas consumption. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 will ensure that natural gas is used as efficiently as possible for all electricity-consuming activities where energy-efficient practices are attainable. Transportation Energy Would the Nature Center increase transportation energy use requirements? Nature Center The Nature Center would result in transportation energy use from the construction and operation activities. As shown in Table 1,the Nature Center has the potential to use a maximum of 501,898 gallons of diesel and 471,763 gallons of gasoline during construction activities and 2,513,666 gallons of diesel and 45,201,025 gallons of gasoline over a 30-year operational period. These estimates present an increase in transportation energy use. However,the Nature Center includes mitigation measures to increase efficiency of fuel usage and transportation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 require the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, encourage modified work schedules, and encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-3 would provide for signal timing optimization which would reduce vehicle idling and therefore reduce fuel usage. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Nature Center's increased transportation energy uses and would ensure that efficient transportation alternatives are implemented.As shown in Table 1,the Nature Altair Specific Plan 2-36 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Center Scenario would consume less transportation energy than the proposed civic/institutional use component. Result in Need for Additional Energy Capacity Would the overall site cleanup increase demand(including peak and base period demands) on local and regional energy supplies that result in the need for additional capacity? Petroleum The Nature Center has the potential to use a maximum of 501,898 gallons of diesel and 471,763 gallons of gasoline during construction and 2,513,666 gallons of diesel and 45,201,025 gallons of gasoline over a 30-year operational period. As of December 31,2015, California has 2,860 million barrels of crude oil left in the state's reserves(USEIA,2016a). In addition, according to the USEIA International Energy Outlook 2016,the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels through 2040(USEIA, 2016a). It is not anticipated that the Nature Center would increase demand for petroleum supplies such that available local and regional energy supplies would not be capable of serving the Nature Center. Electricity The Nature Center would consume 8.1 million kWh per year under the unmitigated scenario. Depending on the extent of mitigation implemented, electrical consumption will be reduced to approximately 7.5 million kWh per year. While it is anticipated that these technologies would consume substantial quantities of energy,they would not result in SCE needing additional capacity to serve the Nature Center. SCE monitors and maintains a vast electricity system that provides electricity to 15 million people(SCE, 2016a). As an electricity supply company, SCE has the ongoing ability to generate or purchase energy based on demand within SCE's service area. To ensure energy availability and reliability for existing and future consumers, SCE engages in ongoing planning efforts that involve power use and system upgrades, and changes to their power mix(SCE, 2016a). Table 2-6 shows the 2014 California Energy Demand Update(CEDU) mid scenario for SCE's electricity consumption and peak demand for selected years. As shown in Table 2-6, SCE's energy demand is forecasted to increase from 102,218 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2016 to 113,612 GWh in 2025. This presents an increase of 11,394 GWh in consumption. SCE's coincident peak demand is forecasted to increase from 23,537 MW in 2016 to 26,030 MW in 2025. This presents an increase of 2,493 MW. While specific engineering/system design plans have not been specified for the Nature Center, approximately 72,871,830 kWh(73 GWh)would be consumed over the same 9 years. This is equivalent to 0.64 percent of the forecasted increase in consumption for SCE's service area (11,394 GWh). Thus,the Nature Center's electricity usage is anticipated to be substantially lower than SCE's forecasted demand and coincident peak demand for the SCE service area. The Nature Center alone would not be capable of consuming so much electricity that SCE would not be able to provide energy to the SCE service area with the variety and abundance of energy resources currently available to SCE. Altair Specific Plan 2-37 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata TABLE 2-6 CEDU 2014 MID CASE DEMAND BASELINE FORECASTS OF SCE ELECTRICITY DEMAND Year(s) CEDU 2014 Mid Energy Demand Consumption(GWh) 2016 102,218 2020 106,875 2024 112,247 2025 113,612 Average Annual Growth Rates 2013-2016 0.99% 2013-2024 1.13% 2013-2025 1.13% Coincident Peak(MW) 2016 23,537 2020 24,724 2024 25,784 2025 26,030 Average Annual Growth Rates 2014-2016 1.29% 2014-2024 1.17% 2014-2025 1.15% SOURCE:CEC,2014b. Natural Gas Natural gas is provided to the Nature Center site by the Southern California Gas Company(SoCal Gas).According to the 2014 California Gas Report,the most recent report available, California natural gas demand is expected to decrease at a modest rate of 0.2 percent per year from 2014 to 2035 for residential, commercial, electric generation, and industrial markets. This is due to increased energy efficiency programs, increasing reliance on renewable electric generation(e.g. solar and wind)as well as declining industrial demands as California continues its transition from a manufacturing-based to a service-based economy. California natural gas utilities including SoCal Gas,interstate pipelines and in-state natural gas storage facilities have increased their delivery and receipt capacity to meet natural gas growth. SoCal Gas is supported in its planning effort by the California Energy Commission,which provides Integrated Energy Policy Reports, with annual updates that evaluate future demand for natural gas and supply considerations. The 2014 California Gas Report indicates that,with only minor variations from year to year, SoCal Gas is Nature Centered to provide approximately 982 billion cubic feet(bcf)per year of natural gas over the next 20-year planning horizon. The report also indicates that SoCal Gas has a substantially higher capacity available. Altair Specific Plan 2-38 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata The Nature Center's estimated use of natural gas is based on generation factors provided in the 2013 SCAQMD California Emissions Estimator Model. As indicated therein,the Nature Center would generate a demand for approximately 22.0 million cubic feet(kcf)per year,which represents less than 0.01 percent of the estimated annual demand of 982 bcf/year. This amount is negligible and is within the anticipated service capabilities of SoCal Gas. The Nature Center alone would not be capable of consuming so much natural gas that SoCal Gas would not be able to provide energy to their service area with the variety and abundance of energy resources currently available to them. Conflicts with Existing Energy Standards, Policies and Regulations Would the Nature Center conflict with existing energy standards,policies and regulations? Nature Center California SB 350 is not directly applicable to the Nature Center. It requires that publicly owned utilities in California procure 33 percent of their electricity sales from eligible renewable sources by 2020, and 50 percent by the end of 2030. The Nature Center would be provided electricity by SCE, a public utility. The renewable procurement status for SCE in 2014 was 23.2 percent. The percentage of RPS procurement currently under contract for 2020 is 36.9 percent(CPUC, 2016). Thus,the Nature Center's electricity supply would be provided by a public utility that is in compliance with the 2013 RPS goal and is on track to achieve the 2030 RPS goal. The California Energy Code includes standards mandating energy conservation measures in new construction for heating, cooling,ventilation,water heating, and lighting. Based on Mitigation Measure AQ-1,the Nature Center would exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by a minimum of 15 percent, or would offset energy consumption by implementing onsite energy sources such that 9 percent of electrical usage was offset. Thus, it is anticipated that the Nature Center would not conflict with the California Energy Code. As stated in Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change, The Temecula Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use, growth planning,reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions city-wide and advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project,which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code,would support the City's effort of reducing GHG emissions related to energy demand. Also, as discussed above,the Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions consistent with the Sustainability Plan. Additionally,eliminating hearths will also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency over Title 24 or incorporating renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d,will also provide a reduction in GHG emissions. The reduction in GHG emissions occur due to the reduction in energy consumption. Therefore,the Nature Center would be consistent with the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Altair Specific Plan 2-39 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 2.Errata Similar to the proposed project,the Nature Center would be a mixed use development and would implement the same mitigation measures. Therefore, as with the proposed project,the Nature Center Scenario would be consistent with all of the applicable energy goals and policies established in the Temecula General Plan, as discussed in Table 3, above. Altair Specific Plan 2-40 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 CHAPTER 3 Response to Comments Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final EIR must contain information summarizing the comments received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments received. Twenty- seven comment letters were received by the City in response to the Draft EIR. Late comment letters received within one month of the comment period end date (June 17, 2016) are also responded to, although such responses are not legally required. This chapter includes copies of each letter received during the comment period and the responses to these comments. Each comment letter or email is assigned a unique letter number with each comment individually coded. For example, Comment lA is the first comment in Comment Letter 1. A list of the comment letters received is provided below in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR Letter No. Commenter Date of Letter 1 State Clearinghouse June 16,2016 2 California Department of Transportation June 20,2016 3 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife June 18,2016 4 National Marine Fisheries Service June 17,2016 5 Regional Conservation Authority June 15,2016 6 Southern California Association of Governments June 17,2016 7 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California June 20,2016 8 Eastern Municipal Water District June 16,2016 8A Eastern Municipal Water District July 14,2016 9 Rancho California Water District May 17,2016 10 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission May 13,2016 11 Temecula Valley Unified School District June 17,2016 12 Pechanga Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians June 17,2016 13 The Nature Conservancy June 17,2016 14 Endangered Habitats League June 3,2016 15 San Diego State University Sana Margarita Ecological Reserve June 27,2016 16 The Sierra Club June 17,2016 17 T.Winston Vickers, U.C. Davis,Wildlife Health Center June 17,2016 18 The Mountain Lion Foundation June 17,2016 19 Wildlife Research Institute June 16,2016 Altair Specific Plan 3-1 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Letter No. Commenter Date of Letter 20 Laguna Greenbelt June 15,2016 21 South Coast Steelhead Coalition June 21,2016 22 Johnson&Sedlack June 17,2016 23 John Laundre June 16,2016 24 Larry McNall May 6,2016 25 Mark Mahan May 16,2016 26 Inland Empire Biking Alliance June 11,2016 27 United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife June 26,2016 3.1 Response to Comments Structure As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this Final EIR,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop (February 14,2017)to propose a Nature/Culture/Sustainability(NCS)Center on the South Parcel as an option in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use,herein referred to as"Nature Center."Because the proposed South Parcel Nature Center land use proposal was developed following circulation of the Draft EIR for public review,Final EIR responses to comments have been structured to respond to all comments that pertain or relate to the proposed South Parcel land uses both in the context of the original proposed civic/institutional use and the alternately proposed Nature Center use. Individual letter comments are numbered and summarized in Section 3.3,Response to Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR, followed by the following two response categories: • Response 1-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use) • Response 1-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use) In many cases,the Nature Center use now proposed for the South Parcel addresses the comment/concerns by the nature of its reduced development intensity and specific design features that reduce environmental impacts. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this Final EIR, an analysis of the proposed Nature Center use as compared to the more-intense civic/institutional use is contained in Appendix A of this Final EIR and is referred to throughout the responses to comments,where applicable. Each comment letter received on the Draft EIR has been bracketed to identify individual comments and is followed by a summary of the individual comments each then is responded to in the above-described format. The actual comment letters are included following individual letter coversheets and are not included in the document pagination. 3.2 Common Responses A number of the comments received on the Draft EIR discussed the same issues or environmental concerns. Rather than repeat the responses to comments in each comment letter,the nine Altair Specific Plan 3-2 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments "common responses"identified herein and set forth below were prepared. Individual comment letter responses will refer the reader back to these common responses: Common Response 3.2.1: Project Redesign Common Response 3.2.2: MSHCP Consistency—General Common Response 3.2.3: MSHCP Consistency—Reserve Design and Criteria Cell Conservation Common Response 3.2.4: MSHCP Consistency—Criteria Refinement Common Response 3.2.5: MSHCP Consistency—Western Bypass Common Response 3.2.6: MSHCP Consistency—Riparian/Riverine Common Response 3.2.7: MSHCP Consistency—Joint Project Review Common Response 3.2.8: Mountain Lion/Linkage Impacts Common Response 3.2.9: Steelhead&Golden Eagle Impacts In addition to the above outlined common responses that are used throughout the Response to Comments section of the Final EIR, an environmental assessment of the proposed South Parcel Nature Center use has been prepared and is included in Appendix A. Appendix A is referenced throughout the Response to Comments section as well,where applicable. Common Response 3.2.1: Project Redesign Commenters have claimed that Villages A and G, as well as the Civic Site, should be eliminated to address potential impacts to Proposed Linkage 10,and that elimination of Village A and G and the Civic Site would reduce the zone of negative influence on the mountain lion. Much of the area comprising Village G was previously graded for the Ridge Park Office Complex project, and all of Village G would have been east of the original Western Bypass alignment. Under the No Project Alternative(no redesign of the Western Bypass occurs),the area comprising Village G would have had no long-term conservation value. With Village G included in the project,Proposed Linkage 10 is still in excess of 2,000 feet wide, and the linkage is wider at this point with Village G than what would have been the width with the original Western Bypass alignment(i.e.,the No Project Alternative). If Village A were to be removed, grading associated with the Western Bypass would still result in grading of a significant portion of Village A. The Draft EIR states that impacts to mountain lion would occur within Linkage 10 as a result of project implementation(Draft EIR Impact BIO-7), but that Linkage 10 would remain viable for mountain lion movement with Village A not being eliminated through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1,MM-13I0-3, MM-BIO-6b,MM-NOI-la,MM-NOI-lb and MM-NOI-3. Elimination of the Civic Site would reduce direct and indirect impacts to Linkages 13 and 10, and would also reduce indirect impacts to the Santa Margarita River corridor. Elimination of the Civic Site,however, is not necessary to reduce the project's impacts on this linkage to a less-than- Altair Specific Plan 3-3 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments significant level. Similar to the conclusions above regarding Village A,the Draft EIR states that impacts to mountain lion would occur within these areas as a result of project implementation (Draft EIR Impact BIO-7, BIO-8),but that Linkage 10 would remain viable for mountain lion movement with the Civic Site through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3,MM-BIO-6a,MM-BIO-6b,MM-NOI-la, MM-NOI-lb, and MM-NOI-3, as well as implementation of conservation measures including dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high vegetated berm on the southern side of the development area,the installation of "living walls" (green walls or modular vegetated walls)on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots, and the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds."(Draft EIR p. 2-9). Relocation of the Civic Site to the proposed elementary school location within the proposed project was considered as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR(p. 5-17). This alternative would eliminate development from the southern parcel as suggested by several commenters, and is not considerably different from the commenters' request to consider this as an alternative to the proposed project. As proposed,the project will provide for a functional Linkage 10.Although elimination of Villages A and G and/or the Civic Site would further reduce impacts to Linkage 10 and Linkage 13,these reductions are not required for the project to be considered consistent with the MSHCP Goals and Objectives nor to reduce project impacts to below a level of significance. Therefore,elimination of Villages A and G and/or the Civic Site are not warranted. In response to public comments on the Draft EIR and City Council workshops,the Final EIR includes an alternative use for the South Parcel for consideration by the City Council,the Nature Center use. This alternative use would modify the proposed use of the South Parcel.A description of the Nature Center can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Final EIR, and Appendix A. Overall, the Nature Center use would provide more than a 95 percent reduction in maximum building size and a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height compared to the South Parcel civic (university/hospital)use. The Nature Center use adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and re- vegetated areas when compared to the civic use. The Nature Center use also precludes night time uses,which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2, and Appendix A,the Nature Center use would be designed and mitigated to have a less-than-significant impact on mountain lion movement and population health and would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions when compared with the civic/institutional use. Project Conservation Features The currently proposed project(including the South Parcel Nature Center use)Project Conservation Features are summarized as follows: • South Parcel land use intensity is substantially reduced through the replacement of the civic/institutional use and replacement with a Nature Center use Altair Specific Plan 3-4 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments • 55-acre reduction in hillside escarpment/MSHCP impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP • San Diego ambrosia translocation. The applicant will translocate the San Diego ambrosia population to minimize impacts to this species. The translocation will occur on already conserved land within 10 miles of the project site. The receptor site will be selected in conjunction with the City,the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)and resource agencies. The applicant will prepare a translocation plan for City review and approval prior to implementing the translocation effort. The RCA will be responsible for any long-term management and monitoring obligations as part of their overall management and monitoring efforts for the MSHCP preserve. • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the RCA for conservation • Additional funding for conservation efforts ($500,0000)to be used for a wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility, and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the proposed project These summarized Project Conservation Features contribute to the functionality of the MSHCP linkages west and south of the proposed project and further contribute to the proposed project's consistency with the reserve assembly goals and objectives outlined in the MSHCP. In addition, MM-BIO-6b(87.20 acres of onsite open space conservation)and MM-BIO-7c (Slope restoration of approximately 20 acres of graded slopes along the Western Bypass (adjacent to conserved open space)with native upland habitat that once established will be offered to the RCA at no cost) further contribute to the project's consistency with goals and objectives outlined in the MSHCP. With the above-summarized Project Conservation Features and mitigation measures, and the following financial contribution to a Wildlife CFD,the proposed project is consistent with the reserve assembly goals and objectives of the MSHCP. The Wildlife Conservation Fee will be assessed into perpetuity.The following summarizes the proposed financial contribution for the first 100 years towards engineering of the Interstate 15(I-15) wildlife crossing and/or wildlife corridor improvements,and/or acquisition of lands for conservation efforts within the Special Linkage Area south of the project site and/or other wildlife conservation efforts in Riverside County within 10 miles of the project site: A) Payment to City Prior to Issuance of First Building Permit: $ 500,000 B) Payment to Wildlife Community Facilities District(CFD)years 1-20: $ 1,590,000 C) Payment to Wildlife CFD years 21-50: $ 4,530,000 D) Payment to Wildlife CFD years 51-100: $17,130,000 Total Funding Toward Wildlife Conservation/Connection: $23,750,000 Note: The above fee amounts assume$43/unit/year, the maximum buildout of 1,750 units and an annual 2 percent escalation. Actual buildout unit number and escalation may vary. These fees are Altair Specific Plan 3-55 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments in addition to the required MSHCP mitigation fees. Fee A above may be reduced to$200,000 in the event that the EIR is challenged. Common Response 3.2.2: Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency — General Several commenters claim that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). Contrary to the commenters' claims,the project as proposed would ensure consistency with the MSHCP. After circulation of the Draft EIR, and in direct response to public comments received on the Draft EIR,the City Council for the City of Temecula directed City staff to consider an alternative use for the South Parcel. This alternative use,described as the"Nature Center use,"is more fully described in Chapters 1 and 2 and Appendix A of the Final EIR. The proposed building under the Nature Center use would be a maximum of 20,000 square feet and two stories in height,with daytime operation hours only. It would also include a series of trails within the 55-acre South Parcel. Overall,the Nature Center use would provide more than a 95 percent reduction in maximum building size and a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height compared to the Civic Site university/hospital use. The Nature Center use also adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and re-vegetated areas on its undulating slopes when compared to the Civic Site. As described in greater detail below,the Nature Center use would also ensure consistency with the MSHCP. Western Riverside County MSHCP As described in detail in Section 3.3,Biological Resources,of the Draft EIR,the project site is located within the MSHCP(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-3-4). The MSHCP encompasses a 1.26-million-acre Plan Area within Riverside County and involves the assembly and management of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. It was developed to serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B)of the Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA)as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)pursuant to the NCCP Act. The MSHCP(including the related Implementation Agreement)comprises an arrangement among the County,cities,the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW),the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),and several other government agencies to provide for the conservation and protection of 146 named"Covered Species Adequately Conserved"and their habitats within the Plan Area. The overarching purpose of the plan is to "provide a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region's quality of life"(MSHCP,p. 1-1;Draft EIR,p. 3.3-3). An additional objective of the MSHCP is the establishment of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area within the Plan Area(MSHCP,p. 1-16;Draft EIR,Appx. C,p. 2). Under the City's Implementing Resolution for the MSHCP,the City must"[d]etermine the design criteria applicable to the project based on the particular USGS section,quadrant,and/or cell grouping in which the project property is located,as set forth in Section 3.2 of the MSHCP;"and then must"[i]mpose as a condition to the City's approval of the project such conditions as are necessary to ensure the project complies with and implements the design criteria applicable to the Altair Specific Plan 3-6 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments project"(Implementing Resolution, section V.A.2).A portion of the project site lies in Cell Group K(Cell Numbers 7077 and 7161). The remainder of the project site lies in Independent Cells(Cell Numbers 7078, 7164, 7166,7258, 7264, 7355, and 7356)(Draft EIR,pp. 3.3-24 to 3.3-26). Common Response 3.2.3: Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency -Reserve Design and Criteria Cells Commenters have claimed that because the project does not contribute a sufficient number of acres for conservation within the nine Criteria Cells associated with the project,the project is not consistent with the MSHCP. Commenters argue that analysis of conservation criteria attainment at the Subunit level rather than the Criteria Cell level is inappropriate. Commenters also state that the 270 acres that the project will conserve in the Temescal Canyon Area Plan do not address the target shortfalls in the Southwest Area Plan Subunits 1 and 6. MSHCP Criteria Area The Criteria Area within the MSHCP is the"area within which MSHCP Criteria will be applied and from which 153,000 acres of new Conservation will be achieved to contribute toward assembly of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area. Criteria have been developed for individual Cells or Cell Groupings"(MSHCP Section 3.2.1). The Draft EIR provides a detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the MSHCP's Subunit and Criteria Cell/Cell Group Acreage requirements(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-63). In particular, the Draft EIR explains the Criteria Review Consistency Process outlined in the MSHCP. (Id.). The MSHCP provides that individual projects should be examined through a"sequential approach"that begins"at the broad, landscape scale and proceed[s] through the individual Cell Criteria"(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-63;MSHCP,p. 3-122). Thus,the first step in evaluating an individual project is an examination of the project"in the context of overall MSHCP Conservation Area by relating the project to the MSHCP Conservation Area description and the descriptions of the applicable Cores and Linkages []" (Id.).Next,the project should be reviewed in the context of the specific Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit in which it is located(Id.). During this stage of the review,"Planning Species and Biological Issues and Considerations as well as variable target acreages for the overall Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit should be reviewed ... along with any available project specific biological information"(Id.). Finally,the"process should continue with a review of the specific Criteria for the identified Cell or Cell Group within which the project site is located"(Id.). This part of the process is described as follows in the MSHCP and Draft EIR: The first criterion for each Cell or Cell Group is the identification of the applicable Core or Linkage. This relationship of the project to the applicable Core or Linkage should already have been identified and discussed as part of the first steps in the sequential process. The next criteria for each Cell or Cell Group are the identification of Vegetation Communities toward which Conservation should be directed along with connectivity requirements. These criteria should be considered for each individual project based on the context established through the earlier review of Cores and Linkage and the overall MSHCP Conservation Area description. Finally, the project should be examined with respect to the percentage conservation portion of the Cell Criteria, which is the last criterion provided for each Cell and Cell Group. While achieving the precise percentage Altair Specific Plan 3-7 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments conservation criterion for each Cell or Cell Group would ultimately result in assembly of 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands as envisioned in the MSHCP, it should be noted that achievement of the variable target acreages will be measured on a Core and Linkage or Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit basis, not on an individual project or Cell/Cell Group basis.As noted in the discussion of Reserve Assembly Accounting in Section 6.7, adjustments are anticipated during the long-term MSHCP implementation process to respond to new information and baseline changes. (Draft EIR,pp. 3.3-63 to 3.3-64;MSHCP,pp. 3-122 to 3-123 (emphasis added)) Some of the comments on the Draft EIR assert that the City must evaluate the project's consistency with the MSHCP at the Criteria Cell level and that the City must meet the acreage requirements identified as the goal within each criteria cell to achieve consistency. As provided in the excerpt above from the MSHCP,the City's evaluation of the project's consistency with target acreages should occur at the Subunit level and not necessarily only the cell level. Thus, a proposed project may not specifically meet the acreage requirements within a given Cell,but will still achieve the overall goals and acreage targets for the Plan Area and Subunit level. Southwest Area Plan, Subunit 1(Murrieta Creek), and Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) The target conservation acreage range for the Southwest Area Plan is 58,295 to 72,155 acres; it is composed of approximately 35,795 acres of existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands and 22,500 to 36,360 acres of Additional Reserve Lands. The City of Temecula sits entirely within the Southwest Area Plan. The target acreage range within the City of Temecula is 600 to 1,380 acres (MSHCP,p. 3-380(Section 3.3.15)). The Southwest Area Plan is divided into seven Subunits. For each Subunit,target conservation acreages are established along with a description of the Planning Species,Biological Issues and Considerations, and Criteria for each Subunit. Murrieta Creek target acreage for Additional Reserve Lands is 640-1465 acres(MSHCP,p. 3-382). Santa Rosa Plateau target acreage for Additional Reserve Lands is 1,285 to 2,915 acres. Project's Consistency with Area Plan, Subunit, and Cell/Cell Group Conservation Acreage Goals The project is within Subunits 1 (Murrieta Creek)and 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) of the MSHCP's Southwest Area Plan. (Draft EIR,p. 3.3-7.)A portion of the project site falls within Cell Group "K"(Criteria Cell Numbers 7077 and 7161), and the remainder lies within the Independent Cells (Criteria Cell Numbers 7078, 7164, 7166, 7258, 7264, 7355, and 7356) (Draft EIR,pp. 3.3-8; 3.3- 24). The project will conserve a minimum of 82.77 acres onsite at the Criteria Cell level(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-45). Under the Nature Center use,the total conserved acreage onsite would increase to 87.2 acres. The project's biologists undertook a detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the MSHCP at the Area Plan, Subunit, and Cell/Cell Group levels("2015 Consistency Report") (Draft EIR,Appx. C3). As explained in the Draft EIR and based on independent review by the City and its biological expert consultant, it was determined that while the project does not meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals in every Cell,the project would not preclude achievement of Altair Specific Plan 3-8 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments reserve assembly target acreages in either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 due to the availability of other undeveloped and rural residential lands for conservation(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-64). In particular,the analysis concluded that the midpoint acreage targets for Subunit 1 could still be exceeded by as much as 163 acres (15 percent)and for Subunit 6 could be exceeded by as much as 712 acres (34 percent)with available conservation in both subunits following implementation of the project as proposed(Draft EIR,Appx. C p. 43), and that the project would meet overall conservation goals for Proposed Linkage 10(Id.,p.45). Thus,the Draft EIR measured the project's consistency with reserve target acreages on an Area Plan Subunit basis and,pursuant to Subsections IV(a)and X(c) of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,the project as designed and mitigated is consistent with the adopted MSHCP. The project's biologist subsequently prepared a supplement to the 2015 Consistency Report, dated June 19,2017, evaluating the Nature Center use's consistency with the MSHCP(Final EIR, Appx.A,Helix,June 2017). Under this alternative use,the project footprint outside of the Civic Site is essentially unchanged. The Nature Center use would reduce impacts to Independent Cell No. 7355 from 9.3 acres to 8.9 acres, leaving 13.5 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10. It would also reduce impacts to Independent Cell No. 7356 from 11.0 acres to 10.7, leaving 20.3 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. In addition, as further described in the Helix June 2017 Memo, the Nature Center use does not propose nighttime activities and would have no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the South Parcel other than lighting needed for security. The Nature Center use will also be a low-intensity use with noise limited to low levels of traffic driving to and from the Nature Center; as such,the MSHCP Conservation Area would not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. As with the Civic Site,the conservation acreage for the Nature Center use also falls short of the targeted acreage for the individual cells. However, as explained above,biological issues and considerations are met for these cells by project design. Thus,the project with the Nature Center use is likewise designed and mitigated consistent with the adopted MSHCP. Common Response 3.2.4: Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency - Criteria Refinement Some of the comments submitted on the Draft EIR claim that the project requires the initiation of the Criteria Refinement Process under the MSHCP. Similarly, some commenters have claimed that the City must undertake an"equivalency analysis"for the proposed conserved acreage that is located outside of the Criteria Cells affected by the project. As explained below,neither the project applicant nor the City is proposing a Criteria Refinement as the project(either with the South Parcel civic/institutional use or the Nature Center use) is consistent with the MSHCP. The project was not relying on the voluntary conservation of the 270 acres near Corona(Draft EIR)to meet MSHCP requirements or to mitigate for project impacts. Finally, in response to feedback received from the public, conservation organizations, and wildlife agencies,the project applicant has modified the voluntary Project Conservation Features to provide funding for the I-15 wildlife corridor connection and/or other conservation efforts Altair Specific Plan 3-9 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments within 10 miles of the project in lieu of the previously proposed conservation easement over 270 acres, as documented in Common Response 3.2.1 As provided in the MSHCP: "Criteria Refinements may be initiated by Local Permittees, or at the request of private entities to Local Permittees if agreed to by the applicable Local Permittee, either for purposes of correcting minor discrepancies or inaccuracies or for evaluating alternative conservation proposals involving single or multiple landowners and jurisdictions that are of equivalent or superior benefit to Covered Species. Such Criteria Refinements may involve changes to Cores and Linkages as long as it is demonstrated that the Refinements would clearly benefit Covered Species and would be consistent with MSHCP policies and species conservation goals"(MSHCP,p. 6-74(Section 6.5)). Criteria Refinements may be made for the following reasons: (1) New biological information obtained through site-specific studies; (2) Updated land use information that clearly demonstrates an area as unsuitable for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area(primarily limited to the presence of existing Development that was unknown at the time the MSHCP Criteria were developed); (3) Site-specific topographic, engineering or design information that materially affects the Development of the site and its relationship to the MSHCP Conservation Area; (4) Other reasons such as might be offered by a landowner or individual project proponent (MSHCP,p. 6-75). Section 6.5 of the MSHCP outlines the procedures that must be followed when a project proceeds through the Criteria Refinement process. These procedures include notification to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies(USFWS and CDFW), a review and response period, and a meet and confer process in the event there are disagreements. In the event there is disagreement regarding Criteria refinements for a project,RCA staff shall schedule and hold a meeting with affected parties (MSHCP,p. 6-75). The MSHCP clarifies,however,that"these procedures do not impede local land use authority" (Id.). Where a Criteria Refinement incorporates conservation outside of the Criteria Area to meet equivalency findings,the refinement"shall be subject to concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies" (Id.). In such cases,the Permittee shall meet and confer with the Wildlife Agencies prior to submittal of information to the RCA,provide the Wildlife Agencies with an equivalency analysis, and obtain concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies(Id.). If,however,the Wildlife Agencies do not concur,the project will require an amendment to the MSHCP,which entails a separate process(Id.). In the Draft EIR,the project proposed includes as one of the voluntary Project Conservation Features the donation of a conservation easement over 270.0 acres of hillside escarpment in the City of Corona that is adjacent to MSHCP Criteria Cells,valued at$150,000 (refer to Draft EIR, p. 2-29). Commenters have claimed that because the acreage is outside of Subunit 1 and Subunit 6 of the Southwest Area Plan,that the City must obtain a Criteria Refinement. This voluntary Altair Specific Plan 3-10 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments conservation feature is no longer proposed, as discussed above.Neither the project applicant nor the City is proposing a Criteria Refinement as part of the proposed project. As documented,the City has determined that the project(either with the Civic use or the Nature Center use)is consistent with the MSHCP based on the current MSHCP Criteria and that the acreage currently outside of Subunits 1 and 6 is not necessary to ensure consistency with the MSHCP or the specific Cell Criteria. In addition,as previously proposed,the project was not relying on the voluntary conservation of the 270 acres to meet MSHCP requirements or to mitigate for the project impacts, and as a result an equivalency analysis of the 270 acres was not required. In response to comments received from the public, conservation organizations, and wildlife agencies on the Draft EIR,the project applicant has modified the voluntary Project Conservation Features to provide funding for the I-15 wildlife corridor connection and/or other conservation efforts within 10 miles of the project. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Final EIR,the project applicant no longer proposes to donate a conservation easement over the 270 acres mentioned above, and instead will be making a series of financial contributions to the City of Temecula for use towards the I-15 wildlife corridor connection, as documented above in Common Response 3.2.1. These changes to the voluntary Project Conservation Features likewise do not trigger the need for any Criteria Refinement under the MSHCP, as the provision of funding toward the 1-15 wildlife corridor connection and/or other conservation efforts within 10 miles of the project do not trigger any of the conditions under the MSHCP (described above)requiring a criteria refinement (MSHCP,p. 6-75). Finally, despite any possible procedural steps that may be necessary to ensure consistency with the MSHCP,the project applicant and City have been in consultation with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for almost four years on the design of the proposed project and the acreages necessary to ensure that the project does not conflict with the MSHCP and can ensure that the MSHCP's acreage goals are met for the Subunit. The Draft EIR included in-depth analysis of the physical environmental effects that the project might have on sensitive species and habitats identified in the comments on the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR imposes mitigation measures where feasible to address those potential environmental impacts. Common Response 3.2.5: MSHCP Consistency — Western Bypass Some commenters have claimed that the Draft EIR incorrectly discounts the reserve assembly criteria based on the Western Bypass being a Covered Activity under the MSHCP. One comment also states that a minor amendment to the MSHCP is necessary to reflect removal of the northern portion of the Western Bypass and to document the exchanged impact acreage. Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP states that the ultimate alignment and design of planned roadways, bridges, and interchanges will be subject to specific design, siting, and construction guidelines. The Western Bypass is an MSHCP Covered Activity that is consistent with Section 7.5.1 (Draft EIR,p. 3.3-65), and with or without the Altair Project,the Western Bypass in its original Altair Specific Plan 3-11 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments configuration was determined to be consistent with the goals for Linkage 10 under the original MSHCP approvals, including for the mountain lion. The Western Bypass has been redesigned to be located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible to accommodate its circulation purpose. The redesign would eliminate over 7,700 linear feet of roadway from the northern portion of the property to its previous connection at Via Industria. It is now planned to tie into the existing Vincent Moraga Drive through existing graded pads. The Western Bypass begins the approved bridge at Temecula Parkway which sets the feasible road alignment at the southern end of the project. This new alignment reduces the length by 50 percent of the current approved Western Bypass and approximately 55 acres of sage scrub, chaparral and other habitats would be avoided with the proposed realignment based on the City's previous grading study for the Western Bypass alignment. These changes result in significant reductions in direct impacts to habitats as well as significant reduction in indirect impacts by the elimination of the roadway north of Rancho California Road. The Draft EIR does not discount the reserve assembly criteria because the Western Bypass is considered a Covered Activity,but accurately reflects that the Western Bypass would have had far greater impacts to Linkage 10 under the original approved alignment,that the revised alignment significantly reduces those impacts, and that Conservation Goals and Objectives and reserve assembly goals can be met with the proposed project. Elimination of the northern portion of the Western Bypass from the circulation element does not require a minor amendment. Common Response 3.2.6: MSHCP Consistency — Riparian/Riverine Some of the comments submitted on the Draft EIR claim that the project is inconsistent with the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine policy, and that a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP) document is required for unavoidable impacts to riparian and riverine resources. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat"as lands which contain habitat dominated by [trees], shrubs,persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens,which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year."The 2007 Riparian/Riverine habitat assessment and updated 2013 jurisdictional delineation determined that 2.56 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat occur on the project site. The project design includes avoiding impacts to the riparian woodland adjacent to the Santa Margarita River, as well as a stand of coast live oak woodland in the southwest portion of the site. The project would avoid impacts to 1.32 acres(53 percent)of the Riparian/Riverine habitats on the property consistent with the first priority of Section 6.1.2 of avoidance of Riparian/Riverine resources. The project will permanently impact 1.24 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat including 0.38 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.08 acre of herbaceous wetland, 0.14 acre of coast live oak (riparian)woodland, and 0.64 acre of unvegetated streambed. Riparian/Riverine impacts within the South Parcel are the same for both the Civic Site Use and the Nature Center use and total 0.35 Altair Specific Plan 3-12 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments acre. Both uses avoid 1.103 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat within the South Parcel(refer to Final EIR,Appx. A). Consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP,the project proposes to mitigate for these impacts at a 3:1 ratio for Riparian resources and at a 1:1 ratio for Riverine resources. These mitigation ratios are minimum requirements, subject to review and approval by the reviewing agencies. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts to riparian and riverine resources shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on-or off-site habitat restoration;purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. The mitigation will be determined through discussions with the City and resource agencies. Minimization and mitigation measures would result in equivalent or superior preservation of the functions and values of Riparian/Riverine resources impacted by the proposed project. The impacts to 1.21 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat will require that a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP)be prepared,as required under the MSHCP(refer to Draft EIR,p. 3.3-41). The purpose of the DBESP is to ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to Covered Species in the MSHCP. The DBESP is processed by the RCA and includes consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. The DBESP will discuss details of the impacts and proposed mitigation in order to demonstrate that the mitigation is at least equivalent to the habitat proposed to be impacted. Based on this,the project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine policy of the MSHCP. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to Riparian and Riverine habitat to less than significant. Common Response 3.2.7: MSHCP Consistency — Joint Project Review Commenters have claimed that because there was disagreement between the City and the RCA concerning the project's consistency with the MSHCP during the Joint Project Review(JPR)held on April 2, 2015,that such disagreement automatically renders the project inconsistent with the MSHCP. The purpose of the JPR process is"to allow the RCA and the RCA's Director to facilitate and monitor implementation of the MSHCP"(MSHCP,p. 6-82). The first step of the JPR is the initial project review. "As part of the Initial Project Review,RCA staff shall complete a checklist of actions necessary for the project to implement the terms and conditions of the MSHCP,including requirements for protection of wetland Habitats and Narrow Endemic Plant Species and all applicable survey requirements"(Id. at 6-83). After an Initial Project Review meeting,RCA staff are required to prepare comments that address the project's compliance with the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies(USFWS and CDFW) are also required to submit responses to the RCA's comments(Id.). In the event that disagreements exist with regard to a project's compliance with the MSHCP,there are dispute resolution provisions and specific remedies available to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies. However, as provided in Section 6.6.2 of the MSHCP,the JPR process Altair Specific Plan 3-13 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments "shall not in any way limit the Permittees' local land use authority,prevent a Permittee from approving a project or change the provisions of the HANS process"(MSHCP,p. 6-82). The JPR process for the proposed project was initiated prior to preparation of the Helix Report and publication of the Draft EIR and,therefore, did not have the benefit of the in-depth analysis and greater detail. The Draft EIR provided more detailed review of the proposed project in light of the MSHCP and Implementation Agreement. The 2015 Consistency Report prepared by the project biologist(after the Joint Project Review)finds that the project as proposed is consistent with the MSHCP(refer to Common Response 3.1.1). The Draft EIR likewise considered the JPR, and disclosed that while the project might not satisfy targeted conservation acreages for individual cells,the project would nevertheless remain consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly guidance and the Area Plan, Subunit, and Cell/Cell Group conservation acreage goals when evaluated on the"Core and Linkage or Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit basis"(Draft EIR, p. 3.3-64). Moreover,the Draft EIR included in-depth analysis of the physical environmental effects that the project might have on sensitive species and habitats identified in the comments on the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR imposes mitigation measures where feasible to address those potential environmental impacts. Common Response 3.2.8: Mountain Lion/Linkage Impacts Several comments were received on the Draft EIR concerning impacts to mountain lion with project implementation.The Draft EIR analyzed the potential for both direct and indirect impacts the project may have on the mountain lion,both for the project site as well as within the larger context of the MSHCP Plan Area. This assessment includes the direct loss of habitat,potential indirect impacts associated with increased human presence such as lighting,noise,and increased access to open space,potential impacts to linkages, and potential for further genetic isolation of the mountain lion in the Santa Ana Mountains. These impacts were analyzed based on multiple visits to the site as well as key offsite linkage areas,review of literature relevant to the issues associated with the project and mountain lion,review of specific publicly available mountain lion use data produced by Dr.Vickers and others,and secondarily,through the preparation of a corridor model. The project was also assessed in relation to the previously approved alignment of the Western Bypass and the significant reduction of the Western Bypass impacts as a result of the proposed project. Comments received on the Draft EIR relative to the mountain lion focused on potential impacts to linkages,the South Parcel,and modeling used in the Draft EIR as part of the analysis. Mountain lions are a covered species under the MSHCP and are a specially protected mammal in California under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (Proposition 117),which makes it unlawful to hunt,possess,transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or part or product thereof. The mountain lion is known from the Santa Ana Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains, Santa Rosa Mountains, and brushy foothills and riparian areas that may serve as habitat connections between core mountainous areas. Mountain lion point data was plotted by the project biologist based on University of California (UC)Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California Mountain Lion Project maps and figures in published work by Vickers et.al. (2015) as shown on Figure 3.3-4 of the Draft EIR. Radio collared mountain lions showed extensive use of the Santa Margarita River south of the project Altair Specific Plan 3-14 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments site,undeveloped areas of the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and north, and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the north(Vickers et.al. 2015). A mountain lion has used the lower portion of Murrieta Creek at least periodically,up to the approximate location of the already approved Western Bypass crossing of Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek upstream of this point is not being used, likely because of the intense development on both sides of the creek. The escarpment immediately west of the proposed project is being used to some extent by mountain lions. Based on the referenced point data of radio collared mountain lions,mountain lions periodically use the large lot agricultural areas to the west as well. Current evidence suggests that the mountain lion population is genetically isolated from populations east of I-15 (Vickers et. al.2015;Ernest et. al. 2014). The Vickers et.al. (2015) study also showed the most common sources of mortality were vehicle collisions(28 percent of deaths overall and 46 percent for the Santa Ana Mountains population).Illegally killed mountain lions were the second most common source of mortality in the Santa Ana Mountains(23 percent),and mortalities resulting from depredation permits issued after mountain lion killed domestic animals were the second most common source of mortality in the eastern Peninsular Ranges(17 percent of deaths). Specific comments regarding mountain lion use of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 14,the South Parcel,the Palomar to Santa Ana Mountains Linkage, and modeling used in the Draft EIR are discussed in detail in the sections below. The Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts to the mountain lion and other wildlife associated with increased urban/wildland interface during construction and post-construction. The Draft EIR also evaluates impacts to wildlife corridors, such as Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, due to reductions in width and the effects of urban/wildlife interaction. The project will not preclude the use of these linkages for wildlife movement. The Draft EIR incorporates several mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to the mountain lion and to wildlife corridors to less than significant. In addition,the project applicant is providing significant project conservation features to facilitate a long-term solution for wildlife movement across I-15. The Final EIR also evaluates a proposed Nature Center use which would increase by 150 feet the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 as a result of the shortened length of the graded pad. In addition,with the lower intensity use of the Nature Center use and the elimination of nighttime activities,this use would enhance movement by mountain lion and other wildlife over the Civic Center use. Comments Concerning Linkage 10 Impacts Commenters have claimed that the project as proposed would significantly reduce or eliminate the viability of Linkage 10 for mountain lion use and movement(Comment 3-D, 3-E). Commenters have also claimed that Linkage 10 will be negatively impacted(Comment 17-D),the Draft EIR likely underestimates impacts to Linkage 10 (Comment 17-F), and that the Draft EIR needs to assess impact of restricting Linkage 10 for over 1,000 meters(Comment 17-BB). Several Commenters asserted that the proposed project will increase roadkill and depredation(Comments 18-J, 18-K,20-G). Potential increases in human activity could also occur along Camino Estribo because of additional development(Comment 17-DD). According to the commenters,numerous parcels within Proposed Linkage 10 are still in private development and so the Draft EIR cannot Altair Specific Plan 3-15 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments calculate linkage width by including these properties and Proposed Linkage 10 is much narrower under this scenario. Commenters recommended revising the Draft EIR to state that Linkage 10 will not function unless private parcels are conserved. Proposed Linkage 10 as described in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP consists of an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F(Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve)in the north to Existing Core G(Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) in the south. This Linkage provides for movement between these two Cores for species such as bobcat and mountain lion. The MSHCP states that"Although the Linkage is somewhat lengthy at 5.5 miles,it is also nearly a mile wide and thus provides Live-In Habitat for many species." Surrounding planned land uses are approximately evenly divided between Rural Mountainous and city(Murrieta, Temecula). The existing rural residential development to the west appears to be included in the description of Proposed Linkage 10 when the MSHCP describes the linkage as "nearly a mile wide."There have not been substantial changes in the extent of rural residential development in the western portion of Proposed Linkage 10 since approval of the MSHCP. If the existing rural residential development to the west is excluded from the linkage width and the existing approved alignment for the Western Bypass is included,the width actually varies between 650 to 2,000 feet over much of its length. As noted in the Draft EIR,the Western Bypass is an MSHCP Covered Activity, and with or without the proposed project,the Western Bypass in its original configuration was determined to be consistent with the goals for Linkage 10 under the original MSHCP approvals, including for the mountain lion. The Western Bypass road has been redesigned to be located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible to accommodate its circulation purpose. It eliminated over 11,000 linear feet(2.1 miles)of roadway from the northern portion of the property to its previous connection at Via Industria, and it now ties in at the existing Vincent Moraga Drive through existing pads previously graded for the Ridge Park Office Complex project. Consistent with the comments,the Draft EIR acknowledges that"The project would impact wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,through reduction in width and the effects of urban/wildlife interaction ..."(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-45). Similarly,the Draft EIR states that"The construction of the Western Bypass would affect mountain lion and other wildlife movement through corridor width reduction,noise and light impacts and potential mortality due to the impacts with vehicles. Potential long-term indirect impacts could include the introduction of trash,which may potentially affect mountain lions and other wildlife. Other possible impacts include a reduction in hunting/feeding and effects on reproductive behaviors"(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-49). A number of project design features and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project. Project design features included in the project include(1) dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high vegetated berm on the southern side of the development area, (2)the installation of"living walls"(green walls or modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots, and(3)the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds. With the Nature Center use,the Altair Specific Plan 3-16 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments 10-foot-high berm and living walls are not being provided because there will be no nighttime lighting(except for security purposes)of the Nature Center and overall human activity will be significantly reduced with this use. Project design features of the Western Bypass that would reduce or avoid impacts as compared to the current approved alignment include(1)terminating the northern section at Vincent Moraga Road/Rancho California Road,thereby eliminating 7,700 linear feet of the northern portion of the current approved alignment and avoiding eight drainage crossings; (2)designing a split roadway to minimize grading impacts; and(3)pulling the alignment further east to increase the width of the wildlife corridor. These project design features would avoid 55 acres of impacts to sage scrub, chaparral,and other habitats within Proposed Linkage 10,based on the City's previous grading study for the Western Bypass.In addition,overall impacts to wildlife movement along this stretch of Proposed Linkage 10 would be reduced over the current approved route due to a wider corridor (Draft EIR,p. 3.3-49). Project mitigation measures include conservation of 82.77 acres(Civic Use) contributing to Linkage 10(MM-BIO-3;Draft EIR,p. 3.3-45),noise reduction measures during construction and following development(MM-NOI-1a and Ib,MM-NOI-3),installation of fencing along the Western Bypass(MM-BIO-7b;Draft EIR,p. 3.3-53),restoration of slopes adjacent to Linkage 10 with native vegetation(MM-BIO-7c;Draft EIR,p. 3.3-53.)and restoration of slopes adjacent to the Constrained Linkage 13 with native vegetation for the Nature Center use. While it is acknowledged that outside of the open space lands acquired by the City (approximately 126 acres),much of Proposed Linkage 10 remains in private ownership,the project will be dedicating approximately 87.2 (Nature Center Use)acres to the linkage, and any future proposed development of the remaining private properties would be required to go through the MSHCP process. The project cannot be responsible to conserve all of Proposed Linkage 10, and the project(and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative projects) do not preclude Proposed Linkage 10 from functioning for wildlife movement. When the previously approved alignment of the Western Bypass is considered,the overall impacts to mountain lion movement as well as overall Linkage 10 functioning through the area has actually been enhanced over the previously approved alignment through the re-alignment of the Western Bypass as far east as possible,and the complete elimination of the alignment to the north. Under the Nature Center use,the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 would be increased by 150 feet as a result of the shortened length of the graded pad. In addition,with the lower-intensity use of the Nature Center use and the elimination of nighttime activities,this use would enhance wildlife movement over the Civic Center use. Constrained Linkages 9, 10, 11, and 12 Commenters stated that Constrained Linkages 9, 10, 11, and 12 would increase mortality risk to the mountain lion and should not be relied upon. The Draft EIR states "Proposed Constrained Linkage 9,Proposed Constrained Linkage 10, Proposed Constrained Linkage 11,and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 also provide additional linkages west of the project site from the Santa Rosa Plateau to San Diego County to the south, Altair Specific Plan 3-17 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments which eventually connects with the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, and potentially to the Palomar Mountains to the east. Combined,these linkages provide valuable redundancy of connections between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve"(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-20). The MSHCP states for each of these linkages that: "It provides an upland connection to the Cleveland National Forest and areas in San Diego County via the Tenaja Corridor for large mammals. This connection may serve as one component of a larger movement corridor for mountain lions traveling between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains. A Linkage between these two mountain ranges would reduce the risk of extirpation of the Santa Ana Mountains population of mountain lion, which was considered to be "demographically unstable"without a movement connection (Beier 1993)." (MSHCP p. 3-81 to 3-84). While it is acknowledged that all of the linkages addressed as part of the project are constrained and provide for a potential for increased mortality,the statement in the Draft EIR simply reflects the conclusions stated in the MSHCP, and that these constrained linkages still provide redundancy for movement as anticipated by the MSHCP. Comments Concerning Constrained Linkage 14 Impacts Commenters have claimed that the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing of 1-15 would be impacted by the project,that the I-15 undercrossing is the preferred option for mountain lion movement,that protection and enhancements of this undercrossing is needed, and impacts to Constrained Linkage 14 are understated, and that impacts are not adequately addressed. The Draft EIR appropriately describes the location of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 as defined by the MSHCP, and as a result of the location in relation to the project,impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 are not anticipated. Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 as described in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP"... consists of portions of Pechanga and Temecula Creeks, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core G(Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve)and Proposed Linkage 10 in the west to Existing Linkage A in the south. This Linkage bifurcates and may be used to move directly to the east along Temecula Creek, or to the southeast, along Pechanga Creek,to Existing Linkage A. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban development and the planned land uses surrounding the Linkage consist almost entirely of City)I-15 also intersects the Linkage at its western terminus. Therefore,high-quality live-in riparian habitat must be maintained, and movement habitat for bobcat and mountain lion must be provided, as these species are known to use the Linkage for movement. This portion of Pechanga and Temecula Creek may serve as one component of a larger movement corridor for mountain lions traveling between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains"(MSHCP p. 3-86). Based on this description,the Draft EIR accurately reflects the location of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 by stating that"Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 consists of portions of Temecula and Pechanga Creek to the east of the project site and terminates at I-15,approximately 1,800 feet southeast of the southern boundary of the South Parcel ..."(Draft EIR p. 3.3-20).Given that Constrained Linkage 14 lies entirely east of I-15,the issue is appropriately addressed in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan 3-18 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments While it may be appropriate when discussing regional conservation of the mountain lion to also discuss the overall need for multiple crossings of I-15, including the existing undercrossing at Temecula Creek and the 1-15 undercrossing,because there are no direct or indirect impacts of this particular project on the 1-15 undercrossing, additional mitigation requirements for the project at this location are not warranted. One commenter states that impacts to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 would impact Constrained Linkage 14 by reducing viability of the linkages that connect to Constrained Linkage 14. As noted above, Constrained Linkage 14 begins east of 1-15, and the southern edge of the development footprint lies 1,800 feet north of the western terminus of Constrained Linkage 14. Impacts to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 are appropriately analyzed in the Draft EIR and based on the conclusion that Linkage 10 will continue to function for mountain lion movement, including potential movement to and through Constrained Linkage 14,the finding that the project will not impact Constrained Linkage 14 is accurate. Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 is described as having its western terminus east of 1-15, and the Nature Center use is not anticipated to adversely affect this linkage(Final EIR,Appendix A). Comments Concerning South Parcel Impacts Commenters claim that proposed mitigation for the South Parcel is not sufficient to offset impacts because of the high intensity use,that the height of building and impacts to escarpment are not taken into account,that the use of buildings were not considered,and that the end use should be fully planned before CEQA is finalized(18-D). Several commenters requested removal of the Civic Site. The project description for the South Parcel in the Draft EIR states that: "The South Parcel could be developed as an educational facility that may accommodate up to 5,000 students, or an office/research and development campus. In addition to, or in lieu of an educational/research facility, other institutional uses may include, but are not limited to, a convention center, hospital and/or cultural center. Regardless of the use(s), the project would allow a maximum of 450,000 building square feet on the development area of the site, with buildings up to five stories in height. Project features have been incorporated into the development area to buffer possible wildlife activity in the adjacent conservation area and soften building mass, such as dense plantings on top of an approximately 10 foot-high vegetated berm on the southern side of the development area, the installation of`living walls'(green walls or modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots, and the retention of a non paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds"(Draft EIR p. 2-9). Altair Specific Plan 3-19 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments The use of the Civic Site was assessed based on the project description above, and the design features noted in the project description were intended to address anticipated end uses. Additionally,MM-AES-1 (Draft EIR,pp. 3.1-18 and 3.1-19)includes a number of measures specifically designed to minimize light impacts to proposed open space. "Measures have been incorporated to ensure that nighttime lighting during construction and operation is shielded to maintain ambient lighting conditions in the MSHCP Conservation Area" (Draft EIR,p. 3.3-61). A number of design features and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the South Parcel portion of the project. Project design features include(1)dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high vegetated berm on the southern side of the Civic Site, (2)the installation of"living walls"(green walls or modular vegetated walls)on the south and west sides of buildings located on the perimeter of the Civic Site, and(3)the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds. With these design features and the included mitigation measures, development of the civic center site is expected to have a less- than-significant impact on mountain lion. Finally, in direct response to comments concerning the South Parcel and impacts on wildlife species,the City Council directed City staff to include for consideration an alternative use for the South Parcel,the Nature Center use. The Nature Center use will preclude night time uses,which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. The Nature Center buildings would be limited to two stories in height. The Nature Center use would include 8.2 acres of undulating slopes that will be restored with native vegetation. When that acreage is included in the Constrained Linkage 13,the width of the corridor expands to between 356 and 1,050 feet. Thus,the Nature Center use further reduces the possible adverse impacts of the project on wildlife and habitats, and the biological impacts remain less than significant. Comments Concerning Palomar to Santa Ana Mountains Linkage Commenters have claimed that the project as proposed would have negative and unmitigable impacts on connectivity in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage,that models show that the I-15 undercrossing represents 3 of 20 top locations for maximum flow between two ranges,that studies by Ernest et al. (2014) show genetic restriction in the Santa Ana mountains,that the impacts to the Palomar to Santa Ana Mountains Linkage will impact the portion of the linkage that runs through the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve(SMER), and that the impacts could also affect the Laguna Greenbelt. One commenter stated that additional crossings of I-15 be constructed before allowing the Altair project to go forward. As stated in the response to comments above,the Draft EIR does discuss the importance of regional connectivity and does state that there will be impacts to both Linkage 10 and Linkage 13. One of the primary goals of the MSHCP is to provide regional connectivity between areas of high biological resource value. That, along with the finding of consistency with the MSHCP,provides for achieving regional connectivity conservation goals. Impact BIO-7 and Impact BIO-8 identify impacts to linkages as significant,but with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, Altair Specific Plan 3-20 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments MM-13I0-3,MM-1310-6b,MM-NOI-la,MM-NOI-lb, and MM-NOI-3,these impacts are reduced to less than significant. The study by Ernest et al. (2014) shows genetic restriction in the Santa Ana Mountains, although the project is not the reason for genetic restrictions that are already occurring. In an effort to address this regional issue,the project is proposing additional voluntary conservation features intended to facilitate a long-term solution to insure mountain lion movement across 1-15. These features are described on page 3-4. These features,however, are not necessary to support the finding that the project as designed and mitigated will have a less-than-significant impact on mountain lion movement and population health. The northeastern tip of the SMER boundary nearly touches the southern project parcel but is in excess of 1,000 feet from southern edge of the South Parcel grading.As noted in the response to comments related to the Civic Site,the project is proposing project features to buffer possible wildlife activity in the adjacent conservation area including the SMER such as dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high vegetated berm on the southern side of the development area,the installation of"living walls"(green walls or modular vegetated walls)on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots, and the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the development area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds"(Draft EIR p. 2-9). Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 (Draft EIR,pp. 3.1-18 and 3.1-19)includes a number of measures specifically designed to minimize light impacts to proposed open space. As noted,the need for viable crossing(s) of I-15 is a regional issue not specific to the Altair project, and as a result the proposed project should not be required to correct this existing regional problem before the project is allowed to move forward.Nonetheless,the project applicant is providing voluntary conservation features to facilitate a long-term solution to ensure mountain lion movement across I-15. The Nature Center use would also be designed and mitigated to have a less-than-significant impact on mountain lion movement and population health. The Nature Center use would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions by reducing the development footprint,restoring naturally graded undulating slopes,reducing the maximum building size by over 95 percent,and eliminating nighttime uses.As with the civic/institutional use,the Nature Center use will also reduce the overall suitability of Proposed Linkage 10 for the mountain lion,although less severe with the significant reduction in scale of the Nature Center use. Indirect impacts to mountain lions will be minimized within the area between the Civic Site and Santa Margarita River by retaining a portion of Camino Estribo as a dirt road to minimize speeds on this existing dirt roadway (Appendix A).As to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,the Nature Center use facilitates wildlife movement overall when compared to the Civic use,and this change in use will have a limited impact on wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek.These impacts will occur anyway when the Western Bypass Bridge is constructed,regardless of the use of the South Parcel. Altair Specific Plan 3-21 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comments Regarding Modeling Used to Support Draft EIR Commenters claim that the model used in the Draft EIR is outdated,that the model cannot be evaluated because of a lack of transparency,that the model should have included collared mountain lion data, and that newer models show more significant impacts. Commenters also claim that because conclusions are based on this model,Draft EIR conclusions are not scientifically defensible. Commenters also stated that the model used inputs provided by modeling software and were not chosen based on the biology of mountain lions in Southern California,that resistance values may not be appropriate,that there was an over-emphasis on use of agriculture,that least-cost corridors are least effective at assessing connectivity,that there is a need to assess larger connectivity area, and that the model showed little difference in results with and without the project, and the project should wait for additional modeling work currently being done by others. One commenter recommends modeling that they are currently working on be used in analyzing Proposed Constrained Linkage 9,Proposed Constrained Linkage 10,Proposed Constrained Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12. As noted in the Draft EIR,the model was prepared at the request of CDFW and only after mountain lion usage and project impacts were assessed based on field assessments,review of relevant literature,discussions with mountain lion experts, and the resource agencies.As stated in the Draft EIR,"The model does not determine whether a corridor or linkage is viable or not. Rather, it determines where the best locations for a linkage or corridor are based on the parameters in the model"(Draft EIR,p. 3.3-48). The model was not used to determine if Linkage 10 was viable,but was simply used as a tool in the overall assessment of the project. Given the limited scope and role the model played in determining the functionality of the linkages, the values used,and the scope of the model are considered appropriate. In addition,the City has not received any new additional information that changes the conclusion of the Draft EIR. It is unreasonable to expect the City, as lead agency,to conduct every possible study to assess the viability of these linkages,nor is it required for the City to do so given that these were assessed during the MSHCP approval process and, as noted above,were found to provide additional movement options for wildlife including the mountain lion(refer to,e.g.,CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) ["CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters"];Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto(2012)208 Cal.AppAth 899, 937 ["An EIR is required to evaluate a particular environmental impact only to the extent it is `reasonably feasible' to do so"]). In summary,the Draft EIR provided a comprehensive analysis of the potential for both direct and indirect impacts the project may have on the mountain lion,both project specific as well as within the larger context of the MSHCP Plan Area. These impacts were analyzed using a variety of tools including multiple visits to the site as well as key offsite linkage areas, extensive review of mountain lion literature, discussions with mountain lion experts, and to a lesser extent through the preparation of a corridor model. The Draft EIR and City consultants conclude that, as designed and mitigated,the project will have less-than-significant impacts on the mountain lion. Altair Specific Plan 3-22 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Common Response 3.2.9: Steelhead & Golden Eagle Impacts Commenters stated that impacts to the Southern California steelhead were not addressed in the Draft EIR,that the Santa Margarita River is designated high priority Core 1 population in National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)Recovery Plan, and that the project has the potential to impact steelhead through altered hydrology and altered surface runoff patterns. One commenter suggested that the elimination of the Civic Site and Villages A and G would address water quality issues for the Southern California steelhead. Southern California steelhead are known from the Santa Margarita River well downstream of the project site.As set forth at Draft EIR pages 3.8-18 through 3.8-32,the project as designed is not anticipated to reduce water quality or otherwise alter the hydrology in the Santa Margarita River. Specifically,potential impacts to changes in hydrology are being avoided or mitigated through the preparation and implementation of a final drainage study to reduce or eliminate storm water runoff post-construction. Further,water quality within the Santa Margarita River and other regional water bodies will be protected during project construction as well as following project build-out through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-3,MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3. These measures include development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) including construction Best Management Practices(BMPs) as noted in Table 3.8-5 of the Draft EIR, and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)including BMPs noted in Table 3.8-6 of the Draft EIR. The project will also be required to obtain a 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Consequently, Southern California steelhead are not expected to be adversely affected by the project. It is unclear how the removal of Villages A and G or the Civic Site would have any significant benefit to steelhead as compared with any other portion of the project site. These areas are also being fully mitigated for water quality and hydro-modification through Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-3,MM-HYD-1,MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3. The Nature Center use would significantly reduce impervious surfaces on the South Parcel, thereby reducing the extent of surface water runoff. While impacts to Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita Watershed are reduced to a level of insignificance under the proposed project with Villages A and G and the civic/institutional use,the Nature Center use would further reduce those impacts. Comments Concerning the Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan Commenters noted 12 recovery actions from the Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan, although a majority of these either is not relevant to the project or is regional in scope. SMR- SCS-11.2 recommends development of plans to manage roadways adjacent to riparian corridors to reduce sedimentation or other non-point pollution sources. As noted above,Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-3,MM-HYD-1,MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3 are intended to address water quality for the project as a whole, including roadways in the project. Altair Specific Plan 3-23 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Additionally,the project will also be required to obtain a 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB. Comments Concerning Potential Project Impacts to Golden Eagle Nest Occurring along the Santa Margarita River One Commenter stated that golden eagle surveys should be required and that impacts to the golden eagle should be addressed in the Draft EIR. The golden eagle is a covered species under the MSHCP and focused surveys for the golden eagle are not required. Specific requirements of the MSHCP for golden eagle are as follows: • "Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area and buffer from disturbance the known nesting locations at Temecula Gorge ..."; and • "Buffering of the nest sites will include Conservation of undeveloped Habitat in the MSHCP Conservation Area within a one-mile radius around each of the nest site locations and may include a variety of Habitats"(MSHCP p. 9-66 Golden Eagle Objective 1). The MSHCP provisions for golden eagle are consistent with guidance and best practices from the USFWS for complete avoidance of disturbance of active nest sites,which recommend a 1-mile buffer for industrial,municipal, or transportation development activities. The City has a survey report prepared by the commenter regarding the golden eagle pair that utilizes the Temecula Gorge. The nest location of the golden eagle is in excess of 1 mile from the edge of project development, and the project will impact approximately 1 percent of the territory mapped in the report. Based on the above,the project is consistent with MSHCP conservation requirements for the golden eagle and no adverse impacts are expected. 3.3 Response to Comment Letters Received on the Draft E I R The responses to comments contained in the individual comment letters are presented below. These responses do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the Draft EIR's significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result from the proposed project. Instead,the information presented in the responses to comments"clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications"in the Draft EIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). As such,recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Altair Specific Plan 3-24 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 1 �= STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH o STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT oF�uF EDMUND G.BROWN JR. KEN ALEx GovERNOR DIRECTOR June 16,2016 Matt Peters City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Altair Specific Plan (Formerly"Village West") SCH#: 2014111029 Dear Matt Peters: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on June 15,2016,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft 1-A environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, S or, Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov .Document Details Report Comment Letter 1 State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2014111029 Project Title Altair Specific Plan (Formerly"Village West") Lead Agency Temecula, City of 'Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project will require the approval of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Subdivision Maps, and Development Agreement to allow for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood-serving commercial, civic/institutional uses, parks, and open space within a 270-acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town, located south of Ridge Park Drive and westerly of Pujol Street, and west of Old Town. In addition,the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass linking Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road.The project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau Subunits of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Southwest Area Plan. Lead Agency Contact Name Matt Peters Agency City of Temecula Phone 951-694-6400 Fax email Address 41000 Main Street City Temecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Lat/Long 33°29'31,80" N/117' 09' 11.43"W Cross Streets Ridge Park Drive(North), Puol Street(East),Temecula Parkway (South) Parcel No. 922-210-049,940-310-013,-015,-016,-044,-048,-001,-007 Township 8 Range 3 Section Base SB Proximity to: Highways 15, 79 Airports Railways Waterways Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, Santa Margarita River Schools Vail Elementary School Land Use Industrial Park(IP), Combo Open Space (OS)and IP, OS, Medium-Density Residential (M), High-Density Residential(H), Hillside Residential(HR) Project Issues Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality;Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Aesthetic/Visual Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Cal Fire;Office of Historic Agencies Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Services, California; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 04/29/2016 Start of Review 05/02/2016 End of Review 06/15/2016 Nnta- Rlanks in data fields result from insuffirient information nrovided by lead aaencv. 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 1: State Clearinghouse Comment IA: The commenter states that the Draft Supplemental EIR has been submitted to selected agencies for review and acknowledges that the City has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to CEQA. Response 1-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter's comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 1-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter's comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-27 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN Ir,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 s PLANNING(MS 722) 464 WEST 0 STREET,61h Floor SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401-1400 Serious drought PHONE (909)383-4557 Help save water, FAX (909)383-5936 TTY (909)383-6300 www.dot.ca.gov/dist8 June 20,2016 File: 08-RIV-I5-PM-4.115 Mr. Matt Peters Associate Planner Planning Division City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Altair Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Mr. Peters, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed the review of the Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Specific Plan (Altair or Plan). The Plan's proposed location is in the City of Temecula (City) west of Old Town and Pujol Street, south of Rancho California Road, and northeast of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and 1-15. The project proposes the construction of seven neighborhood villages with mixed-use centers, active open space, an elementary school and civic uses. The proposal includes up to 1,750 dwelling units, a 29,000 square foot community center, 22,000 square feet of retail, a 730 student elementary school, 84.63 acres of conversation open space, 31.63 acres of passive open space, 15.73 acres of parks and trails, and 33.33 acres of roadways, including the newly-constructed Western Bypass. As the owner and operator of the State Highway System, it is our responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed development may impact our facilities. As a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is also our responsibility to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project, 2_A which may include traditional mitigation measures, in addition to multimodal transportation access, traffic safety modifications, and travel demand management strategies. Although the project is under the jurisdiction of the City, due to the project's potential impact to State facilities it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the State Highway System. We offer the following comments regarding the Project Environmental Impact Report: Traffic Operations and Forecastinlz: Caltrans' Operations and Forecasting units are tasked with analyzing the methodology and mitigation measures found within the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). We have the following comments: "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Comment Letter 2 Mr. Peters June 20, 2016 Page 2 • Include a ramp merge/diverge analysis at the northbound and Southbound directions at the following locations: o I-15 and Winchester Road interchange. 2-B o I-15 and Rancho California interchange. o I-15 and Temecula Parkway interchange. • Please include adequate truck volumes and utilize conversion methodologies to estimate truck trip impacts in a passenger car equivalent(PCE)metric. 2-C • Referring to page 7: Explain why intersection 25. 1-15 SB Ramps and Temecula Parkway were only evaluated under Existing Conditions. Although the General Plan build out assumes the reconfiguration of I-15 and Temecula Parkway, it would help to analyze the impacts if 2-D this reconfiguration was not constructed in the future. • Referring to Appendix B: Explain the reasoning behind differing peak hour factors (PHF) at different intersections. For instance- I-15 Southbound ramp and Rancho California Road has a PHF of 0.91; I-15 Northbound ramp and Rancho California has a PHF of 0.94; I-15 2-E Northbound ramp and Temecula Parkway has a PHF of 0.98; and I-15 Southbound ramp and Temecula Parkway has a PHF of 0.97. • Referring to Appendix B: Explain why a 2%assumption was used for heavy trucks. I 2-F • Referring to Appendix B: Please forward all Synchro analyses for our review. I 2-G • Referring to Appendix B: Explain why 1,863, 1,900,or 1,765 vehicles per hour were used for 2-H Adjusted saturation flow. • Referring to page 39: Table 4-4 shows the existing roadway segment LOS, but there is no worksheet to see how these calculations were achieved. 2-1 • Referring to page 45. Figure 5-1 shows the Project Trip Distribution but there is no other figure to show the ADT Trip Distribution. Provide such a figure in future revisions. 2-J • Referring to page 58: Figure 6-1 show Cumulative Development Project Locations, Items 13 and 14 have daily trips of 4,785 and 10,234,respectively. However,Appendix F page 309 the 2-K source for land use is not from Trip Generation, 911'edition. Please explain. • Referring to page 68: The RIVTAM model is referred to forecast future year 2035 traffic 2-L t volumes. However,it is not clear where the existing ADT source came from. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Caltfornia's economy and livability" Comment Letter 2 Mr.Peters June 20,2016 Page 3 Sustainable Community Development and Multimodal Accessibility: Our office supports sustainable land uses, which includes in-fill development, higher density residential, mixed land uses, land conservation, and accessible open space- all land uses which are considered within this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan therefore exemplifies an effort at planning sustainable communities for the future of the region. The following are comments 2-M regarding sustainable community development: • Referring to Altair Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) S.3 "Project Objectives": we support a majority of the proposed objectives as they reflect a number of sustainable community development imperatives. These include: diverse housing types with a 2-N range of densities within a community; reduced dependency on the automobile; neighborhood-oriented commercial uses; minimized water usage; multi-modal transportation; proximity to Old Town. • Referring to DEIR Figure 2-3, "Proposed Zoning": although the project discusses neighborhood-oriented commercial uses, these can only be found within Village C. We therefore recommend the inclusion of mixed-use areas within each Village area to provide 2-0 proximity to neighborhood-commercial use opportunities to all residents. • We support the use of recycled water via reclaimed water lines provided by the Rancho 2-P California Water District. • Referring to DEIR Section 2.3.5: We support the Project Conservation Features detailed in the DEIR and recommend additional funding referenced in Item 4 be spent on the wildlife 2-Q connectivity study within the Interstate 15 Freeway Special Linkage Area as referenced in Items 4l3 and 4C. Caltrans is committed to ensuring that a multimodal transportation system serves every local development project. Planning facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and car- / van- pooling will encourage more multimodal trips- which will reduce congestion, vehicles miles 2-R traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and our State's effect on climate change.To assist the City in reducing vehicle trips associated with the proposed development, we offer the following comments: • Referring to DEIR Section 2.3.3: We support the reference of complete streets and the use of roundabouts in strategic locations within Altair for traffic calming, safety and efficiency. 2-S • Considering the internal circulation, please refer to the National Association of City Transportation Officials' Urban Streets Design Guide to Yield Street 2-T (http://nacto.org(publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/yield-streets or Residential Shared Street (http://nacto.oMjpublication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/residential- "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Comment Letter 2 Mr. Peters June 20, 2016 Page 4 shared-street/} standards. This would provide more space for walking, cycling, playing and socializing for residents. We recommend consideration of sidewalks wider than the minimum 2-T requirement of 5 feet, street trees,bioswales,pervious strips, and rain gardens. • Referring to Altair Specific Plan DEIR Figure 2-4- regarding pedestrian safety at intersections and mid-block crossings, consider striping high-visibility crosswalks and 2-U constructing flashing beacons and curb extensions. • Referring to Figure 2-4-we recommend the minimum width standard for the"Key Walkway" in Village C be wider to accommodate a larger number of bicyclists and pedestrians accessing the direct connection between the Western Bypass and Main Street. In addition, 2-V striping green-backed shared-lane markings on Main Street is recommended to provide a connected bike route to Old Town. • Referring to City Circulation Element Figure C-4, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways; we recommend the City consider conditioning developers to contribute funding towards the 2-W construction of the proposed Multi-Use Trail parallel to Altair within City limits. • We support the extension of the Old Town Trolley Route 55 to connect Altair with Old Town. However, please consider meeting with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to plan 2-X for increased transit service from Altair to other regional destinations. Consideration of bus rapid transit(BRT) along the Western Bypass and other major arterials is also recommended. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Specific Plan and for your consideration of these and future comments. These recommendations are preliminary and summarize our review of materials provided for our evaluation. If this proposal is revised in any way, please forward appropriate information to this office so that updated recommendations for impact mitigation may be provided. In addition, these documents may be reviewed at Encroachment Permit submittal. If you have questions concerning these comments, or would like to meet to discuss our concerns,please contact Dustin Foster(909) 806-3955 or myself at(909) 383-4557. Sincerely, 7��/ 04— MARK ROBERTS Office Chief Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 3.Response to Comments Responses to Letter 2: California Department of Transportation Comment 2-A: The commenter states that although the project is under the jurisdiction of the City, it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the state highway system. Response 2-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans')participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record. Response 2-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Caltrans' participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record. Comment 2-B: The commenter suggests including a ramp merge/diverge analysis at the northbound and southbound directions at the following locations: I-15 and Winchester Road interchange; l-15 and Rancho California interchange; and the 1-15 and Temecula Parkway interchange. Response 2-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project-related transportation and traffic impacts are evaluated in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. An analysis of regional freeway congestion would be more appropriate at a regional(countywide)level such as at the Regional Transportation Plan level. The lead agency has the authority under CEQA to determine its preferred analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance. As detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix I of the Draft EIR), six intersections at Caltrans facilities were analyzed,which included the northbound and southbound ramps at three interchanges including Winchester Road and 1-15,Rancho California and 1-15, and Temecula Parkway and I-15. The City, as lead agency,has determined that the TIA sufficiently analyzed the project's potential impact on the surrounding circulation system,the results of which are summarized in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. Response 2-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): An analysis of regional freeway congestion would be more appropriate at a regional(countywide)level such as at the Regional Transportation Plan level. The lead agency has the authority under CEQA to determine its preferred analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance. As detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix I of the Draft EIR), six intersections at Caltrans facilities were analyzed which included the northbound and southbound ramps at three interchanges including Winchester Road and 1-15,Rancho California and I-15, and Temecula Parkway and 1-15. The City, as lead agency,has determined that the TIA sufficiently analyzed the project's potential impact on the surrounding circulation system,the results of which are summarized in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. Moreover, it was determined in the Altair Specific Plan—Draft Supplemental Transportation Assessment(Fehr&Peers 2017)(Appendix A4 to this Final EIR),under the Nature Center uses, daily and peak-hour trip generation would be noticeably lower than under the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. The Nature Center use would result in 7,619 fewer average daily trips, 779 fewer trips during the AM peak hour, and 713 fewer trips during the PM peak hour as compared to the Civic/Institutional use. Therefore,regional impacts would be further reduced from implementation of this use at the site. Altair Specific Plan 3-32 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 2-C: The commenter requests that adequate truck volumes be included and that conversion methodologies to estimate truck trip impacts in a passenger car equivalent(PCE) metric be utilized. Response 2-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record. The effect of truck volumes on the intersection level of service is calculated through the heavy vehicle percentage. The Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) 2010 methodology uses a PCE of 2.0 for heavy vehicles (please refer to HCM 2010 equation 18-6 for further information). Response 2-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record. The effect of truck volumes on the intersection level of service is calculated through the heavy vehicle percentage. The Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)2010 methodology uses a PCE of 2.0 for heavy vehicles (please refer to HCM 2010 equation 18-6 for further information). Comment 2-D: The commenter is asking for clarification of why Intersection 25,1-15 SB ramps, and Temecula Parkway were only evaluated under Existing Conditions. The commenter states that although the General Plan build-out assumes the reconfiguration of 1-15 and Temecula Parkway,it would help to analyze the impacts if this reconfiguration was not constructed in the future. Response 2-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter states that the planned 1- 15/Temecula Parkway interchange project is expected to be constructed prior to 2025 which is the horizon year for the Cumulative scenario. As such,the existing interchange configuration was not evaluated under Cumulative(2025) conditions.Nevertheless, an additional assessment of the I-15/Temecula Parkway intersections was completed per Caltrans' request. A summary table displaying the intersection LOS for Cumulative(2025)conditions with the existing interchange geometry is provided as follows: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: CUMULATIVE(2025)CONDITIONS ASSUMING EXISTING 1-15/TEMECULA PARKWAY INTERCHANGE GEOMETRY Cumulative(No Project) Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1-15 NB Ramps&Temecula Pkwy. AM 39.1 D 40.2 D PM 34.2 C 35.9 D 1-15 SIB Ramps&Temecula Pkwy AM 56.0 E >80.0 F PM 47.5 D >80.0 F This does not constitute new information as it is reasonable to assume that the Temecula Parkway/I-15 interchange project currently underway will be completed by 2025,thus avoiding a cumulative plus project impact. Altair Specific Plan 3-33 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 2-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter states that the planned 1- 15/Temecula Parkway interchange project is expected to be constructed prior to 2025,which is the horizon year for the Cumulative scenario.As such,the existing interchange configuration was not evaluated under Cumulative(2025) conditions.Nevertheless, an additional assessment of the I-15/Temecula Parkway intersections was completed per Caltrans' request. A summary table displaying the intersection LOS for Cumulative(2025)conditions with the existing interchange geometry is provided as follows: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: CUMULATIVE(2025)CONDITIONS ASSUMING EXISTING 1-15/TEMECULA PARKWAY INTERCHANGE GEOMETRY Cumulative(No Project) Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1-15 NB Ramps&Temecula Pkwy. AM 39.1 D 40.2 D PM 34.2 C 35.9 D 1-15 SB Ramps&Temecula Pkwy AM 56.0 E >80.0 F PM 47.5 D >80.0 F This does not constitute new information as it is reasonable to assume that the Temecula Parkway/I-15 interchange project currently underway will be completed by 2025,thus avoiding a cumulative plus project impact. Comment 2-E: Referring to Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA): Explain the reasoning behind differing peak hour factors(PHFs) at different intersections. For instance,I-15 SB ramp and Rancho California Road has a PHF of 0.91; I-15 NB ramp and Rancho California has a PHF of 0.94; I-15 NB ramp and Temecula Parkway has a PHF of 0.98; and I-15 SB ramp and Temecula Parkway has a PHF of 0.97. Response 2-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The existing PHFs were calculated separately for each intersection from existing traffic counts collected in the field as part of the existing conditions analysis. This comment is noted for the record. Response 2-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The existing PHFs were calculated separately for each intersection from existing traffic counts collected in the field as part of the existing conditions analysis. This comment is noted for the record. Comment 2-F: Referring to Appendix B of the TIA,the commenter requests an explanation of why a 2 percent assumption was used for heavy trucks. Response 2-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The 2 percent assumption for heavy vehicles was used based upon consultation with the City and also used as a default value on a state-of-the- practice basis. Altair Specific Plan 3-34 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 24(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The 2 percent assumption for heavy vehicles was used based upon consultation with the City and also used as a default value on a state-of-the-practice basis. Comment 2-G: Referring to Appendix B of the TIA: Please forward all Synchro analyses for our review. Response 2-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The Synchro files will be submitted to Caltrans for review. Response 2-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Synchro files will be submitted to Caltrans for review. Comment 2-H: Referring to Appendix B of the TIA: Explain why 1,863, 1,900, or 1,765 vehicles per hour were used for adjusted saturation flow. Response 2-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As described in Section 3.1.1 of the TIA, a base (ideal) saturation flow rate of 1,900 is used in this analysis per the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. A series of factors is then applied to the base (ideal) saturation flow rate to result in the adjusted saturation flow rate. HCM 2010 equation 18-5 is used to compute the adjusted saturation flow rate used in the analysis. Factors used to adjust the base(ideal) saturation flow rate include: heavy vehicle percentage and lane type (through, left,right, shared, etc.). Response 2-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As described in Section 3.1.1 of the TIA, a base(ideal) saturation flow rate of 1,900 is used in this analysis per the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. A series of factors is then applied to the base(ideal) saturation flow rate to result in the adjusted saturation flow rate. HCM 2010 equation 18-5 is used to compute the adjusted saturation flow rate used in the analysis. Factors used to adjust the base (ideal) saturation flow rate include: heavy vehicle percentage and lane type (through, left,right, shared, etc.). Comment 2-I: The commenter states that Table 4-4 of the TIA shows the existing roadway segment level of service(LOS),but there is no worksheet to see how these calculations were achieved. Response 2-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The roadway segment LOS analysis was based upon the maximum two-way traffic volume thresholds as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element(City of Temecula 2005) and as shown in Table 3.13-4 of the Draft EIR. Roadway segment LOS is assigned either one of two values: "LOS E or better"or "LOS F."A roadway segment is determined to have an LOS of E or better if the average daily traffic (ADT) is less than the stated roadway capacity. A roadway segment is determined to have an LOS of F if the ADT is greater than the stated roadway capacity. Response 2-I(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The roadway segment LOS analysis was based upon the maximum two-way traffic volume thresholds as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element(City of Temecula,2005)and as shown in Table 3.13-4 of the Altair Specific Plan 3-35 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Draft EIR. Roadway segment LOS is assigned either one of two values: "LOS E or better"or "LOS F."A roadway segment is determined to have an LOS of E or better if the average daily traffic (ADT)is less than the stated roadway capacity. A roadway segment is determined to have an LOS of F if the ADT is greater than the stated roadway capacity. Comment 2-J: The commenter states that Figure 5-1 of the TIA shows the Project Trip Distribution but there is no other figure to show the ADT Trip Distribution. Provide such a figure in future revisions. Response 24(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The overall project trip distribution is provided in Section 5.3 of the TIA document and Figure 5-2 provides the AM and PM peak hour trip assignment at all project study intersections. Response 24(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The overall project trip distribution is the same as provided in the original TIA,which is provided in Section 5.3 of the Transportation Impact Analysis document. Comment 2-K: The commenter states that Figure 6-1 of the TIA shows Cumulative Development Project Locations,Items 13 and 14 have daily trips of 4,785 and 10,234, respectively. However, in Appendix F on page 309,the source for land use is not from Trip Generation, 9th edition. Please explain. Response 2-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Trip generation estimates for cumulative projects #PA08-0118 and the Pechanga Resort Expansion were obtained from the respective projects' TIAs. Both cumulative projects included a unique mix of land uses that required modified trip generation assumptions and may not be directly based on the rates provided in the 9th edition Trip Generation Manual. Response 2-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Trip generation estimates for cumulative projects#PA08-0118 and the Pechanga Resort Expansion were obtained from the respective projects' TIAs. Both cumulative projects included a unique mix of land uses that required modified trip generation assumptions and may not be directly based on the rates provided in the 9th edition Trip Generation Manual. Comment 2-L: Referring to page 68: The RIVTAM model is referred to forecast future year 2035 traffic volumes. However,the commenter states that it is not clear where the existing ADT source came from. Response 2-L(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The existing ADT volumes are based on traffic counts performed in the field on Thursday,January 22,2015, at each of the study roadway segments. Response 2-L(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The existing ADT volumes are based on traffic counts performed in the field on Thursday,January 22,2015, at each of the study roadway segments. Altair Specific Plan 3-36 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 2-M: The commenter states that Caltrans supports sustainable land uses such as those considered within the Altair Specific Plan. Response 2-M(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comment has been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-M(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment has been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-N: Referring to Draft EIR S.3 "Project Objectives": The commenter expresses support for a majority of the proposed objectives as they reflect a number of sustainable community development imperatives. These include diverse housing types with a range of densities within a community,reduced dependency on the automobile,neighborhood-oriented commercial uses,minimized water usage,multi-modal transportation, and proximity to Old Town. Response 2-N(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-N(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-0: Referring to Draft EIR Figure 2-3, "Proposed Zoning": The commenter states that although the project discusses neighborhood-oriented commercial uses,these can only be found within Village C. The commenter therefore recommend the inclusion of mixed-use areas within each Village area to provide proximity to neighborhood-commercial use opportunities to all residents. Response 2-0(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted. The specific plan's interwoven transportation network will provide all residents with multi-modal connections to a variety of land uses throughout the project site as well as adjacent communities including Old Town Temecula. Village nodes are within a 5-minute walk of the next village and the majority of the site is within a 10-to 15-minute walk of Old Town. Response 2-0(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted. The specific plan's interwoven transportation network will provide all residents with multi-modal connections to a variety of land uses throughout the project site as well as adjacent communities including Old Town Temecula. Village nodes are within a 5-minute walk of the next village and the majority of the site is within a 10-to 15-minute walk of Old Town. Comment 2-P: The commenter supports the use of recycled water via reclaimed water lines provided by the Rancho California Water District. Altair Specific Plan 3-37 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 2-P(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-P(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-Q: Referring to Draft EIR Section 2.3.6: Caltrans supports the Project Conservation Features detailed in the Draft EIR and recommends additional funding referenced in Item 4 be spent on the wildlife connectivity study within the Interstate 15 Freeway Special Linkage Area as referenced in Items 4B and 4C. Response 2-Q(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comment has been noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-Q(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment has been noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-R: Caltrans is committed to ensuring that a multimodal transportation system serves every local development project and states that it provides comments to assist the City in reducing vehicle trips associated with the proposed development. Response 2-R(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comment has been noted for the record. Response 2-R(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment has been noted for the record. Comment 2-S: The commenter states support for the reference of complete streets and for the use of roundabouts in strategic locations within Altair for traffic calming, safety, and efficiency, as described in Draft EIR Section 2.3.3. Response 2-S(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comment has been noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-S(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment has been noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-T: Considering the internal circulation,please refer to the National Association of City Transportation Officials(NACTO)Urban Streets Design Guide to Yield Street or Residential Shared Street standards. This would provide more space for walking,cycling,playing,and socializing for residents. The commenter recommends consideration of sidewalks wider than the minimum requirement of 5 feet, street trees,bioswales,pervious strips,and rain gardens. Altair Specific Plan 3-38 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 2-T(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The project applicant will consider the NACTO streetscape design guidelines throughout the project's planning and design process. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-T(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The project applicant will consider the NACTO streetscape design guidelines throughout the project's planning and design process. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-U: Referring to Altair Specific Plan Draft EIR Figure 2-4: Regarding pedestrian safety at intersections and mid-block crossing,the commenter suggests considering striping high- visibility crosswalks and constructing flashing beacons and curb extensions. Response 2-U(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Comment noted. Standard crosswalks are generally acceptable across controlled approaches; however,high-visibility crosswalks are appropriate in areas with high pedestrian volumes. High-visibility crosswalks would be used across uncontrolled locations including midblock and at free right-turns. Response 2-U(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Comment noted. Standard crosswalks are generally acceptable across controlled approaches; however,high-visibility crosswalks are appropriate in areas with high pedestrian volumes. High-visibility crosswalks would be used across uncontrolled locations including midblock and at free right-turns. Comment 2-V: Referring to Figure 2-4: Caltrans recommends the minimum width standard for the"Key Walkway"in Village C be wider to accommodate a larger number of bicyclists and pedestrians accessing the direct connection between the Western Bypass and Main Street. In addition, striping green-backed shared-lane markings on Main Street is recommended to provide a connected bike route to Old Town. Response 2-V(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 2-V(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-W: Referring to City Circulation Element Figure C-4,Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways: Caltrans recommends the City consider conditioning developers to contribute funding towards the construction of the proposed Multi-Use Trail parallel to Altair within city limits. Response 2-W(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-39 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 2-W(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 2-X: The commenter states that Caltrans supports the extension of the Old Town Trolley Route 55 to connect Altair with Old Town. However,the commenter asks that the project applicant consider meeting with the Riverside Transit Agency(RTA)to plan for increased transit service from Altair to other regional destinations. Consideration of bus rapid transit(BRT) along the Western Bypass and other major arterials is also recommended. Response 2-X(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The project applicant will work with the City and RTA to develop appropriate transit improvements throughout the project site. Response 2-X(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The project applicant will work with the City and RTA to develop appropriate transit improvements throughout the project site. Altair Specific Plan 3-40 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 3 &WIIDLIFE U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife FISHSERVICE palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Inland Deserts Region 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 208 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Suite C-220 Palm Springs,California 92262 Ontario,California 91764 760-322-2070 909-484-0167 m FAX 760-322-4648 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15BO192-15CPA0229 Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 Subject: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01 for the Altair Project,Temecula,California Dear Mr. Peters: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department),hereafter referred to jointly as the Wildlife Agencies,have reviewed the Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01 (JPR)for the Altair Project(project),received April 2,2015. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA)has found this project to be 3-A inconsistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Wildlife Agencies concur with the RCA's determination and consider the project to be inconsistent with the MSHCP criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function. The 270-acre project site is located in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula(City), Riverside County,west of Old Town,and is generally bound by Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga Drive to the north, Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek to the east,and undeveloped land to the west and south.The proposed project includes the revised alignment of the four-lane divided Western Bypass that will connect Temecula Parkway and Rancho California Road,development of up to 1,900 residential units,limited neighborhood-serving commercial,civic/institutional uses,parks,and open space. A portion of the Western Bypass alignment would be eliminated from the City's circulation element. The project footprint is within MSHCP criteria cells which describe the assemblage and confluence of Proposed Linkage 1.0,which provides an upland connection between Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve,and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 along Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. We discussed the project and its conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly at meetings with the project proponent and the RCA on March 20th and August 21 st of 2014. At both of those meetings we expressed strong reservations about the project design and advised that a Criteria 3-B Refinement is needed to achieve proper MSHCP implementation. We again recommend that the project be redesigned and/or that a Criteria Refinement be provided. We also note that the project has not yet complied with the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine policy,so MSHCP implementation is not also complete,but recognize that the project has acknowledged the outstanding requirement. Comment Letter 3 Mr. Matt Peters(FWS/CDFW-WR1V-15B0192-15CPA0229) 2 Project Consistency Analysis for Reserve Assembly The MSHCP Consistency Report(HELIX,2015)for the Altair project provided analysis of all three reserve assembly components: 1)cores and linkages,2)Area Plans and subunits, and 3) criteria cells. However,the analysis did not properly account for the presence of existing development and the project footprint on acreage goals for each criteria cell and subunit. It also 3-C seemed to imply that the status of Western Bypass as a covered activity is a reason to discount the reserve assembly criteria,which is not correct. The MSHCP Consistency Report appropriately identified reserve assembly shortfalls, i.e. instances where the project footprint precludes reserve assembly as described, and correctly identified the barriers to mountain lion movement and reserve function that would result from the project. The Consistency Report then reaches the contradictory conclusion that the project is consistent with MSHCP reserve assembly and connectivity needs. The evidence and analysis provided did not support this conclusion. The project is located at the confluence of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 along Murrieta Creek and Proposed Linkage 10 between the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 along Temecula Creek,and the Santa Margarita River. The Wildlife Agencies are concerned that the project will degrade the biological connectivity between these areas 3-D and preclude MSHCP reserve assembly goals. The proposed project would limit the viability of Proposed Linkage 10 as live-in habitat and a wildlife movement corridor for small and large mammals, including mountain lion,bobcat,and deer and obstruct the connectivity between the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve via Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Mountain lions have been recorded at the southern edge of the project site near the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The project has proposed an unspecifled civic use that would bring night lighting,noise, and traffic to a currently undisturbed portion of the linkage. The project negatively impacts the stated goals of Proposed Linkage 10 to provide live-in habitat and a movement corridor for mountain lion by narrowing the linkage and at one point reducing the linkage width to approximately 600 feet along the southern portion of the project in cell 7355. Proposed Linkage 10 is described as 5.5 miles long and nearly a mile wide (5280 feet). In cell 7355,the project would reduce the linkage to a distance of 600 feet. A linkage of 3-E 600 feet in width is too narrow to provide sufficient habitat for movement by mountain lion and bobcat,the planning species for Proposed Linkage 10. Our concerns regarding the degradation in the function of Proposed Linkage 10 echo those identified in the MSHCP Consistency Report,which acknowledges that there will be significant reduction in the suitability of the linkage for mountain lions post-project. Despite recognition of the significant impediments to reserve function the Consistency Report provides a hopeful but unsubstantiated assertion that some use by mountain lions is anticipated to continue. The MSHCP Consistency Report describes the post project dimensions of the reserve assembly features for bobcat,but does not say whether or not they will function. It also recognizes that pond turtle conservation is expected in the Conservation Area near the project,but does not provide any information about any potential impacts to pond turtle nesting habitat. The project footprint and proposed conservation strategy do not provide the cell conservation requirements or the dimensional data anticipated for this linkage. The project conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly acreage goals. It precludes the conservation 3-F described in MSHCP criteria cells 7164, 7166, 7264 and 7356. Our calculation is that the project Comment Letter 3 Mr. Matt Peters.(FW S/CDFW-WRIV-15130 1 92-15CPA0229) 3 would result in a reserve assembly short fall in the neighborhood of 200 acres. The MSHCP Consistency Report points out`that acreage requirements are not the only criteria used when determining overall consistency with the MSHCP.' We do not disagree with this statement but wish to clarify that the other MSHCP elements are additive to the acreage requirements not 3-F substitutes for them. We request clarification of Table 3 and 6 in the Consistency Report for the disposition of the 8.1 acres in Cell 7254. Table 3 indicates the 8.1 acres are not conserved and Table 6 indicates the 8.1 acres are conserved. To address the reserve assembly short fall that would result from the proposed development,the project proponents have offered to conserve 270 acres in Temescal Canyon Area Plan located between the National Forest and a residential community near the City of Corona. While the addition of 270 acres would theoretically address the reserve assembly shortfall resulting from the proposed development,those acres are well to the north and west of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 and do not address the target acreage shortfalls in the Southwest Area Plan subunits 1 and 6. The MSHCP is plain in providing that an equivalency analysis is required in instances where applicants or permittees propose implementation of a 3-G project that is not in accordance with the reserve assembly criteria. The equivalency analysis must address effects on reserve assembly features(Cores,Linkages and Constrained Linkages). The identified 270 acres are not a suitable replacement for the acreage shortfall or the degradation of reserve function resulting from the proposed project. The MSHCP Consistency Report states that the City of Temecula proposes to offset the applicant's purchase costs of$150,000 for 270 acres through Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF)credits. The LDMF is intended to be the primary funding source for MSHCP reserve acquisition. As stated above,the additional 270 acres is not within either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 of the Southwest Area Plan and therefore does not contribute to the conservation goals for those subunits or address the inadequacies of the project's MSHCP implementation. In this instance. 3-H providing LDM F credits for acreage that is not described for conservation and does not support reserve assembly subsidizes degradation of the conservation area instead of fostering reserve assembly. We agree with the RCA's assessment that this is an inappropriate and counterproductive use of LDMF credits. Western Bypass The Western Bypass is a covered activity and identified as a circulation element in Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that the project's redesign of the Western Bypass reduces the identified impacts in the northern portion of the roadway. The Consistency Report states that reduction of the Western Bypass footprint will offset project road impacts. We request that the City work with the RCA on a minor amendment to the MSHCP that modifies 3-I Figure 7-1 to reflect the removal of the northern portion of the Western Bypass and documents the exchanged impact acreage. Once the minor amendment is complete,then the acreage reduction can be credited to the project. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0229) 4 San Diego Ambrosia The JPR text and the project MSHCP Consistency Report(Helix 2015)correctly point out that the San Diego ambrosia(Ambrosia pumiia,)population on the project site is not within an MSHCP narrow endemic plant survey area and that surveys and subsequent conservation,are not required by the MSHCP. We however,would like to point out that the population of San Diego ambrosia under 3-J discussion is within criteria cell 7166 in the area described for conservation. In other words,while the MSHCP does not require surveys for the plant on the project site, it does require that the area which supports the population be conserved. The translocation of this population should be addressed in the project's Criteria Refinement. Riparian/Riverine DBESP As acknowledged by the Consistency Report,a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP)document is required for unavoidable impacts to riparian and riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP. The consistency Report provides that temporary and permanent impacts to riparian(vegetated)streams will be mitigated at a ratio of 3 to 1,but that impacts to riverine resources will be mitigated at a ratio of 1 to 1. The Consistency Report describes the 3-K function of riverine streams as providing water conveyance, flood attenuation,sediment transport and energy dissipation. Mitigation of permanent impacts at a 1 to 1 ratio results in a 50 percent loss of the resource in question. While we look forward to reviewing the project's DBESP,we are skeptical that such a strategy can be biologically equivalent or superior to avoidance of the riverine resources. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the JPR and request a meeting with the City,the RCA and the applicant prior to project approval. We look forward to working with the City of Temecula and the applicant. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to schedule a meeting please contact Darin Cleary-Rose of the Service at 760-322-2070, extension 206, or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692. t Sincerely, Kennon A.Corey Leslie MacNair Assistant Field Supervisor Inland Deserts Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Charles Landry, Regional Conservation Authority Literature Cited Helix Environmental Planning,Inc. 2015. Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report. Prepared for Ambient Communities, January 2015. Comment Letter 3 1egional onservation uthority Western Riverside County Board of _'MsLo..rs April 1, 2015 Chairman John'ravagliau• County of Riverside Vice Chairman Eugene Montane,/. ciiygfa,rnut, Matt Peters Marion Ashl" City of Temecula Cnuul yt?f Rhk-rsidr 41000 Main Street Kevin Bash Temecula, CA 92590 ON of mwty Ben Ben"'t Dear Mr. Peters City of Wifdevuir , John Benoit CttuulyofRi+arside Please find the following JPR attached: Tim Brown CitygfCanynrrf.aki, JPR 14-05-27-01; the Local Identifier is the Altair Project. The JPR file MaryannEdwards city, attached includes the following: Clt y t f Teruer aln Jeffr Hewitt cityt,CRfiure.< The JPR file attached includes the following: Kevin Jeffries CoutaV t)f Riverside RCA JPR D.LaDoty(!fWaJemalley . Exhibit A,Vicinity g on cit_ytfMt+recut vutret, y Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Natasha Johnson • Exhibit B, Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Vegetation and Project City t!f Luke Eisitu,rr Location Linda Krupa • Exhibit C, Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Soils and Project City of Hemet Location Verne Lauritzen Cit„(,fJurupa varrt-y . Exhibit D, Criteria Area Cell with Aerial Photography and Proposed Matt Liesemeyer Project Impacts Cityeffvfenifee . Regional Map Clint Lorimore Cit y tr f Eattvrtr Andy Melendre7 Cityt)fRiversm, T nk yo Scott Miller City+,f Sall Jacinto George Moyer City rtf&Rurin� Mark Orozcu Laurie Dobson Correa City(if Rnrunwnt Director of Reserve Monitoring & Management David S.Rabb Cih/of Perris Harry Ramos Cc: Karin Cleary-Rose Heather A. Pert City,f rbturrirhr U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service California A. Dept. of Fish &Wildlife Chuck Washington 777 East Tah uitz Canyon Way 3602 Inland Empire Blvd. #C220 County of Riverside q Y Y P lxectftye Staff Suite 208 Ontario, CA 91764 Charles Landn' Palm Springs, CA 92262 Excvutive Director 3403 1011 Stmet,Suite 320 Agency enclosures: Riverside,California 925t)1 JPR,Altair Project MSHCP Consistency, LBV Survey, BUOW Survey P.U.Boa 1667 Riverside,California 91%2-lt;67 Phone;(95l)955-4AR) Fax:(95f)955-W,'I www.wrc-r".org egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 F Project Information Permittee: City of Temecula Case Information: PR13-0043, Altair Specific Plan Site Acreage: 270 acres Portion of Site Proposed for MSHCP Conservation Area: 83.8 acres Criteria Consistency Review Consistency Conclusion: The project is not consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan requirements. Data: Applicable Core/Linkage: Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Area Plan: Southwest APN Sub-Unit Cell Group Cell See Application SU1 — Murrieta Creek K' 7077 SU 6—Santa Rosa Plateau 7161 Independent 7078 7164 7166 7258 7264 7355 7356 Criteria and Project Information Criteria Comments: a. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, "Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 10 in the south. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban Development and agricultural use and the planned land use surrounding the Linkage consists of city (Murrieta and Temecula). Therefore, care must be taken to maintain high quality riparian Habitat within the Linkage and along the edges for species such as yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the creek. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek is also important to western pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area." 1 of 10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: O4/01/15 a. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, "Proposed Linkage 10 consists of an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Existing Core G (Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) in the south. Private lands compose the entirety of the Linkage, which consists of upland Habitat complementary to the riparian Linkage provided between these two Cores by Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). This Linkage, which is only somewhat constrained by existing urban Development, provides for movement between these two Cores for species such as bobcat and mountain lion. Although the Linkage is somewhat lengthy at 5.5 miles, it is also nearly a mile wide and thus provides Live-In Habitat for many species. Surrounding planned land uses are approximately evenly divided between Rural Mountainous and city (Murrieta, Temecula). In areas of the Linkage bordering Cities, treatment of edge conditions will be necessary to maintain the proper Habitat and movement functions of the Linkage." b. The project is also located in Cell Group K', which includes Cells 7077, 7161 and 7254. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group F to the west and in Cell #7164 to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 35%-45% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group." The proposed project includes approximately 8.1 acres of Cell Group K'. All of the project area in this Cell Group is proposed for conservation. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the Reserve Assembly goals of Cell Group K'. c. The project site is located within Cell 7O78. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7021 to the north and in Cell #7079 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 15%-25% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell." The project site is not near Murrieta Creek in Cell 7078, which is the area described for Conservation, and therefore is consistent with the Cell Criteria. d. The project is located in Cell 7164. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this C ell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group K' to the west, in Cell #7258 to the south, and in Cell #7166 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 70%-80% of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell." 2of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 The proposed project covers approximately 92.3 acres within the southwestern portion of the Cell. Of those 92.3 acres, the project proposed to conserve approximately 25.7 acres. There are approximately 40.4 acres already conserved. There are no other acres potentially available for conservation in Cell 7164. With the 40 acres already conserved and 25.7 acres proposed for conservation by the project, a total of 65.7 acres would be conserved. To meet the mid-point of the targeted Cell Criteria 120 acres would need to be conserved. The project will impact approximately 66 acres that is described for conservation and will therefore preclude the Cell Criteria from being met in Cell 7164. e. The project site is located within Cell 7166. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral habitat within the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7079 to the north, to chaparral, grassland, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to the south and to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7164 to the west. Conservation within this Cell will range from 35%-45% of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell." The project is not in the area of this Cell which contributes to Murrieta Creek/Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project area in Cell 7166 would contribute to Proposed Linkage 10 and impacts approximately 28 acres. The project will impact all of the remaining acreage available for conservation in this Cell which will preclude the Cell Criteria from being met in Cell 7166. f. The project is located in Cell 7258. As stated in section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7164 to the north and to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to the east. Conservation within this C ell will range from 30%-40% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell." The project includes approximately 5.3 acres of Cell 7258; 3.1 acres will be conserved by the project and 2.2 acres will be impacted. There are approximately 21.5 acres already conserved in this Cell, and approximately 46.7 acres are undeveloped and potentially available for conservation outside the proposed project. To meet the midpoint of targeted Cell Criteria 56 acres would need to be conserved. With the 21.5 acres already conserved and the 3.1 acres to be conserved by the project, there will be 24.6 acres conserved. Since there are 46.7 acres potentially available for conservation, the project would not preclude the ability to meet the Cell Criteria for Cell 7258. 3of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 g. The project is located within Cell 7264. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat within the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland, riparian scrub, woodland, forest and chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7166 to the north and to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7258 to the west and Cell #7355 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 70%-80% of the Cell focusing in the western portion and eastern edge of the Cell." The project will impact approximately 66 acres of this Cell and proposes to conserve approximately 9.2 acres. In order to meet the midpoint target for Cell 7264, 120 acres needs to be conserved. There are approximately 38 acres outside the project potentially available for conservation in this Cell and approximately 9.3 acres already conserved that contribute to Proposed Linkage 10. The project's proposed conservation of 9.2 acres, existing conservation of 9.3 acres and 38 acres potentially available results in a total possible conservation of 56.5 acres, well short of the 120 acre midpoint. Therefore, the project's impacts will preclude the ability to meet the Cell Criteria for Cell 7264 and Proposed Linkage 10. h. The project is located within Cell 7355. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral, woodland, forest, and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to the north and Cell #7356 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 40%-50% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell." The project impacts approximately 17 acres within Cell 7355 and proposes to conserve approximately 17.4 acres. In order to meet the midpoint target conservation for this Cell, 72 acres would need to be conserved. Of the 117 acres in Cell 7355 outside the project, approximately 56 acres is undeveloped and potentially available for conservation. The 17.4 acres of conservation from the project and the 56 acres potentially available for conservation will potentially allow the 72 acreage target for this Cell to be met. However, the proposed development will encroach into the negative influence zone for mountain lion movement, one of the primary objectives of Cell 7355 and Proposed Linkage 10 therefore, is in conflict with reserve assembly goals. i. The project is located in Cell 7356. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat and on riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat along Temecula Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7355 to the 4of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 west and to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7357 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 50%-60% of the C ell focusing in the western and southeastern portions of the Cell." The project will impact 10.9 acres of this Cell, and conserve 19.9 acres within the area that is intended for conservation. In order to meet the midpoint of the targeted range for conservation, 88 acres need to be conserved. There are approximately 122 acres outside the project area in this Cell. Of those 122 acres, approximately 23 acres is potentially available for conservation that would contribute to Proposed Linkage 10. There are 6.6 acres of existing conservation in Cell 7356 made up of PQP Lands in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. A project to expand the I-15/State Route 79 South interchange is in process and is expected to impact a portion of the remaining acreage. The interchange project is considered a Covered Activity; therefore, those impacts cannot be avoided. The City was asked to evaluate the cumulative effect of the proposed Altair Specific Plan and the interchange project on the ability to meet the Cell Criteria. Although no information was provided, the estimated right-of-way based on current design was excluded from potentially available conservation acres. The proposed project conservation of 19.9 acres, 6.6 acres of existing conservation, and the 23 acres of potentially available conservation total 49.5 acres, which would preclude the ability to meet the target conservation range for Cell 7356 of 88 acres. j. Rough Step: The proposed project is within Rough Step Unit 5. Rough Step 5 encompasses 91,734 acres within the southwestern corner of western Riverside County and includes the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Tenaja Corridor, and Murrieta Creek. It is bounded by Interstate 15 to the northeast, San Diego County to the south and the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest to the west. Within Rough Step 5, 24,326 acres are located within the Criteria Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step Unit 5 include coastal sage scrub; grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and woodlands and forests. Based on the 2012 MSHCP Annual Report, all vegetation categories are "in" rough step. Based on the MSHCP vegetation mapping (Exhibit B), vegetation on the proposed project site includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, woodlands and forests, grassland and developed/disturbed. Therefore, development on the project site will not conflict with or interfere with the Rough Step Status of Unit 5. k. Project information was provided by the Permittee in the JPR application and the original HANS package from the City dated May 23, 2014, which included a MSHCP Compliance Analyses and Surveys report prepared by HELIX dated May 2, 2014. Three revisions to the original MSHCP report prepared by HELIX were provided in response to requests from RCA in order to complete the MSHCP documentation package. This JPR analysis is based on the third revisions from HELIX, dated January 14, 2015. In March 2015, the City also submitted a September 19, 2014 Burrowing Owl Survey Report as well as an August 14,2014 Least Bell's Vireo Survey Report for the project to the RCA. 5of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 1. The project site is currently undeveloped and located west of Old Town Temecula along the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in an area known as the "escarpment." Murrieta Creek is to the east of the site. The proposed project consists of a specific plan on approximately 270 acres that includes up to 1,900 residential units, a small commercial component, and a civic/commercial center at the south end of site. The proposed project also includes construction of the Western Bypass Corridor, which is a Covered Activity per Section 7 of the MSHCP. According to the shapefiles provided by the City there is approximately: 83.3 acres of conservation; 179.9 acres of development; 7.1 acres of "Impact Neutral" areas; 1.3 acres of off-site impacts; and 15.8 acres of re-vegetated slopes. m. The Western Bypass as originally envisioned in the MSHCP analysis for Covered Roads would have impacted 127.9 acres according to the HELIX report. The proposed project redesigned the alignment of the Western Bypass and it will result in 72.1 acres of impact. The Western Bypass is a roadway that was considered in the MSHCP analysis and is depicted on Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP with a 100-foot right-of- way. The proposed design of the Western Bypass includes a split road design in order to minimize the grading impacts. The alignment of the Western Bypass is along the western edge of the project site where it will be a barrier between the proposed development and conservation areas within Proposed Linkage 10. a. Species appropriate wildlife fencing must be provided along the entire western edge of the Western Bypass. n. Reserve Assembly: The project site encompasses multiple Criteria Cells and one Cell Group as listed above. As discussed above, the project meets the criteria in some cells, but in other cells (7164, 7166, 7264, and 7356), will preclude the ability of the Cell Criteria to be met. In Cell 7355 the Cell Criteria may be met, but the project will encroach into the negative influence zone for mountain lion. Since the project cannot meet the Cell Criteria requirements of the MSHCP, a Criteria Refinement can be proposed. The RCA and Wildlife Agencies advised the City and applicant of this option several times in meetings and in writing. Because a Criteria Refinement is not being proposed, the project cannot be found to be consistent with the Reserve Assembly requirements of the MSHCP. o. Proposed Linkage 10 is intended to provide linkage for movement of bobcat and mountain lion, as well as live-in habitat for these species, among others. The proposed configuration of the project site in cells 7355 and 7356 will significantly reduce the viability of Proposed Linkage 10 as movement and live in habitat for mountain lions. Per Section 6.2 of the HELIX report, the project will occur within the negative influence zone of 490'-1,970' where nearly all mountain lion activity (i.e., breeding, hunting, moving) will be affected, which is in conflict with what the MSHCP intended for this linkage. In addition, the proposed project will reduce the width of Linkage 10 from the expected range of 1,200 to 2,700 feet within the project area to less than 500' at its narrowest point. Particularly critical is the movement and use constraint which would be created at the southern end of the project, at the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, where the most concentrated mountain lion use currently occurs. 6of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 Proposed Linkage 10, the crossing under I-15 at Temecula Creek, and another crossing under I-15 being considered several miles south of the project site are critical to allow for mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Cleveland National Forest east of I-15. p. Fee credits - The Helix report indicates the City of Temecula intends to allow the applicant $150,000 in MSHCP fee credits in exchange for the 270 acres of land offered off-site. The project as proposed would require a Criteria Refinement to be consistent with the MSHCP, which would allow the 270 acres to be used as replacement land if it is biologically equivalent or superior. Fee credits are intended to provide incentive/compensation for on-site conservation that contributes to Reserve Assembly that would otherwise need to be acquired. Allowing fee credits for replacement lands that would not otherwise need to be acquired is not an appropriate use of MSHCP fee credits since it creates a financial drain on already limited funding and incentivizes the potential development of land needed for conservation. Other Plan Requirements Data: Section 6.1.2 Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. There are riparian/riverine areas on the project site. There are no vernal pools on the project site and soils are not consistent with vernal pool soil types and are not suitable for fairy shrimp habitat. Section 6.1.3 —Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area(NEPSSA). Section 6.3.2—Was Additional Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area(CASSA). The project is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl. Section 6.1.4—Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The property is located near future and existing Conservation Areas. Other Plan Requirement Comments: a. Section 6.1.2: According to the MSHCP Consistency Report prepared by HELIX dated January 14, 2015, there is approximately 2.56 acres of riparian and riverine habitat on the project site. As outlined on Table 2 of the HELIX report, of those 2.56 acres, 0.49 acres is riparian woodland, 0.38 acres is southern willow scrub, 0.08 is herbaceous wetland, 0.64 is coast live oak woodland, and 0.97 acres is riverine streambed. HELIX determined that suitable habitat was present for least Bell's vireo (LBV). Focused surveys were 7of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 conducted on April 18, 28, May 8, 19, June 2, 13, 26, and July 8, 2014. No LBV were identified on the project site during those surveys; however, HELIX did report hearing LBV in Murrieta Creek during two of the site visits. No suitable habitat was identified on site for southwestern willow flycatcher or yellow billed cuckoo. Soils on the site are reported to be primarily sandy to rocky loams; vernal pools were not identified on-site. HELIX reports that there were 12 small basins located in the northern portion of the site associated with a previously graded area. The basins are reportedly associated with the compaction on the graded areas and HELIX determined them to be man-made. Given the sandy, loamy and rocky soil types on-site, no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp occurs on—site; therefore, no focused surveys were conducted. Of the 2.56 acres of riparian and riverine habitats on site, the project will impact 1.21 acres. Of those 1.21 acres, 0.38 acres will be to southern willow scrub; 0.08 acres will be to herbaceous wetland; 0.15 acres will be to coast live oak woodland; and 0.60 acres will be riverine streambeds. Of the 1.21 acres of impacts to riparian and riverine resources, HELIX reports that 0.57 acres are attributed to the Western Bypass alignment and 0.64 acres will be impacted by the development. Since there are impacts to riparian and riverine resources, the project requires the preparation of a DBESP. A request was made on November 10, 2014,but a DBESP was not submitted with the JPR materials. The HELIX report does not provide an analysis of the functions and values of the riparian and riverine resources on-site as required by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Factors to be addressed per Section 6.1.2 are: hydrologic regime, flood storage and flood flow modification, nutrient retention and transformation, sediment trapping and transport, toxicant trapping, public use, wildlife habitat, and aquatic habitat. The functions and values assessment is to focus on the areas that are priorities for conservation as well as the downstream values related to conservation and MSHCP Covered Species. This information has been provided. Analysis was also not provided on the project's impacts to Conserved Habitats, riparian species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, effects on riparian Linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area. The HELIX report indicates that a 3:1 mitigation ratio will be applied to most project impacts; however, there is no discussion on the biological equivalency of the mitigation relative to the functions and values of the riparian impacts on-site as is required in a DBESP. There also are no details about where the proposed "off-site"mitigation will be located or what type of mitigation will be proposed (creation, enhancement, etc.). A DBESP needs to be submitted and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies and RCA in relation to the JPR in order to be compliant with the MSHCP requirements. Therefore, because the project has impacts to riparian and riverine resources and a DBESP has not been provided, and the project is not consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. b. Section 6.1.3: Although the project is not located within a NEPSSA, HELIX has identified a population of approximately 300 individuals of San Diego ambrosia on the project site as depicted on Figure 6 and 8 of the HELIX report. The HELIX report states, "The applicant has agreed, however, to translocate the population from the project impact area to lands already conserved within 10 miles of the project site. 8of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: O4/01/15 i. The City shall consult with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies once a draft translocation has been prepared and the RCA and Wildlife Agencies shall approve the receptor site and methods. This shall be a condition of approval of the project and the receptor location and translocation plan shall be approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies prior to issuance of a grading permit. c. Section 6.3.2: The project site is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl. HELIX conducted habitat suitability surveys on April 10 and May 31, 2007. Suitable habitat was identified on-site in the flatter areas primarily along the eastern and southern portions of the site. HELIX conducted focused protocol surveys on March 4, 13, 25 and April 8, 2014. HELIX determined that none of the suitable burrows showed sign of occupation by burrowing owls. Given the suitability of the site however, the City shall condition the project to conduct 30-day pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl prior to grading. i. Should owls be identified on-site during these surveys, the City and applicant shall provide results to the RCA and contact the RCA about appropriate relocation methods. Passive relocation or eviction should not be the only mitigation option. Based on the information provided by HELIX, and as long as pre-construction surveys are conducted and the RCA is consulted with the results of those surveys, the project demonstrates consistency with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. d. Section 6.1.4: Future and existing Conservation Areas are located adjacent to the project site. To preserve the integrity of areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall be implemented by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. Specifically, the Permittee should include as project conditions of approval the following measures: i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. 1. Downstream drainages that must be protected from high volumes and contamination include Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat, or water quality, shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. 1. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. All roadway and project lighting adjacent 9of10 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) Conservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 to conservation areas must be the minimum lumens needed for safety and must be shielded so light does not spill into any Conservation Area. iv. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 1. The City shall condition the project to provide fencing adjacent to all existing and proposed Conservation Areas. The fencing plan will be submitted to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval. 2. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. SNS 10 of 10 Comment Letter 3 OM JAV al Proposed Linkages: -----Constrained Linkage 4 tys4 sB T 23 ....Linkage $ t', 2 ; ---•Existing Channel ., Existing Cores&Linkages: Constrained Linkage t--r,.ti„ •-.,----�,_ -Core Linkage Noncontiguous Habitat Block Proposed Cores&Habitat Blocks: 2 v; Core e 'AM Proposed Extension of Existing Cores y Noncontiguous Habitat Block a e $�s.3 19r y 71 1 ..Of� ` 7ff r * i * g' 17 18 13 r .19 ...».. C DUDEK EXHIBIrA 3 JPR Log No.14-05-27-01-Vicinity Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages 'F r cD rt CD W 7005 7008 Z02.1 7075 7076 7077 7078 7 79 M. 7 50 7158 K' � 7,•164 71B6 71.6 7+252 7258 7264 7352 7355 56 Q Criteria Cell with Unique 1D Q Cell Group with Identifier JPR Project Site ®Acquisitions Post September 2012 ®Dudek CRD 43 ®Rural Mountainous USFWS CRD American Indian Lands(Not a Part) n Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands 0 Preexisting Conservation Agreements 9 eo Aso LsoeGl 512 ®SanJacintoWildlifeAreaAdditionalAcquisition 3 0 D D E K EXHIBIT E :3 JPR Log No.14-05-27-01-"Kitchen Sink"Map '"F r CONFIDENTIAL-FOR INTERNAL DUDEK USE ONLY Irt 1-r CD W 7050102 ,8101501 r: - ^.r \.- & '� t1i Regional Mapa� 904150, r 12052,°' JPR 14-05-27-01 �5070701p w rl!' Altair Specific Plan 11041801 ,,,.:� � e. .�#gym ��� .,Yr lye �•,, 1> +� � ��4 t�'�s.-i 'r "':Z"--*� u b t 804160111020801 -�'' tt '+.�"i' «r a� �'�• i°M` l "" e y . wp P 10072201 as 8071401 by 5103101 11051001 •a nPG N City of Temecula ? 14052701 7011701 Z 14-05-27-01 7oso1ol T '* ft y .8122201 VIA HORCA ., 13041601 y JPR ProjectsRio Cell Tower No Conservation S - Proposed Development y ,. .i. - Avoidance AreaJIM -Proposed MSHCP Conservation Area Proposed Other Conservation Area (Ripananl Rivenne 404 Permit) ""` " 0 Public Projects Restoration ProjecUMSHCP Conservation Area .9 UNKNOWN ^ TRIG -- 0 Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands 3 ®RCA MSHCP Conserved Lands � x egional Criteria Cells onservatio o Highways 'O s'�' r rt uthority o CD Cities 70 W Feet a Rough Step Unit 5 0 3,200 0 7021 7 7 07 7 7 � 7078 7079 7150 M• 158 1S1 7164 7166 7 5 7 58 7264 J' 7 52 7355 7 56 3 7 7 5 Cell with Unique ID Q Cell Group with Identifier 7 8 Proposed Development Proposed MSHCP Conservation ; American Indian Lands(Not a Part) 0 PublidQuasi-Public Conserved Lands 0 Preexisting Conservation Agreements eo isu i,so ®San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisition EXHIBIT D I?IJE7EK OR Log No.14-05-27-01-Criteria Area Cells with Aerial Photography and Proposed Project Impacts r CD rt CD W 7005 7008 702\1 t7077 ' \� 7075 7076 r-7078 7079 r .. t �+ 715 7158 7764 3 " 7166 7161 7252 tW 7264 J0 Q Critena Cell with Unique ID _ 0 Cell Group with Identifier :...... Sic.']JPR Project Site ®American Indian Lands(Not a Part) ®PubicfQuasi-Public Conserved Lands 4+" ®Preexisting Conservation Agreements t, ®San Jacinto Wikllrte Area Additional Acquisition Vegetation Communities $R _ ^':'�;`;• Montane Confer—Forest y 7356- 7357 ®Woodlands and Forests PennisuWrJuniper Woodland and Scr _ Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Allwial Fan Sage Scrub Desert Scrubs Chaparral s; Z Playas and Vemal Pools Grassland 'sy Ripen-Scrub,Woodland,Forest 7 Meadow Meadows and Marshes Cismontane Alkali Marsh /1 Water 01 Developed or Disturbed Land 3 Agricultural Land o rso 1.5I 751' 7520 unknown 3 (D SOURCE.Cosnty a Rwemiao 2ot5 EXHIBIT B rF JPR Log No,xx-xx-xx-xx-Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Vegetation and Project Location r t'D rt CD W 7005 7008 7021 7075 7076 7077 7078 7079 Q 7161 7�8 K �4 7166 Ji 7252 7254 7258 7264 C�D Jr Q Q Cell with Unique ID Q Cell Group with Identifier ®American Indian Lands(Not a Part) Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands ®Preexisting Conservation Agreements 7352 7/7San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisition 7355 7056 7357 Soil Types: -Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams,8 to 15 perc ant slopes,eroded Escondido fine sandy loam,15 to 25 percent slopes,ero ded Fallbrook rocky sandy loam,shallow,15 to 50 percent s lopes,eroded Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam,2 to 8 percent slopes -Garretson very fine sandy loam,2 to 8 percent slopes ®Garretson very fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes,eroded 7439 Lodo gravelly loam,15 to 50 percent slopes,eroded 7444 -Lodo rocky loam,25 to 50 percent slopes,eroded -Riverwash n -Rough broken land 0 -Terrace escarpments e a i5a t,saa 7520 ®Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam,8 to 25 percent slopes,severely eroded 3 Feet D U D E K EXHIBIT C 3 JPR Log No.14-05-27-01-Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Soils and Project Location r cD rt CD W Comment Letter 3 Pert, H eather@Wild life From: Pert,Heather@Wildlife Sent: Monday,September 14,2015 2:27 PM To: Barry Jones;Matt Peters;'Charles Landry(clandry@wrcrca.org)';"Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)';'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker@gmail.com)';Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com';'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com';'Wade Hall (whall@ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose';Laurie Correa Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org;Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson;Stuart Fisk; james_thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Attachments: VillepiqueQuestionsReMountain Lion Models.docx Hi Barry, Please find attached a list of questions prepared by Jeff Villepique that the Department has regarding the models provided by Helix to assess the impacts of the Altair project on mountain lions. Sincerely, Heather Pert Meat/cer 4, Pert,PhD Inland Desert Region,R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.xov www.wildlife.ca.sov Save Our Water From: Barry]ones [mailto:Barry]@helixepi.com] Sent:Wednesday,September 02, 2015 6:50 AM To: Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry@wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker@gmail.com)';Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique, Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall@ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson;Stuart Fisk;james—thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi everyone—as we discussed at our meeting,HELIX reran the Corridor model using the 2012 vegetation mapping from the County. We also reran the model this time giving agriculture a score of 0 permeability,partially because agriculture was not broken out between groves and other types of agriculture. As you will see with the attached graphics,the escarpment,secondary corridor connecting with the escarpment,and the central corridor were virtually unchanged, with the model showing these areas as the primary potential movement areas for mountain lion. The absolute non- habitat changed significantly because of ranking agriculture with a permeability of 0.Please let me know if you have any questions. 1 Comment Letter 3 From: Pert, Heather@Wildlife[mailto:Heather.Pert(alwildlife.ca.govl Sent: Friday,August 21,2015 3:59 PM To: Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry@wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie'(LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker (kelcey.ann.stricker@gmail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; Barry Jones; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall@ambientcommunides.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc:areg.butier@cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson;Stuart Fisk;James thiede(&fws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hello Matt, Thank you to everyone who participated in the meeting last week. As discussed at the end of the day,the Service and CDFW wildlife staff need to discuss the permanent and long-term effects of the project to mountain lion movement. I was in training on Thursday and Friday last week and so I had to wait until early this week to set up a meeting. Karin Cleary-Rose is out all of this week. We haven't finished discussing this issue, therefore,providing a responding by today,the 21",is not feasible but we will provide as response as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that the focus of the meeting last week was the specifically the mountain lion linkage. However, the mountain lion linkage is not the only issue that needs to be resolved for the Altair project. Please review the April 15,2015 Wildlife Agency comment letter regarding the Altair 1PR for the other issues. Reaching a decision on the mountain lion linkage will help us to move forward in identifying what are the next steps. Sincerely, Heather ffeat,6 4 Pert,PhD Inland Desert Region, R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.gov www.wildlife.ca.gov Save Our Water From: Matt Peters[mailto:Matt.Peters@cityoftemecula.org] Sent: Friday,August 14,2015 9:23 AM To: 'Charles Landry(clandry@wrcrca.ora)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker (kelcev.ann.stricker@gmail.com)'; Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'Barry Jones(bani(cbhelixepi.com)'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(dambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk Subject: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi Everyone, 2 Comment Letter 3 I wanted to thank all of you for participating in Wednesday's meeting. I believe it was informative, and hopefully the tour provided some perspective on the location of the Civic Site in relation to the overall linkage. A special thanks to Winston Vickers, and Barry Jones for presenting the modeling data. As discussed, the City looks forward to a letter from California Fish and Wildlife stating its position on whether or not the Civic Site irreversibly severs the linkage, or if all parties can move forward with a Mitigation Agreement("Fred")to include the following in the design criteria of the project: 1. Deed transfer of 84 undisturbed acres 2. Western Bypass realignment(minimize disturbance of a covered activity) 3. Wildlife fencing 4. Direction lighting 5. Civic Site edge condition mitigation (green walls, vegetated berms and buffers, height limits, etc....) 6. Contribution of funding for design and engineering of 1-15 wildlife undercrossing 7. Adaptive management and monitoring (endowment of funds for evaluation and additional conservation measures) Based on the criteria above, we can minimize any impacts to the existing linkage, and help solve a regional issue by working on a crossing to connect the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain Ranges—let's make this a real project! In the interest of time, we respectfully request this determination letter by August 21s`to inform the Ad Hoc Elected Officials meeting to be scheduled in early September as part of the MSHCP process. Thanks again to everyone. Feel free to call me any time to discuss. Sincerely, Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula (951)694-6408 m aft.Pete rs a-citvoftemecula.org 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. 3 Comment Letter 3 Pert, Heather@Wildlife From: Pert,Heather@Wildlife Sent: Wednesday,September 16,2015 9:13 AM To: Winston Vickers;'Barry Jones';'Matt Peters';'Charles Landry';"Correa, Laurie';'Kelcey Stricker';Giusti,Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife;Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; RHoner@ambientcommunities.com;'Wade Hall';'Karin Cleary-Rose';'Laurie Correa' Cc: greg.butier@cityoftemecula.org;'Matt Rahn';Adams,Aaron;'Luke Watson';'Stuart Fisk'; james_thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Attachments: Zeller comments-questions B Jones modeling.docx Hi All, Jeff Villepique and I concur with the set of questions provided by Kathy Zeller(attached),which address most of the same concerns Jeff identified in his request. Kathy's question provide additional articulation of some of the specifics. Barry,please incorporate Kathy's questions into your response to our questions as her questions provide clarification on the information needed. Both sets of questions are focused on a developing a better understanding of the models used. A thorough description of modeling methods will satisfy both sets of questions and allow the Wildlife Agencies to assess the validity of the models used by Helix to quantify impacts to corridor function and habitat at the Altair site. Sincerely, Heather Meatk,-4 Pert, PhD Inland Desert Region,R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.sov www.wildlife.ca.Qov Save Our Water From:Winston Vickers[mailto:twinstonvickers@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,September 16, 2015 8:19 AM To: 'Barry Jones'; Pert, Heather@Wildlife; 'Matt Peters'; 'Charles Landry'; "Correa, Laurie"; 'Kelcey Stricker'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife; Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; RHoner@ambientcommunities.com; 'Wade Hall'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; 'Laurie Correa' Cc:greg.butier@cityoftemecula.org; 'Matt Rahn';Adams,Aaron; 'Luke Watson'; 'Stuart Fisk';james_thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion i Comment Letter 3 Hello all, I passed along the models to our collaborator Kathy Zeller for comment or questions. She agreed with Jeff's questions and had some others of her own—attached here. Barry is of course free to address these or not but I wanted to at the least have the perspective of another modeler that is looking closely at this issue available to all. Winston From: Barry Jones[mailto:BarrvJ(&helixepi.com] Sent:Tuesday,September 15, 2015 2:19 PM To: Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry(&wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker(&gmail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique, Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall@ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; Laurie Correa Cc: greg.butlerCa cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk;James thiedeWws.aov Subject: RE:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Thanks Heather and Jeff for the review and comments. We are working on a detailed response and will get something over as soon as possible. From: Pert, Heather@Wildlife [mailto:Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.aov] Sent: Monday,September 14, 2015 2:27 PM To: Barry Jones; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry(&wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie'(LDCORREA@wrcrca.om)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker(acimail.com)';Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(&ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; Laurie Correa Cc: greg.butler(a cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk; James thiede(,Ofws.g_ov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi Barry, Please find attached a list of questions prepared by Jeff Villepique that the Department has regarding the models provided by Helix to assess the impacts of the Altair project on mountain lions. Sincerely, Heather Pert /featke A. Pest,PhD Inland Desert Region,R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wiIdIife.ca.gov www.wildlife.ca.gov Save Our Water 2 Comment Letter 3 From: Barry Jones [mailto:BarWCalhelixepi.com] Sent: Wednesday,September 02, 2015 6:50 AM To: Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandryawrcrca.orci "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA(awrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker(cbamail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique, Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall@ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc: greg.butler@)cityoftemecula.oro; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk;James thiede(&fws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi everyone—as we discussed at our meeting,HELIX reran the Corridor model using the 2012 vegetation mapping from the County. We also reran the model this time giving agriculture a score of 0 permeability,partially because agriculture was not broken out between groves and other types of agriculture. As you will see with the attached graphics,the escarpment,secondary corridor connecting with the escarpment,and the central corridor were virtually unchanged, with the model showing these areas as the primary potential movement areas for mountain lion. The absolute non- habitat changed significantly because of ranking agriculture with a permeability of 0.Please let me know if you have any questions. From: Pert, Heather@Wildlife [mailto:Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.00v] Sent: Friday,August 21,2015 3:59 PM To: Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry@wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA@wrcrca.ora)'; 'Kelcey Stricker (kelcey.ann.stricker(&gmail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; Barry Jones; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whallOambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc:greg.butler(@citvoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk;James thiede(dfws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hello Matt, Thank you to everyone who participated in the meeting last week. As discussed at the end of the day,the Service and CDFW wildlife staff need to discuss the permanent and long-term effects of the project to mountain lion movement. I was in training on Thursday and Friday last week and so I had to wait until early this week to set up a meeting. Karin Cleary-Rose is out all of this week. We haven't finished discussing this issue, therefore,providing a responding by today,the 215t,is not feasible but we will provide as response as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that the focus of the meeting last week was the specifically the mountain lion linkage. However, the mountain lion linkage is not the only issue that needs to be resolved for the Altair project. Please review the April 15,2015 Wildlife Agency comment letter regarding the Altair JPR for the other issues. Reaching a decision on the mountain lion linkage will help us to move forward in identifying what are the next steps. Sincerely, Heather f/eatlk-4 Peet,PhD Inland Desert Region, R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.gov www.wildlife.ca.sov 3 Comment Letter 3 Save Our Water From: Matt Peters[mailto:Matt.Peters(cbcityoftemecula.org] Sent: Friday,August 14, 2015 9:23 AM To: 'Charles Landry(clandry(&wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA(&wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker (kelcey.ann.stricker(&cimail.com)'; Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife; Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'Barry]ones(barryj@helixepi.com)'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(cbambientcomm.unities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc:greg.butler@cityoftemecula.or4; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk Subject:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi Everyone, I wanted to thank all of you for participating in Wednesday's meeting. I believe it was informative, and hopefully the tour provided some perspective on the location of the Civic Site in relation to the overall linkage. A special thanks to Winston Vickers, and Barry Jones for presenting the modeling data. As discussed, the City looks forward to a letter from California Fish and Wildlife stating its position on whether or not the Civic Site irreversibly severs the linkage, or if all parties can move forward with a Mitigation Agreement("Fred")to include the following in the design criteria of the project: 1. Deed transfer of 84 undisturbed acres 2. Western Bypass realignment(minimize disturbance of a covered activity) 3. Wildlife fencing 4. Direction lighting 5. Civic Site edge condition mitigation (green walls, vegetated berms and buffers, height limits, etc....) 6. Contribution of funding for design and engineering of 1-15 wildlife undercrossing 7. Adaptive management and monitoring (endowment of funds for evaluation and additional conservation measures) Based on the criteria above, we can minimize any impacts to the existing linkage, and help solve a regional issue by working on a crossing to connect the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain Ranges—let's make this a real project! In the interest of time, we respectfully request this determination letter by August 21st to inform the Ad Hoc Elected Officials meeting to be scheduled in early September as part of the MSHCP process. Thanks again to everyone. Feel free to call me any time to discuss. Sincerely, Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula (951)694-6408 matt.peters(cilcitvoftemecula.org 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. 4 Comment Letter 3 Pert, Heather@Wildlife From: Barry Jones <BarryJ@helixepi.com> Sent: Friday,September 18,2015 7:04 AM To: Pert,Heather@Wildlife;Winston Vickers;'Matt Peters';'Charles Landry';"Correa,Laurie"; 'Kelcey Stricker';Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife;RHoner@ambientcommunities.com;'Wade Hall';'Karin Cleary-Rose'; 'Laurie Correa' Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org;'Matt Rahn';Adams,Aaron; 'Luke Watson';'Stuart Fisk'; james_thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi everyone—Thanks for the comments. We are working on responses and will get back to you. Enjoy your weekend. Barry From: Pert, Heather@Wildlife[mailto:Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday,September 16, 2015 9:13 AM To:Winston Vickers; Barry Jones; 'Matt Peters'; 'Charles Landry'; "Correa, Laurie"; 'Kelcey Stricker'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife; Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; RHoner@ambientcommunities.com; 'Wade Hall'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; 'Laurie Correa' Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org;'Matt Rahn';Adams,Aaron; 'Luke Watson'; 'Stuart Fisk';james—thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi All, Jeff Villepique and I concur with the set of questions provided by Kathy Zeller(attached),which address most of the same concerns Jeff identified in his request. Kathy's question provide additional articulation of some of the specifics. Barry,please incorporate Kathy's questions into your response to our questions as her questions provide clarification on the information needed. Both sets of questions are focused on a developing a better understanding of the models used. A thorough description of modeling methods will satisfy both sets of questions and allow the Wildlife Agencies to assess the validity of the models used by Helix to quantify impacts to corridor function and habitat at the Altair site. Sincerely, Heather lleat,k,-A. A-t,PhD Inland Desert Region,R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.gov www.wildlife.ca.gov Save Our Water Comment Letter 3 From:Winston Vickers^[mailto:twinstonvickers(dcimail.com] _ Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:19 AM To: 'Barry Jones'; Pert, Heather@Wildlife; 'Matt Peters'; 'Charles Landry'; "Correa, Laurie"; 'Kelcey Stricker'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife; Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; RHoner(cbambientcommunities.com, 'Wade Hall'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; 'Laurie Correa' Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org; 'Matt Rahn';Adams,Aaron; 'Luke Watson'; 'Stuart Fisk'; James thiede(ofws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hello all, I passed along the models to our collaborator Kathy Zeller for comment or questions. She agreed with Jeff's questions and had some others of her own—attached here. Barry is of course free to address these or not but I wanted to at the least have the perspective of another modeler that is looking closely at this issue available to all. Winston From: Barry Jones[mailto:BarryJ@helixepi.com] Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:19 PM To: Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry@wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker(cbgmail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife; Villepique, Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(a)ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; Laurie Correa Cc: greg.butler(.@cityoftemecula.orci; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk;james thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Thanks Heather and Jeff for the review and comments. We are working on a detailed response and will get something over as soon as possible. From: Pert, Heather@Wildlife[mailto:Heather.Pert0wildlife.ca.govI Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:27 PM To: Barry Jones; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandry(&wrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie'(LDCORREA(&wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.stricker(&gmail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife; Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(cbambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose'; Laurie Correa Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn; Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk; James thiede@fws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi Barry, Please find attached a list of questions prepared by Jeff Villepique that the Department has regarding the models provided by Helix to assess the impacts of the Altair project on mountain lions. Sincerely, Heather Pert l{eat/rer A, Peat, PhD Inland Desert Region,R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 2 Comment Letter 3 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.PerL@wildlife.ca.gov www.wildlife.ca.gov Save Our Water From: Barry Jones[mailto:BarWOhelixepi.com] Sent:Wednesday,September 02, 2015 6:50 AM To: Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandty@)wrcrca.ora)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREACtwrcrca.ora)'; 'Kelcey Stricker(kelcey.ann.strickerC�amail.com); Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique, Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(&ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc: greg.butler@cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson;Stuart Fisk; fames thiedei7afws.gov Subject: RE: Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi everyone—as we discussed at our meeting,HELIX reran the Corridor model using the 2012 vegetation mapping from the County. We also reran the model this time giving agriculture a score of 0 permeability,partially because agriculture was not broken out between groves and other types of agriculture. As you will see with the attached graphics,the escarpment,secondary corridor connecting with the escarpment,and the central corridor were virtually unchanged, with the model showing these areas as the primary potential movement areas for mountain lion. The absolute non- habitat changed significantly because of ranking agriculture with a permeability of 0.Please let me know if you have any questions. From: Pert, Heather@Wildlife[mailto:Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.govl Sent: Friday,August 21, 2015 3:59 PM To: Matt Peters; 'Charles Landry(clandryCa wrcrca.ora)'; "Correa, Laurie'(LDCORREA@wrcrca.org)'; 'Kelcey Stricker (kelcey.ann.stricker@gmail.com)'; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; Barry Jones; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall(dambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc:areg.butler alcityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson;Stuart Fisk;James thiede aofws.ci Subject: RE:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hello Matt, Thank you to everyone who participated in the meeting last week. As discussed at the end of the day,the Service and CDFW wildlife staff need to discuss the permanent and long-term effects of the project to mountain lion movement. I was in training on Thursday and Friday last week and so I had to wait until early this week to set up a meeting. Karin Cleary-Rose is out all of this week. We haven't finished discussing this issue, therefore,providing a responding by today,the 21'Y,is not feasible but we will provide as response as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that the focus of the meeting last week was the specifically the mountain lion linkage. However, the mountain lion linkage is not the only issue that needs to be resolved for the Altair project. Please review the April 15,2015 Wildlife Agency comment letter regarding the Altair 1PR for the other issues. Reaching a decision on the mountain lion linkage will help us to move forward in identifying what are the next steps. Sincerely, Heather �{eat/cer{ Pert,PhD 3 Comment Letter 3 Inland Desert Region,R6 Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish&Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Blvd,Suite C-220 Ontario,Ca 91764 858-395-9692(mobile and only number) Heather.Pert@wildIife.ca.gov www.wildlife.ca.sov Save Our water From: Matt Peters [mailto:Matt.Peters(&cityoftemecula.org] Sent: Friday,August 14, 2015 9:23 AM To: 'Charles Landry(clandry(abwrcrca.org)'; "Correa, Laurie' (LDCORREAOwrcrca.orci 'Kelcey Stricker (kelcey.ann.strickerOgmail.com)'; Pert, Heather@Wildlife; Giusti, Mike@Wildlife;Villepique,Jeff@Wildlife; Brennan, Kevin@Wildlife; 'twinstonvickers@gmail.com'; 'Barry]ones(barryj(&helixepi.com)'; 'RHoner@ambientcommunities.com'; 'Wade Hall (whall@ambientcommunities.com)'; 'Karin Cleary-Rose' Cc: areg.butler@cityoftemecula.org; Matt Rahn;Adams,Aaron; Luke Watson; Stuart Fisk Subject:Altair Specific Plan and Wildlife Linkage Discussion Hi Everyone, I wanted to thank all of you for participating in Wednesday's meeting. I believe it was informative, and hopefully the tour provided some perspective on the location of the Civic Site in relation to the overall linkage. A special thanks to Winston Vickers, and Barry Jones for presenting the modeling data. As discussed, the City looks forward to a letter from California Fish and Wildlife stating its position on whether or not the Civic Site irreversibly severs the linkage, or if all parties can move forward with a Mitigation Agreement("Fred")to include the following in the design criteria of the project: 1. Deed transfer of 84 undisturbed acres 2. Western Bypass realignment(minimize disturbance of a covered activity) 3. Wildlife fencing 4. Direction lighting 5. Civic Site edge condition mitigation (green walls, vegetated berms and buffers, height limits, etc....) 6. Contribution of funding for design and engineering of 1-15 wildlife undercrossing 7. Adaptive management and monitoring (endowment of funds for evaluation and additional conservation measures) Based on the criteria above, we can minimize any impacts to the existing linkage, and help solve a regional issue by working on a crossing to connect the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain Ranges—let's make this a real project! In the interest of time, we respectfully request this determination letter by August 21"to inform the Ad Hoc Elected Officials meeting to be scheduled in early September as part of the MSHCP process. Thanks again to everyone. Feel free to call me any time to discuss. Sincerely, Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula (951)694-6408 matt.PetersCcDcitvoftemecula.ora 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 4 Comment Letter 3 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. 5 Comment Letter 3 Questions for Barry Jones re: Altair project mountain lion corridor models. Hi Barry, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some clarifications and details about the models presented in Helix memoranda of August 12 and September 1,2015. The current documentation is insufficient to allow an evaluation of the applicability of models to mountain lions in the vicinity of the Altair site. First,please clarify what model outputs display; Regarding the `Modeled Corridors—No Project' graphic(i.e.,first map),are there two different outputs being depicted?; -`Habitat Suitability' layer,depicting 5 categories of suitability? -and a separate corridor model,displayed over the top of the habitat suitability model? Is the second map `Modeled Corridors—Entire Project' different from the first graphical output only in the addition of a red fill to the black outline of the Project Footprint? (i.e.,why provide a separate output if the model has no sensitivity to the changed habitat suitability and corridor values applied to the footprint?) Do neither habitat suitability or corridor models contain measure of proximity to buildings or some other metric of density of development? Given the lack of change in habitat suitability and corridors between the first and second maps, why does the third map `Modeled Corridors—Project without Civic Site' now depict a green fill inside the polygon for the proposed civic site,where 5%and 10%corridor were displayed in the first map? Regarding the `Least Cost Path—No Project' graphic(i.e.,fourth map),the question is again,are there two different concepts depicted? -a`Weighted Habitat Suitability' (is this different from the `Habitat Suitability' of the first three maps, `Value' of the fifth map,and `Habitat Suitability' of the sixth map)? -and a line feature depicting `Least Cost Path'? Again,why present separate outputs, `Least Cost Path—Entire Project' and `Least Cost Path— Project without Civic Site,' when neither`Value' nor`Least Cost Path' depict any differences (i.e.,are sensitive to)in response to the changed`Value' (is this an error in labeling,that should read `Weighted Habitat Suitability' or`Habitat Suitability'?)within the Project Footprint? Second,please provide details about the models themselves; Helix memos provide only a vague reference to the source for the corridor model: "HELIX relied on the CorridorDesigner ArcGIS Toolbox Tutorial and model available on the corridordesign.org website." There are dozens of links on the corridordesign.org website,could you please provide a specific URL and model name? At the August 12,2015 meeting,you answered a query regarding the values used in the corridor designer model,with a response that 1 Comment Letter 3 the software used values"specific to mountain lions,' that were `from Paul Beier's work." Does this mean that the model in question is part of the`Arizona corridor design toolbox' on the web page: `http://con idordesign.org/dl/tools/CorridorDesignerArizonaToolbox_v01.zip' wherein supporting documents list Paul Beier as a co-author? Were`Species scores' for mountain lions used in the Corridor Designer tool established by expert opinion,or are they derived from a study? If from a study,please provide the citation. In either case,please provide justification for extrapolating model parameters explicitly applied to vegetation,topography,and roads in Arizona,to those features in the different physiognomy of the area of California where the Altair project is proposed. Please also provide a reference,details,and justification for the applicability of the model used to generate the five-category`Habitat Suitability' output displayed along with the 1%, 5%,and 10%corridors on the first three model output maps accompanying the August 12 memorandum. Please provide an acceptable citation for the"Least-Cost Path Analysis"models,as the reference to the unpublished thesis of Gibbons(2008),which is unavailable for download,is an inadequate source to evaluate validity or aptness of this model. The document,"Mountain Lion Overview," provided by Wade Hall at the August 12 meeting at the Temecula Community Center,contains a highlighted statement,on page 20,with regard to the Gibbons thesis,"Since the writing of this study in 2008,researchers have refined the computer modeling and are arriving at substantially similar results." Please cite this work. Please also provide a reference,details,and justification for the applicability of the model used to generate the continuous color ramp(presumably it's the same,though it's alternatively identified as, `Weighted Habitat Suitability,' `Value,' and`Habitat Suitability')on the three maps of Least-Cost Path Analysis. Third,please justify the validity of models chosen by HELIX for generating fine-scale assessments,given that movements of mountain lions are predicted at a scale where differences of one hundreds meters could dictate the viability,or lack thereof,of habitat and movement corridors. Specifically,do the HELIX models rely on extrinsic assumptions,or do they incorporate accepted techniques for generation of probabilistic models(e.g.,Zeller et al.2012) driven by intrinsic data(e.g.,GPS collars in the area of the proposed project;cf Burdett et al. 2010). Literature Cited Burdett,C.L.,K.R.Crooks,D.M.Theobald,K.R.Wilson,E.E.Boydston,L.M.Lyren,R.N. Fisher,T.W.Vickers, S.A.Morrison,and W.M.Boyce.2010.Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat.Ecosphere 1:art4. Zeller,K.A.,K.McGarigal,and A.R.Whiteley.2012.Estimating landscape resistance to movement:A review.Landscape Ecology 27:777-797. 2 Comment Letter 3 Hello Barry, (1)You cite work by Philip Gibbons and say your model was'consistent'with work conducted by him.In what ways was it consistent?How did Gibbons model his corridors and what might have you done that was different? (2) In the 3rd paragraph of the memo,you state that you calculated building density. However,this was not listed in your model inputs.Was there a reason why building density was not included?This layer would be very informative for mountain lion movement and connectivity since it would act as a proxy for human activity,noise, lights,etc. (3)Why were the vegetation categories from the Corridor Designer tutorial used? Were these based on mountain lion habitat use in California?If not,then these should be adjusted accordingly. (4) Can you provide a table with the cost/resistance scores you gave to each cover type/distance to roads category,and TPI category? (5) How were these scores determined?If it was from expert opinion,then who were the experts?Were the scores determined using consensus or some structured method to prevent bias such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (Magle et al.2009)? If they were determined from empirical data how was this done?It has been shown that empirical data outperform expert opinion when it comes to connectivity modeling(Clevenger et al.2002;Zeller et al.2011).There have been published studies using empirical data showing mountain lion habitat use in the study area that could be used to estimate your scores (e.g.Burdett et al.2010; Zeller et al. 2014).It appears these'scores'are different than the'scores'used in the least-cost path analysis?The LCP used 0.01—9,but some vegetation types have a score of 44? Please clarify if/how scores are different from the cost surface used to model the LCPs. (6) For the Least-cost path analysis section,it now appears building density is in the model?Can you please clarify how this was used and in what part of the model? (7) Is there a difference in model output between the development with and without the civic site?It doesn't appear there is any. (8) Can you provide measurements on how the width of the easternmost corridor changes with and without the project?It appears the width of this corridor is reduced by quite a bit.This reduction in width might make the corridor less functional for mountain lions.As is evident from you maps,mountain lions are currently using your modeled corridor area,but with the development,this may increase edge effects in the corridor,allowing more impacts in terms of light,noise, and other negative characteristics which may dissuade mountain lions from using it. (9)Though connectivity in the westernmost corridor is not affected,this is no reason to assume that the development won't affect connectivity.These least-cost Comment Letter 3 models assume the animals have 100%knowledge of the landscape and given the empirical data we have on lions using the Santa Margarita side,it seems likely animals might start out on the right hand corridor.If this corridor is compromised, then a dispersing lion may find itself in conflicts with humans and/or might not continue to disperse past the development area. Best, Kathy Zeller Burdett,C.L.,Crooks,K.R.,Theobald D.M.,Wilson, K.R.,Boydston,E.E.,Lyren,L.M., Fisher,R.N.,Vickers,T.W.,Morrison,S.A.,and Boyce,W.M.2010.Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat.Ecosphere 1:Article 4. Clevenger,A.P.,Wierzchowski,J.,Chruszcz,B.and Gunson,K. 2002.GIS-Generated, Expert-Based Models for Identifying Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Planning Mitigation Passages.Conservation Biology 16: 503-514. Magle,S.B.,Theobald,D.M.,and Crooks,K.R.2009.A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado,USA.Landscape Ecology 24: 267-280. Zeller,K.A.,K.McGarigal,P.Beier,S.A.Cushman,T.W.Vickers,W.M.Boyce. 2014. Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study.Landscape Ecology 29: 541-557. Zeller,K.A.,Nijhawan,S.,Hines,J.,Salom-Perez,R.,and Hernandez,S.2011. Integrating Site Occupancy Modeling and Interview Data for Identifying Jaguar(Panthera onca)Corridors:A case study from Nicaragua.Biological Conservation 144: 892-901. 3.Response to Comments Responses to Letter 3: US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)/CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Comment 3-A: The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan's(MSHCP)criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function. Response 3-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.7. MSHCP consistency is discussed throughout Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Response 3-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.7. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific environmental impact information. Comment 3-B: The commenter recommends the project be redesigned and/or that a Criteria Refinement be provided. The commenter further notes the project has not yet complied with the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine policy;the commenter recognizes the project has acknowledged this is an outstanding requirement. Response 3-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.4 and 3.2.6. Response 3-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.4 and 3.2.6. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 3-C: The commenter states evidence and analysis provided in the MSHCP Consistency Report did not support the conclusion that the project is consistent with MSHCP reserve assembly and connectivity needs. The commenter specifically notes the analysis did not properly account for existing development and the project footprint on acreage goals for each Altair Specific Plan 3-79 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments criteria cell and subunit, and incorrectly implied that the status of Western Bypass as a covered activity is a reason to discount the reserve assembly criteria. Response 3-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): MSHCP consistency analysis is documented within Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.5. Response 3-C(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):MSHCP consistency analysis is documented within Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR.Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2,3.2.3,and 3.2.5. Comment 3-D: The commenter expresses concern that the project will degrade biological connectivity of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,Proposed Linkage 10,Proposed Constrained Linkage 14,and the Santa Margarita River, and preclude MSHCP reserve assembly goals. Response 3-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 3-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 3-E: The commenter states the project negatively impacts the stated goals of Proposed Linkage 10 to provide live-in habitat and a movement corridor for mountain lion by narrowing the linkage. The commenter states the MSHCP Consistency Report provides an unsubstantiated assertion that some use by mountain lions is anticipated to continue. The commenter further states that the MSCHP Consistency Report does not determine if reserve assembly features will function for bobcat, or provide information about potential impacts to pond turtle nesting habitat. The commenter states the project does not provide the cell conservation requirements or the dimensional data anticipated for this linkage. Response 3-E(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3, 3.2.8 and Errata pages 2-10 through 2-11 . Response 3-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3, 3.2.8 and Errata pages 2-10 through 2-11 . Comment 3-F: The commenter states the project conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly goals for criteria cells 7164, 7166, 7264, and 7356, and requests clarification of Table 3 and 6 in the MSHCP Consistency Report for disposition of the 8.1 acres in Cell 7254; Table 3 indicates the 8.1 acres are not conserved and Table 6 indicates the 8.1 acres are conserved. Response 34(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.3. Table 3 indicates that the 8.1 acres in Cell 7254 represents 1.7%of the Cell area and that no conservation is proposed in that portion of the cell. Table 6 summarizes is the Rough Step consistency analysis and shows overall project impacted acres and required MSHCP conservation. Response 34(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.3. Table 3 indicates that the 8.1 acres in Cell 7254 represents 1.7 %of the Cell area and that no conservation is proposed in that portion of the cell. Table 6 summarizes is the Rough Step Altair Specific Plan 3-80 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments consistency analysis and shows overall project impacted acres and required MSHCP conservation. Comment 3-G: The commenter notes that while the 270 acres proposed for conservation in Temescal Canyon Area Plan would address the reserve assembly shortfall,they are well north and west of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 and do not address the acreage shortfalls in the Southwest Area Plan subunits 1 and 6. The commenter notes the MSHCP requires an equivalency analysis for projects that are not in accordance with reserve assembly criteria and states the 270 acres are not a suitable replacement for the acreage shortfall or degradation of reserve function. Response 3-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. Response 3-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. Comment 3-H: The commenter states that providing Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF)credits for acreage that is not described for conservation and does not support reserve assembly subsidizes degradation of the conservation area instead of fostering reserve assembly. Response 3-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Response 3-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Comment 3-I: The commenter requests the City work with the RCA on a minor amendment of the MSHCP to reflect removal of the northern portion of the Western Bypass and documents the exchanged impact acreage. Response 3-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.5. Response 3-I(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.5. Comment 3-J: The commenter states the San Diego ambrosia is located within a criteria cell area that is slated for conservation under the MSHCP, should be conserved, and any translocation of the species should be detailed in a Criteria Refinement for the project. Response 34(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As described in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and the MSHCP Consistency Report(Appendix C of the Draft EIR),the San Diego ambrosia lies outside of the NEPSSA or CAPSSA survey area of the MSHCP. As such,the San Diego ambrosia is considered adequately covered under the MSHCP and no additional surveys or conservation of the species is required; however,the project applicant has agreed to voluntarily translocate the San Diego ambrosia population found on the project site as part of project development(refer to Section 2.3.6,Project Description, of the Draft EIR). Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features), 3.2.2, and 3.2.3. Altair Specific Plan 3-81 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 34(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features), 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Comment 3-K: The commenter raises concerns whether the mitigation ratio of 1:1 for impacts to riverine resources is adequate but withholds judgment until review of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP) document required under Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b. Response 3-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use): A DBESP will be submitted to the regulatory agencies prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project. The mitigation ratio for riverine resources is a minimum requirement, subject to review and approval by the reviewing agencies. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.6. Response 3-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.6. Altair Specific Plan 3-82 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE *r 3Z National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE r' West Coast Region `A=>•.Eso " 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Lonq Beach, California 90802-4213 June 17, 20I6 Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Altair Specific Plan Draft EIR, Santa Margarita River Watershed (SCH No. 2014111029) Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you for providing a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Altair Specific Plan within the City of Temecula(City). We reviewed the Draft EIR and would like to provide the City with the following comments for their consideration in reviewing this project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed project is located within the Santa Margarita River watershed, in the vicinity of Murrieta Creek,one of the major tributaries forming the Santa Margarita River. The 270 acre site is proposed for the construction of a variety of urban and urban-related developments. The proposed developments include residential mixed uses, community recreation,an elementary 4-A school, unspecified"civic uses" and associated roadways. The proposed developments would occupy approximately 186 acres (including 0.48 acres of wetlands), or 69%of the site. Because of its location in the watershed,the proposed project would generate runoff that discharges into Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River supports a remnant population of southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),an endangered species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and is designated as a Core 1 population(high priority for recovery)in NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan(NMFS 2012). The Santa Margarita River is one of the southernmost major watersheds in the endangered Southern 4-B California Steelhead Distinct Population Segment(DPS); it contributes significantly to the ecological diversity of the Southern California Steelhead Recovery Planning Area and plays an important role for the long term viability of the Southern California Steelhead DPS. Designation of the Santa Margarita River in the Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan is based on a number of factors, including the size of the watershed,the role of the population in Comment Letter 4 2 the overall recovery strategy,and the threats to the watershed. Restoration and protection of core populations(e.g., Santa Margarita River population) are necessary to fully meet the recovery goals for the Southern California Steelhead DPS. There are historic and contemporary records of anadromous steelhead occurring in the Santa Margarita River. A recent genetic analysis of O, mykiss taken from the Santa Margarita River 4-13 determined the Santa Margarita River Q. mykiss to be of steelhead ancestry with no indication of hatchery origin (McInnis 2010), see also Dickinson (2009).These fish represent an important component of the evolutionary Iegacy of southern California steelhead populations_ For a comprehensive assessment of the steelhead habitat of the Santa Margarita River see Cardno Entrix(2010). The Drat ElR indicates that the proposed project may affect a number of sensitive species.Yet, it does not acknowledge the federally listed endangered southern California steelhead,or make reference to NMFS' Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan (2012)or the recently completed 5-Year Status Review for this species(NMFS 2016); see also Warburton et al.(2000). Although the proposed project site does not impinge directly upon the known aquatic habitat of 4-C steelhead, it may impact this species or its habitat or both. Because of the projects' close proximity to Murrieta Creek, it has the potential to adversely impact steelhead habitat through modification of the run-off patterns in the mainstem of Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River,and discharge of pollutants into the Santa Margarita River and downstream estuary. The Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies a number of systemic threats to the steelhead of the Santa Margarita River watershed. These threats include the following: flood control activities, including maintenance activities; levees and channelization; urban development, including recreational development,which can impact runoff patterns and cause non-point pollution discharges to aquatic habitats utilized by steelhead; roads and drains and associated storm-water runoff; and the presence of non-native species. The effects of the 4-D proposed project on runoff and waste discharges to the lower reaches of the Santa Margarita River(including the estuary)should be recognized in the analysis, and appropriate mitigation measures should be included in permits issued for the project(e.g.,Clean Water Act 404 and 401). The Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies a number of recovery actions intended to address impacts from urban development within the Santa Margarita River watershed. These include the following(see pp. 13-38 through 13-43): SMR-SCS-5.1 Develop and implement flood control maintenance plan to minimize the 4-E frequency and intensity of disturbance of instream habitats and riparian vegetation(e.g., modification of natural channel morphology and removal of native vegetation)of the mainstem and tributaries to protect all U. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration,spawning, incubation and rearing,and their associated habitats. Comment Letter 4 3 SMR-SCS-7.1 DeveIop and implement plan to vegetate levees with native, naturally occurring vegetation, wherever feasible, and eliminate or minimize the use of herbicides to control native vegetation adjacent to existing levees to protect all 0. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. SMR-SCS-9.1: Develop and implement watershed-wide plan to identify and determine the type, distribution and density of non-native species; assess their impacts on all U. mykiss life history stages; and eliminate or control non-native species of plants and animals (particularly fish and amphibians);restore riparian and upland areas with native, locally occurring plant species to protect all 0. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. SMR-SCS-9.2: Develop and implement on-going monitoring program to track the status and impacts of non-native species of plants and animals on all 0. mykiss life history stages,particularly rearing juveniles. SMR-SCS-9.3: Develop and implement public education program (including signage at public access points)to inform the general public of the adverse effects of introducing non-native species into natural ecosystems. SMR-SCS-10.1: Review development and management plans for recreational areas and 4-E national forest lands and modify to provide specific provisions to protect all O. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitats.Provide specific provisions for the restoration and protection of creeks, rivers,estuaries,wetlands and riparian/floodplain areas, including an effective setback for all development from estuarine and riparian habitats. Regulate the use of day-use areas and other recreational facilities to minimize impacts to aquatic and wetland habitats to protect all 0. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. SMR-SCS-10.2: Develop and implement public education program(including signage at public access points)to promote public understanding of watershed processes (including the natural fire-cycle)and 0. mykiss ecology to protect all n. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. SMR-SCS-11.2 Develop and implement plan to manage roadways adjacent to riparianlfloodplain corridors to reduce sedimentation, or other non-point pollution sources, before it enters natural watercourses to protect all steelhead life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. Comment Letter 4 4 SMR-SCS-11.3. Develop and implement plan to retrofit storm drains to filter runoff from roadways to remove sediments and other non-point pollutants before it enters natural watercourses to project all Q. mykiss life history states, including adult and juvenile migration spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. SMR-SCS-13.1 Develop and implement land-use planning policies and development standards that restrict further development in the flood plain/riparian corridor to protect all Q. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration, spawning, and incubation and rearing habitats. 4-E SMR-SCS-14.1 Review California Regional Water Quality Control Boards Regional Plans, and Stormwater Permits,and modify to include specific provisions for the protection of all 0. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. SMR-SCS-14.3 Develop and implement plan to retrofit storm drains in urban areas to control sediment and other non-point pollutants in runoff from impervious services before it enters natural watercourses to protect all 0. mykiss life history stages, including adult and juvenile migration spawning, incubation and rearing habitats. The Draft EIR did not specifically identify the source of the water to support the proposed project, but did indicate that among the "evaluation factors"used to issue necessary permits would be"the probable impact, including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest." Because of the lack of information on the source of water to support the project 4-F (whether through groundwater extraction or surface diversion), it is difficult to assess the impacts of the project on the waters of the United States, including the cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects within the Santa Margarita River watershed. The Draft EIR did not recognize the cumulative effects of runoff and related pollutant discharges from the project site that could affect coastal zone resources such as the estuary at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. While the proposed project is located a considerable distance from the coast, it will generate runoff that will discharge to the Santa Margarita River estuary. Steelhead. (both adults and juveniles)must pass through coastal estuaries in completing their life-cycle. The 4-G Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies estuaries as important refugia and rearing habitat for steelhead, and includes a number of recovery actions intended to restore and protect estuarine habitat, including those cited above (see also SMR-SCS-12.2). Finally,the project footprint encompasses several hundred acres of impermeable surfaces that will alter natural runoff rates within the project site and carry non-point source pollutants to Murrieta Creek and ultimately to the Santa.Margarita River estuary. These features of the project can potentially affect both the water quality in the estuary, as well as the estuary sandbar 4-H breaching pattern that is critical in controlling aquatic habitat conditions within the estuary(see for example, Jacobs et ad_2010 and Bond el al. 2008). The project's potential impacts(including Comment Letter 4 5 cumulative impacts)on the water quality and sandbar breaching pattern on the Santa Margarita River estuary should be considered in the EIR for the project. 4-H We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project and hope that these comments will be useful in the City's review of the proposed project. Should you have a question regarding the information contained in this letter, please contact Mark Capelli at(805) 463-6478. Sincerely. 7 r Anthony P. Spina Chief, Southern California Branch California Coast Area Office Cc: Chris Dellith, U.S. Dish and Wildlife Service Mary Larson,California Department of Fish and Wildlife Mark Delaplaine, California Coastal Commission Administrative Fife: 150308WCR2016CC00246 Comment Letter 4 6 Bond,M. H., S.A.Hayes,C. V. Hanson,and R.B MacFarlane. 2008. Marine survival of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) enhanced by a seasonally closed estuary.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 65:22242-2252. Cardno Entrix.2013. Santa Margarita River Steelhead Habitat Assessment and Enhancement Plan. Prepared for Trout Unlimited. California Department of Fish and Wildife Number P105001300. Dickinson,A. 2009. Steelhead Caught Late March 2009: Santa Margarita River.National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan.National Fisheries. West Coast Region. California Coastal Area Office,Long Beach, California. Jacobs, D. and E. Stein.2011. Classification of California Estuaries Based on Natural Closure Patterns: Templates for Restoration and Management. Coastal California Coastal Water Research Project. Technical Report 6129.a. McInnis,R.R. 2010. Letter from Rodney L. McInnis (Regional Administrator,National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region)to William H. Berry(Resource Management Division Head), Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base,March 12, 2010.Re:Analysis of Oncorhynchus mykiss taken from the Santa Margarita River.National Marine Fisheries. West Coast Region. California Coastal Area Office, Long Beach, California. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan.National Marine Fisheries Service. West Coast Region. California Coastal Office. Long Beach, California. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. South-Central/Southern California Coast Steelhead Recovery Planning Domain: 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation of Southern California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment.National Marine Fisheries Service. West Coast Region. California Coastal Office.Long Beach, California. Warburton M. L., C. C. Swift,and R.N. Fisher. 2000. Status and Distribution of Fishes in the Santa Margarita River Drainage. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Diego State University. San Diego, California. 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 4: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Comment 4-A: The commenter states the proposed project would generate runoff that discharges into Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River. Response 4-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluates the project impacts on hydrology, including Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River. Response 4-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR evaluates the project impacts on hydrology,including Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River. Comment 4-B: The commenter states the Santa Margarita River supports a remnant population of southern California steelhead and is designated as a Core 1 population in the species' Recovery Plan(NMFS 2012). The commenter states the Santa Margarita River contributes significantly to the ecological diversity of the Southern California Steelhead Recovery Planning Area and plays an important role for the long term viability of the Southern California Steelhead Distinct Population Segment(DPS). Response 4-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 4-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 4-C: The commenter states the Draft EIR did not acknowledge the federally listed endangered southern California steelhead, or make reference to the NMFS Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan(2012)or the recently completed 5-Year Status Review for this species (NMFS 2016). The comment states that while the project site does not impinge directly upon known aquatic habitat of steelhead, it may impact the species and/or its habitat through modification of run-off patterns and discharge of pollutants. Response 4-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 4-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 4-D: The commenter states the effects of the proposed project on runoff and waste discharges to the lower reaches of the Santa Margarita River(including the estuary) should be recognized in the analysis, and appropriate mitigation measures should be included in permits issued for the project(e.g., Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401). Response 4-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR evaluates the project impacts on hydrology, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to surface water quality. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 4-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR evaluates the project impacts on hydrology and water quality, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to surface water quality. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Altair Specific Plan 3-89 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 4-E: The commenter identifies recovery actions from the Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan that address impacts from urban development within the Santa Margarita River watershed. Response 4-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 4-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 4-F: The commenter states that it is difficult to assess the impacts of the project on waters of the United States without information on the source of water to support the project. Response 4-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As documented in Section 3.14, Utilities and Water Supply Assessment, of the Draft EIR,potable water will be supplied to the proposed project by the Rancho California Water District. Response 44(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As documented in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR,potable water will be supplied to the proposed project by the Rancho California Water District. Comment 4-G: The commenter states the Draft EIR did not recognize cumulative effects of runoff and related pollutant discharges from the project site that could affect coastal zone resources such as the estuary at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. Response 4-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Surface water quality impacts are documented in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR. The estuary at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River is over 25 miles from the project site, is affected by stormwater runoff from a large watershed area in San Diego and Riverside Counties and as a result, specific project impacts cannot be determined. Response 4-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Surface water quality impacts are documented in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR. The estuary at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River is over 25 miles from the project site, is affected by stormwater runoff from a large watershed area in San Diego and Riverside Counties., and as a result, specific project impacts cannot be determined. Comment 4-H: The commenter states that the project's potential impacts (including cumulative impacts)on the water quality and sandbar breaching pattern on the Santa Margarita River estuary should be considered in the EIR since there are several hundred acres of impermeable surfaces that will alter run off rates and carry non-point source pollutants to Murrieta Creek, and ultimately to the estuary. Response 4-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): NMFS' participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Impacts to Murrieta Creek associated with runoff and non-point source pollutants are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.8. Implementation of the Altair Specific Plan 3-90 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments proposed project would include compliance with all required laws,permits, and plans,including the MS4 Permit,WQMP, and Construction General Permit requirements, all of which have been designed to reduce impacts associated with water quality, erosion, flooding, and drainage. As described,the proposed project would result in an overall increase in impervious surfaces. However, all stormwater would be filtered and infiltrated to protect surface water quality and groundwater quality to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed drainage system would mimic the existing water quality and hydrology conditions of the project area. Runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages,using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscape areas between sidewalk and curb,where feasible. Bioretention basins are being proposed throughout the site to treat runoff from the proposed impervious areas (streets and sidewalks) (Chang Consultants 2015). Storm runoff from mass graded pads that would not enter a bioretention basin would be treated by a desiltation basin on the pad. Therefore,the project would not result in substantial increases in erosion and siltation on or offsite that may have a potential effect on sandbar breaching patterns downstream. A Preliminary WQMP has been prepared that identifies the Best Management Practices(BMPs) for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design(Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of stormwater runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed treatment train would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. As a result,runoff from the project area would be filtered prior to discharge as part of project design and would not result in adverse water quality impacts. As described in Draft EIR Section 4.3,Description of Cumulative Impacts,the project would include compliance with all required laws,permits, and plans,including the MS4 Permit,WQMP, and Construction General Permit requirements, all of which have been designed to reduce impacts associated with water quality, erosion, flooding, and drainage. Therefore,the project's contribution to impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than cumulatively considerable. Response 4-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Please also see Response 4-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use). Altair Specific Plan 3-91 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 5 egional onservation uthority {Nr^il cf fi Hlyrrl 'J. rmlwt Director June 15, 2016 � If.luni,n i1.W..•I By First Class Mail and E-mail [matt.peters@cityoftemecula.org] Matt Peters, Senior Planner City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 I r1111{ 1ri1i 11+1. RE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1 r+ REPORT FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ' `'f '""' Dear Mr. Peters: ��..11.1-I1.1�.+�II F�•41 %IAI I j Thank you for providing notice to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Altair project. The RCA has reviewed the Draft EIR and is very concerned about the F.tll,ri,r',II Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan consistency determination findings contained therein. However, we are 5-A 1),1%Id',I.,,, ("AA, currently working with City staff and legal counsel to address those concerns in the Final EIR. Therefore, we do not have further comments at this time. 15+1.11 u111, Please keep us informed of all future City actions related to this project. Sincerel , �,•„I, �.�Iiir ((�� �arles Landryi• , „ �,, Executive Director Iiii,k i hw;I:.i' cc: Eugene Montanez, Chairperson, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority John F. Tavaglione, Riverside County Supervisor, 2nd District Maryann Edwards, Council Member, City of Temecula yI, i of Vid- Peter M. Thorson, Temecula City Attorney "' Luke Watson, Community Development Director, Temecula I .1'106%Ctilll� fi �, riu, ih ' 1 I 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 5: Resource Conservation Authority (RCA) Comment 5-A: The commenter expresses concern over the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan consistency determination findings but is working with City staff and legal counsel to address those concerns in the Final EIR. Therefore,RCA does not have further comments at this time. Response 5-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The RCA's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. MSHCP consistency is documented throughout Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8. Response 5-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The RCA's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. MSHCP consistency is documented throughout Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Altair Specific Plan 3-93 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 6 Matt Peters From: Matt Peters Sent: Friday,June 17, 2016 9:58 AM To: 'Jack Gorzeman (JGorzeman@esassoc.com)' Subject: SCAG Informal Comment Hi Jack, received an informal comment via phone message from Anita Au from SCAG. She said we used old number from the 2012 RTP and should update using the April 2016 numbers when we prep the Final EIR. They said 6-A they were not going to send a formal written comment. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx Matt Peters Senior Planner City of Temecula (951)694-6408 matt.peters(cDcityoftemecu la.org 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. 1 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 6: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Comment 6-A: The commenter states that the Draft EIR references an outdated Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)and that the EIR should use the most current(April 2O16)numbers. Response 6-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. SCAG's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Draft EIR Sections 3.11,Population and Housing, and 3.9,Land Use and Planning,have been updated to reflect this information in Chapter 2,Errata, of this Final EIR. Using the 2016 RTP still results in impacts that are within the scope of the impact conclusions as stated in the Draft EIR. Response 6-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. SCAG's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Draft EIR Sections 3.11 and 3.9 have been updated to reflect this information in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Using the 2016 RTP still results in impacts that are within the scope of the impact conclusions as stated in the Draft EIR. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Altair Specific Plan 3-95 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 7 rN� '( THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT A �w OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of the General Manager June 20, 2016 Via Regular Mail Matt Peters Project Planner 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Peters: Review of the Altair Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Specific Plan in the City of Temecula,California. The project proposes to construct approximately 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, neighborhood commercial centers,clubhouse,parks,trails,and associated utility and roadway infrastructure on 270 acres. Additionally,the project will construct an extension of Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road(the Western Bypass), and require the approval of a Specific Plan,General Plan Amendment,Tentative Tract Maps, and permits. The project is generally bounded by Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga Drive to the north,the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west, Pujol Street to the east, and undeveloped land to the south. The City of Temecula is acting as the CEQA Lead Agency.This letter contains Metropolitan's comments to the proposed project as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. Metropolitan is a public agency and regional water wholesaler. It is comprised of 26 member 7-A public agencies serving approximately 19 million people in portions of six counties in Southern California, including Riverside County. Metropolitan's mission is to provide its 5,200 square mile service area with adequate and reliable supplies of high-quality water to meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way. Metropolitan owns and operates the 89-inch-inside-diameter San Diego Pipeline No. 4 and the 97-inch-inside-diameter San Diego Pipeline No. 5 within the proposed project area. The pipelines are side by side and extend through the proposed project boundaries in an east-west direction. Specifically,the pipelines are located at the southern end of the proposed project, bisecting Pujol Street,near Temecula Parkway. Based on a review of the proposed project boundaries,the project has potential to impact Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline Nos.4 and 5. The pipelines divide the proposed project's 7-B 700 N.Alameda Street,Los Angeles,California 90012•Mailing Address:Box 54153,Los Angeles,California 90054-0153•Telephone(213)217-6000 Comment Letter 7 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Matt Peters Page 2 June 20,2016 Residential Development G from the 55 acre Civic/Community space. The construction of the Western Bypass and project utilities will require construction over both pipelines within Metropolitan fee property. Metropolitan must be allowed to maintain its rights-of-way and requires unobstructed access to its facilities in order to maintain and repair its system. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way,we require that any design plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines or facilities be submitted for our review and written approval. Metropolitan will not approve construction facilities that may 7-B impact Metropolitan pipelines,water quality,or operations. Metropolitan will not permit procedures that could subject the pipe to excessive vehicle,impact or vibratory loads. Any future design plans associated with this project should be submitted to the attention of Metropolitan's Substructures Team. Approval of the project should be contingent on Metropolitan's approval of design plans for portions of the proposed project that could impact its facilities. The construction of the Altair Specific Plan Project may require the use of Metropolitan-owned property for temporary or permanent easements. Easement requests are vetted by staff, subject to applicable fees or expenses, and subject to Metropolitan Board approval. Additionally, Metropolitan requests to be included as a Responsible Agency under CEQA in the project Draft Environmental Impact Report in order to facilitate future project-related easement approvals and requires that any and all mitigation measures proposed in the Altair Specific Plan EIR not be 7-C implemented on Metropolitan-owned property. Detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way may be obtained by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at(213) 217-6564. To assist the applicant in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements,we have enclosed a copy of the"Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities,Fee Properties, and/or Easement of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future documentation and plans for this project. For further assistance,please contact Ms.Michelle Morrison at(213) 217-7906. ery truly yours, c- Deirdre West �l Manager,Environmental Planning Team MM/mm Job No.20160512EXT Enclosures: Planning Guidelines and Map of Metropolitan Facilities in Project Vicinity Comment Letter 7 �W U �0 O N N OTC f. W m gg3F O 3 ' 0 00 1� 7 d i C a 2 C y •�c a Mo U it 1 N U C LL LL CO ;, 3@ ar�o�ns�iqa 'ywi7+ri� wr-w7 �1 7G�soM+•�4 •3 I �1 .11q �twJ rO7RaliwM+ ►'+.wy,f�»h"e�N'a ar Comment Letter 7 Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1. Introduction ' a. The following general guidelines should be followed for the design of proposed facilities and developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties, and/or easements. b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement, landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or easements, prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps: a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and identified as Metropolitan' s on all applicable plans. b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the official recording data on all applicable parcel and tract maps. C. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied to the parcel or tract boundaries. d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be referenced on the parcel and tract maps. Comment Letter 7 2 - 3. Maintenance of Access Along Metropolitan's Rights-of-Way a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide access to its aboveground and belowgrou.nd facilities. b. We require that 16-foot-wide commercial-type driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. Openings are required in any median island. Access ramps, if necessary, must be at least 16-feet-wide. Grades of ramps are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a 40-foot-long level area on the driveway approach to access ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's fee properties, we may require fences and gates. C. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities. Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance of the pipelines and other. facilities on a routine basis. We require a 20-foot-wide clear zone around all above-ground facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed 2 percent. We must also have access along the easements with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on Figure 1. d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent to Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not encroach into the fee property or easement or impose additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or easement must be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee property or easement area. Comment Letter 7 3 - e. Metropolitan' s pipelines and other facilities, e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc. within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans , for the easement area. 4. Easements on Metropolitan's Property a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights- of-way by governmental agencies for public street and utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of the property is accepted into the agency's public street system and fair market value is paid for such use of the right-of-way. b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302, concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain, sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county will accept the easement' for the specific purposes into its public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had not been made. There will be a charge for the easement. Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit. 5. Landscaping Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee properties and/or easements are as follows: a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's fee property or easement. b. All landscape plans shall show the location and size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other facilities therein. Comment Letter 7 4 - C. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 feet of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future pipelines and facilities. d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow- rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow-rooted trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from the centerline -of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than 20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See Figure 3) . e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein. Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also, any walks or drainage facilities across its access route must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards. f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge for any entry permit or easements required. 6. Fencing Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee properties and facilities be constructed- of universal chain link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan. (Please see Figure 5 for details) . 7. Utilities in Metropolitan's Fee Properties and/or Easements or Adjacent to Its Pipeline in Public Streets Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and street rights-of-way is as follows: Comment Letter 7 5 - a. Permanent structures, including catch basins, manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc. , shall not be located within its fee properties and/or easements. b. We request that permanent utility structures within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. C. The installation of utilities over or under Metropolitan' s pipeline (s) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the theoretical trench prism- for uncovering its pipeline and must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-way lines as practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be at least two feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that detail drawings of .the shoring for the jacking or tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approval. Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or tunnel must be filled with grout. Comment Letter 7 - 6 - g. Overhead electrical and telephone line requirements: 1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the California State Public Utilities Commission, General Order 95, for Overhead :Electrical Line Construction or at a greater clearance .if required by Metropolitan. Under no circumstances ,shall clearance be less than 35 feet. 2) A marker must be attached to the power pole showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or other work being done in the area. 3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be shown on the drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line under the most adverse conditions including consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change, and support type. We require that overhead lines be located at least 30 feet laterally away from all above-ground structures on the pipelines. 4) When underground electrical conduits, 120 volts or greater, are installed within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way. h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must conform to the California Department of Health_ Services Criteria for the Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates to installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure waterlines. T.he construction of sewerlines should also conform to these standards in street rights-of- way. i. Cross sections shall be provided for all pipeline crossings showing Metropolitan 's fee property and/or easement limits and the location of our pipeline(s) . The exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their elevations shall be marked on as-built drawings for our information. Comment Letter 7 7 - j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide a representative to assists others in locating and identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is requested. k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the zone shown on Figure 4. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements: 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" 2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" 5) Telephone, or television conduit: A two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" Comment Letter 7 8 - M. Cathodic Protection requirements: 1) If there is a cathodic protection station for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed work, it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and manner of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans. Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714) 593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic protection stations. 2) If an induced-current cathodic protection system is to be installed on any pipeline crossing Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E. Risner at (714) 593-7474 or (213) 250-5085. He will review the proposed system and determine if any conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic protection systems installed by Metropolitan. 3) Within Metropolitan' s rights-of-way, pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated with an approved protective coating to conform to Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolitan. The application and monitoring of cathodic protection on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal- Regulations, Part 195. 4) If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used: (a) Cathodic protection shall be provided by use of a sacrificial magnesium anode (a sketch showing the cathodic protection details can be provided for the designers information) . (b) The steel carrier pipe shall be protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification. n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be placed in 8-inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698) . Comment Letter 7 9 - o. Control cables connected with the operation of Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the area, the control cables shall be located and measures shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in place. p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service Alert (USA) . The contractor (excavator) shall contact USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities as a result of the construction. 8. Paramount Right Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties and/or easements for the purpose for which they were acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. 9. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons- truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include materials, construction, engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Comment Letter 7 - 10 - 10. Drainage a. Residential or commercial development typically increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation, obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee properties and/or easements. b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan will insist that plans for development provide that it be carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be maintained by others, e.g. , city, county, homeowners association, etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan in writing. 11. Construction Coordination During construction•, Metropolitan's field representative will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications for notification of Mr. of Metropolitan's Operations Services Branch, telephone 213) 250- , at least two working days prior to any work in the vicinity of our facilities. 12. Pipeline Loading Restrictions a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in structural strength, and some are not adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines are typically adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading provided that the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary cover over the pipeline during construction is between three and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which Comment Letter 7 imposes loads no greater than AASHTO H-10. If the cover is between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract-type tractor. If the cover is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used. Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications of such equipment for our review and approval at least one week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines 1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading restrictions on all of Metropolitan' s pipelines and conduits. b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance. 13. Blasting a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in the vicinity of Metropolitan' s facilities, a two-part preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to Metropolitan as follows: b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a complete summary of .proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. C. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and controls of .noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration. 14. CEQA Requirements a. When Environmental Documents Have Not Been Prepared 1) Regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the agency or consultants preparing any environmental documentation. We are required to review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the 'Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for your project before committing Metropolitan to approve your request. Comment Letter 7 12 - 2) In order to ensure compliance with the regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to ensure compliance with the Act have been established: a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of any determination that a Categorical Exemption applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during the preparation of the Negative Declaration or EIR. c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or draft EIR. d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. b. When Environmental Documents Have Been Prepared If environmental documents have been prepared for your project, please furnish us a copy for our review and files in a timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to review and comment. The following steps must also be accomplished: - 1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. 2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. 15. Metropolitan' s Plan-Review Cost a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities and developments and the preparation of a letter response Comment Letter 7 13 - giving Metropolitan ' s comments , requirements and/or approval that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If an engineering review and letter response requires more than 8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the proposed facility or development is compatible with its facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan ' s manhole (s) or other facilities will be required, then all of Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior rights. b. A deposit of funds will be required from the developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The amount of the required deposit will be determined after a cursory review of the plans for the proposed development. C. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan review, inspection, materials, construction, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices . If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit. 16. Caution We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and responses are based upon information available to Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. Comment Letter 7 - 14 - 17 . Additional Information Should you require additional information, please contact: Civil Engineering- Substructures Section Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 (213) 217-6000 JEH/MRW/lk Rev. January 22; 1989 Encl. Comment Letter 7 v Z — O LJ 1 = r: Z = o O 4^ w z o za Q b " C I Z `�t Q _ I •-J N I ljl S ~ Cf> 0 [� l �'t w 4 o Na' O x I n o o I w 0 3 0 t t� CD I FY it i L W J � = W W 2 p C[ i wcr li C F- T w � z C f CC I O Z O LLUJ I O ! W I = W = } U U D J Z W Z = Li c { Z U- ~ z z I o �...� o�crcw�c«-►oa*c�z..w.....r�oaa Comment Letter 7 0 e I I o a NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES PERM/TIED M.WD. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY NO ROOF OVERHANG PERMITTED -r BUILDING FOOTING MUST NOT ADJACENT ENCROACH INTO TO RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY FINISHED SURFACE EI ::: I I Q I REOUIRED I , I DEP TH OF FOOTING j I 45' i TYPICAL I i I I i M W.D. PIPELINE I i THE A(-TiR0R0Lf7AN WATER DI5TR/C7 ar aam.cr+ uc,+o..0 REOUIREMENTS FOR NOTE: M.W.D. PIPELINE SIZE,DEPTH,LOCATION BUILDINGS AND FOOTINGS AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF ADJACENT TO M.W D. WAY VARIES. RIGHT OF WAY I FIGURE 2 Comment Letter 7 I y w tia J o '• I WQ) If W �Q z °o I 3 y I W I 0 oy o I tQ Ic W zo I: CIZ I. < I' Comment Letter 7 ti V W (`a m ZI cl: I I I I � I C� o o- 1 o= I / cW�ti l / OZp�h I pvW� Q c Z~ i \ Q ►LU.°�v \\ Oz \ o wcz i I 1I e ` \ c � z ( � O L I ;N/7 Al gV-FdOdd I. ;e o �..•� o�c*cne...►oar.."'w.w�rt Reza Comment Letter 7 ,^ z S 444 S�h i d S 2• �£ ,,,JJJ uuu 2 0 2Sq�<{a yo°$e• �± � 8 a' c i i�.o, a � oE4 v� S � .�. &ha�2 Cc ce E Q$#ye� in O y! � � x �\ �raa`3^€ a��`r��:8i •.Ly���ta� �^ ���, � �: Ail; $2 �Lt � 'oa�b�2 �8sc 3 h o.q3 '°S tl o ace O o� �q i� c��,�` �•�¢.�J. V `` Vte°•vt' WE 'li �? ¢{.�. �� ��°, ,c S s klu �w •l Y�u � �� : �� b` � $��` �FEF�o�o c`S-ia�: ie4 'a: •-1 v tic •F ° �,� J R i is<av�.a��w.°.i>i F;u 4k V'S o � w� � 11' I I .ar• g F�tr&•wi�� ;'P' �fi tg no q q , �) o; �yyh Q O C t` �$p ±: a •h� W o i= 'a it w E is y L J. •, W a••4F¢ 2 r I I _ _- ti` to a:fy ros u .5 b w+ W agti a g E h h 4 Q m FIo L y} € P uj t UlU l! _- � �Y i�� •`�.'W�.a�va.f� ���o` • `a' law,j a Xc e 0 °al.a .e.a..lo.oaa i�•alal[Y)f•I T+OrO r 1 Comment Letter 7 a o A -s B M.W.D. Pipeline {t ! 4"x 6"premolded �— expansion joint - �_... . . -� filler .B — -- c :. 3 D min. Apertures as directed by C the Engineer,total volume •'° not to exceed 2 the volume Q . of the supporting wo// 4 ' . Concrete support wall to 4 be p/oced against undis- :p v turbed ground ———————— SECTION "A-A" CROSS SECTION i L Supporting wall shall have a firm bearing on the subgrode and againl the side of the excavotion. , 2. Premolded expansion joinl filler per ASTM D-/751-73 ?• to be used in support for steel pipe only. 3. If trench width is 4 feet or greater,measured along cenler/ine of M.W.D. pipe,concrete support must be constructed. 4. If trench width is less than 4 feel,clean sond bock- a..:.• .`'.P'. fill,compacted to 90 0/06 density in accordance with a ° the provisions of ASTM Standard D-1557-70 may be-used in lieu of the concrete support wall. SECTION "B—B" i T1fE FfE7R0POUTAH WATER DISTRICT c 3CIr.0- ucror TYPICAL SUPPORT FOR M.WD. PIPELINE MACf.0.. -C-9547 , .w DICTCRICw• SY CL *PRINT IC23 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 7: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Comment 7-A: The commenter describes that Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan)owns and operates the 89-inch San Diego Pipeline No.4 and the 97-inch San Diego Pipeline No. 5 within the proposed project area that run parallel and extend in an east-west direction at the southern portion of the project,bisecting Pujol Street near Temecula Parkway. Response 7-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The participation of Metropolitan in the public review of this document is appreciated. The project applicant will coordinate with Metropolitan for project components within Metropolitan's fee property. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 7-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The participation of Metropolitan in the public review of this document is appreciated. The project applicant will coordinate with Metropolitan for project components within Metropolitan's fee property. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information Comment 7-B: The commenter states that construction of the Western Bypass and project utilities will require construction over both pipelines 4 and 5 within Metropolitan fee property. The commenter states that Metropolitan must be allowed to maintain its rights-of-way and requires unobstructed access to its facilities in order to maintain and repair its system and all design plans must be submitted to Metropolitan's Substructures Team for review. Further,the commenter states that approval of the project should be contingent on Metropolitan's approval of design plans for portions of the project that may impact its facilities. Response 7-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The project proponents will coordinate with Metropolitan to obtain any necessary rights-of-way within Metropolitan's jurisdiction and will submit all design plans to Metropolitan's Substructures Team for review. Response 7-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The project proponents will coordinate with Metropolitan to obtain any necessary rights-of-way within Metropolitan's jurisdiction and will submit all design plans to Metropolitan's Substructures Team for review. Altair Specific Plan 3-119 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 7-C: The commenter states that construction of the project may require the use of Metropolitan-owned property for temporary or permanent easements,which are subject to applicable fees or expenses, and subject to Metropolitan Board approval. Additionally, Metropolitan requests to be included as a Responsible Agency under CEQA in the project Draft EIR in order to facilitate future project-related easement approvals and requires that any and all mitigation measures proposed in the Altair Specific Plan EIR not be implemented on Metropolitan-owned property. The commenter also provides information on where plans of their rights-of-way can be obtained and where guidelines for submitting plans to them for review can be found. Response 7-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. The project applicant will coordinate with Metropolitan to obtain any necessary easements or rights-of-way for the project and pay any applicable fees,as may be necessary.). Response 7-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. The project applicant will coordinate with Metropolitan to obtain any necessary easements or rights-of-way for the project and pay any applicable fees, as may be necessary.. Altair Specific Plan 3-120 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 8 Matt Peters From: Navarre, Elena <navarree@emwd.org> Sent: Thursday,June 16,2016 4:16 PM To: Matt Peters Cc: El-Hage, Maroun; Raines, Brian Subject: Altair Specific Plan Notice of Availability of DEIR Attachments: Notice of Availability of DEIR Dated 4.26.16.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Matt, EMWD is in receipt of the attached Public Notice: "Notice of Availability of DEIR for Altair SP". The response due date is tomorrow,6.17;however, EMWD would like to request an extension of time to prepare the response. Is it possible to 8-A email the response to you no later than Friday, 6.24.16? Thank you for your consideration of our request. With Appreciation, Elena M. Navarre Eastern Municipal Water District P.O.Box 8300 2270 Trumble Road Perris,CA 92572-8300 Office:(951)928-3777 ext.4806 E-mail:navarreePemwd.org IMPORTANT NOTE: EMWD is now in Stage 3c drought response. Outdoor water budgets are now restored,however all water used in excess of your total water budget will be charged at the highest, "Wasteful"water use rate. Please continue to use water wisely and follow EMWD's water use efficiency requirements. For more information,please visit www.emwd.org/drought. 1 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 8: Eastern Municipal Water District Comment 8-A: The commenter states that they received the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR and notes that the comment period closes on June 17, 2016. The commenter requests for an extension for comments to June 24,2016. Response 8-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter submitted additional comments on July 14,2016,which have been included in this Final EIR. Please refer to response to Letter 8A below. Response 8-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter submitted additional comments on July 14, 2016,which have been included in this Final EIR. Please refer to responses to Letter 8A below. Altair Specific Plan 3-122 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 8A EASTERN e M W MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT July 14, 2016 Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Notice of Availability(NOA)of Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) Project Name: Altair Specific Plan (formerly"Village West") Dear Mr. Peters: Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) thanks you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the scoping and content to be included in the DEIR for the Altair Specific Plan (SP). It is our understanding the proposed project will require approval of a SP, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and subsequent permits such as grading, infrastructure improvement permitting for on-site and off-site utilities, and resource agency permitting to allow development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood-serving commercial, civic/institutional uses, parks and open space within a 270-acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town, generally bound by the undeveloped foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west, Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga Drive to the north, Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek to the east, and vacant land south of the future extension of Temecula Parkway. In addition, the proposed project would construct the Western bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road. The project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau subunits of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Southwest Area Plan. EMWD offers the following comments: ■ District staff is reviewing the Sewer Collection and Regional Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan update for completion and approval. This project is identified in the overall master-plan. I 8A-A ■ District staff approved the Pala Lift Station Condition & Capacity Assessment and Implementation Plan in July 2015. Review of the report by staff has identified that capacity at 8A-B build-out will be available to serve this project via the Pujol Lift Station assessment included within. Please see attached analysis within the attached approved Plan of Service. o The District has approved an attached Facilities Master Plan of Service for the entire Specific T 8A-C Plan. 1 2270 Trumble Road • P.O.Box 8300 • Perris,CA 92572-8300 T 951.928.3777 0 F 951.928.6177 emwd.org Comment Letter 8A Mr. Matt Peters July 14, 2016 Page 2 ■ The project has been coordinating and will be required to coordinate the existing 18" and 20" sewer force mains along Levant Trail easement with the project boundary to ensure District staff 8A-D has access to these facilities. Additionally, the District has several sewer facilities that will be upsized or connected to by this Specific Plan. • The District has a proposed Capital Improvement Project to construct a 24" sewer force main to serve the Pala Lift Station. The alignment selection is being finalized and coordinated with the 8A-E developer to ensure we have the adequate alignment adjacent and/or through the development. • All existing or proposed EMWD facilities within the project boundaries shall be located and/or designed in accordance with EMWD standards and design guidelines. Existing facilities under proposed medians shall be relocated by the developer to conform to District standards. 8A-F Easements shall be dedicated to standard District widths. It is requested that as the details of the specific plan are developed (medians within existing streets, easements through landscape portions and utility plans) that the District continue to be involved to minimize impacts on existing District facilities and streamline the review process as the individual projects are brought forward for consideration. Again, EMWD appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact me (951) 928-3777, extension 4467 or by email at RainesB@emwd.orp,. Sincerely, Brian A. Raines, P.E. Civil Engineer II New Business Department Eastern Municipal Water District cc: Maroun El-Hage, M.S., P.E. Robert Honer—Ambient Communities BAR:emn Attachment: Approved Master Plan of Service Comment Letter 8A RECEIVED MAY - 2 2016 City of Temecula EMWD - WAIL ROOM Community Development Planning Division Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report w �ww PROJECT: Altair Specific Plan(formerly"Village West") State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029 APPLICANT: Ambient Communities LOCATION: South and west of the intersection of Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga; west of Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek; north of Santa Margarita River within the City of Temecula, California DESCRIPTION: The proposed project will require the approval of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and subsequent permits such as grading, infrastructure improvement permitting for on-site and off-site utilities, and resource agency permitting to allow for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood-serving commercial, civictinstitutional uses, elementary school, parks, and open space within a 270-acre area in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, west of Old Town. In addition, the proposed project would construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road, including widening Vincent Moraga Road. ! The project site is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau Subunits of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Southwest Area Plan. The City of Temecula has completed a Draft EIR for the project described above. This notice is made pursuant to Section 15087 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR is available for public review on the City of Temecula's web site at cityofternecula.org; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula; and at the City of Temecula Community Development Department located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, Monday through Friday from 8:00 �I a.m. to 5:00 p.m. As required by Section 15105 of CEQA, the public review and comment period for this Draft EIR is * May 2, 2016 to June 17, 2016, Written comments and responses to this notice should be submitted no later than June 17. 2016 and be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street,Temecula, CA 92590. The public Notice of Availability of this Draft EIR is provided through: ®The Local Newspaper ®Posting the Site ®Notice to Adjacent Property Owners If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact the Project PlaDMQ matt Peters, t (951)694-6400 or matt.peters@cityoftemecula.org. Zc ZO/6 L son (Date) Director of Community Development 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 8A: Eastern Municipal Water District Comment 8A-A: The commenter states that the project is included in the Sewer Collection and Regional Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan,which is being updated. Response 8A-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Response 8A-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information Comment 8A-B: The commenter states that EMWD staff approved the Pala Lift Station Condition&Capacity Assessment and Implementation Plan in July 2015,which identified that capacity at build-out will be available to serve this project via the Pujol Lift Station assessment. Response 8A-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Response 8A-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Comment 8A-C: The commenter states that EMWD has approved a Facilities Master Plan of Service for the entire Altair Specific Plan area. Response 8A-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Response 8A-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Comment 8A-D: The commenter states that the applicant has been coordination EMWD staff regarding the 18"and 20"sewer force mains along the Levant Trail easement. Altair Specific Plan 3-126 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 8A-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Response 8A-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Comment 8A-E: The commenter states that EMWD has a proposed 24" sewer force main to the Pala lift station. Response 8A-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Response 8A-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Comment 8A-F: The commenter states that all proposed sewer improvements will be designed in accordance with EMWD standards and guidelines. Response 8A-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Response 8A-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council. Altair Specific Plan 3-127 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 9 May 17,2016 r- Ebal Rancho >_. Luke Watson water Director of Community Development City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Board of Directors William E.Plummer SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [SCH NO. President 20141110291 FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN OF Ben R.Drake TEMECULA Senior Vice President Stephen J.Corona Dear Mr.Watson: Lisa D.Herman John E.Hoagland Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District) appreciates the opportunity Danny J.Martin to provide comments for the Public Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Bill J.Wilson Report [SCH No. 2014111029] for the Altair Specific Plan of Temecula. Officers RCWD's comments are as follows: Jeffrey D.Armstrong General Manager SECTION 2.3.4: Utilities Richard R.Aragon,CPFO Director of Finance/Treasurer Page 2-21: The text in the third paragraph describing the Water System Utilities Jason A.Martin should be edited, as follows: Director of Administration Rich Ottolini,R.E.H.S.,MSL "The Altair Specific Plan is located within the service area of the Rancho California Interim Director of Operations &Maintenance Water District(RCWD).The project is located within the District's Santa Rosa Rancho Andrew L.Webster,P.E. division and more specifically the 1305 Pressure Zone. The District's main source of ChiefEngincer domestic water is from the Metropolitan Water District's two exiting existing San Kelli E.Garcia Diego Aqueduct pipelines Number 4 and 5.These pipelines traverse the southern end of District Secretary the project site between the South Parcel and Village G. The southerly end, the Altair James B.Gilpin Specific Plan will make two connections to the existing 30-inch transmission main Best Best&Krieger LLP within the proposed ROW of "C" Street and "B" Street South. This portion of the General Counsel proposed system would provide domestic and fire service to Village G and the South 9-A Parcel. The central portion of the project would connect to the existing 21ineh 24-inch transmission main in the Pujol Street ROW at two locations.The southerly location will extend a 12-inch main northwesterly in the proposed Western Bypass to the park area (Open Space Lot 50 on the tentative tract map)between Village F and Village E.At this location the 12-inch main will traverse the project northerly within the Altair Vista public access and utility easement. The second connection would be with the existing 21-ineh 24-inch main in Pujol Street at First Street. This 12-inch connection would be brought onsite within the Levant Trail public ROW to connect to the proposed 12-inch water main in the Altair Vista public access and utility easement. To complete the looped domestic and fire service system Villages A and B would provide the northerly connection to the existing 12-inch main in Ridge Park Drive. This connection would extend a 12-inch main line southerly within the Western Bypass to the intersection with Altair Vista before providing a primary connection for the central portion of the project. Figure 2-7 shows the conceptual design of the main water lines for the project." Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road-Post Office Box 9017-Temecula,California 92589-9017-(951)296-6900-FAX(951)296-6860-www.ranchowater.com Comment Letter 9 Letter to Luke Watson/City of Temecula May 17,2016 Page 2 Page 2-21: The text in the fourth paragraph describing the Offsite Water Improvements should be edited, as follows: "offsite water improvements would be limited to two 12-inch main line connections to the existing 21- inch domestic transmission line within the existing Pujol Street ROW; one at the southern end of the Western Bypass and`B"Street North and the other at Pujol Street and First Street, in the central portion of the project adjacent to Village C.A third offsite connection would occur within the existing Ridge Park 9-B Drive ROW where the proposed Western Bypass intersects with Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga. This would also be a 12-inch connection to the existing 12-inch domestic water line at that location. Onsite water systems serving the various villages would be constructed by subsequent merchant builders and would be may become private systems." Page 2-23: The text in the first and second paragraphs describing the Recycled Water Utilities should be edited, as follows: "Recycled water is provided by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) via their- SafAa Res Treatment nt. The District maintains an existing 20 ixeh 24-inch reclaimed water line in Vincent Moraga at Felix Valdez that is part of the District's 1381 Pressure Zone. The same system also extends southerly in Pujol Street to First Street. At the southerly end of the project, the City's approved Western Bypass bridge plans propose to bring two 20-inch recycled water lines westerly across Murrieta Creek from the existing 24-ineh 20-inch recycled main line in Old Town Front Street. This westerly extension within the proposed bridge from Old Town Front Street to the intersection of the Western Bypass and`B" Street North would provide a secondary connection point to RCWD's recycled water system and meet the project's irrigation demands. The onsite recycled water system would connect through the project via a proposed 8-inch line in the Western Bypass from Vincent Moraga to the north and "B" Street from the south.The central portion of the Altair Specific Plan would be served by an 8-inch line connected offsite 9-C to the existing 20-inch recycled line in Pujol Street within the existing Main Street ROW. The South Parcel and Village G to the south would be served by a 10-inch line within the proposed`B"Street South ROW. At the northerly end of the project, recycled water would be provided by an offsite connection to the existing 20 ineh 24-inch recycled main eA the inteYseetieft a in Vincent Moraga a" ,at the intersection with Felix Valdez. This northerly connection proposes an 8-inch line to be extended southerly to the project site within the proposed Western Bypass. In the central portion of the site, adjacent to Village C, an offsite 10-inch recycled line would be extended to the site within the Main Street ROW. At the southerly end, the project would extend two proposed 12-inch pipelines as part of the City-approved Western Bypass bridge project on to the site to serve the southerly portion of the project and provide temporary irrigation water for the manufactured slopes adjacent to the Western Bypass and connect to the northerly extension to provide service throughout the project.Figure 2-8 shows the conceptual design of the reclaimed water lines for the project." Page 2-23: The text in the third paragraph describing the Sanitary Sewer Utilities should be edited, as follows: "The project is within the boundaries of Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. Project generated wastewater flows would be transported via a proposed network of onsite and offsite gravity pipes and interconnections with the District's existing offsite Pujol Street lift station. 9-� The existing Pujol Lift Station is tributary to the nearby Santa Rem Watff Reelamatien Plant Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility that is operated by RGWD EMWD. The estimated average- flow and peak-flow wastewater generated by the project is 0.35 million gallons per day (mgd) and 1.09 mgd,respectively.The District is currently upgrading the Pujol Lift Station as part of the upgrading of the 16VK:1m001\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road,Post Office Box 9017•Temecula,California 92589-9017•(951)296-6900•FAX(951)296-6860 www.ranchowater.com Comment Letter 9 Letter to Luke Watson/City of Temecula May 17,2016 Page 3 sanitary sewer system in the Old Town area to the west that is also tributary to the Pujol Lift Station. These upgrades are designed to accommodate the build out of the project and will include a District- installed 24-inch force main to add additional capacity to the existing force main system connected to the Pujol Lift Station.The onsite sanitary sewer system is comprised of typically 8-inch and 10-inch gravity pipes. Lots 1 and 2 of Village A would connect to the existing 8-inch pipe in Ridge Park Drive. The 9-p remaining portion of Village A, including all of Village B and the northerly portion of Village C, is tributary to Sixth Street.The remaining portion of Village C,including Villages D through F,are tributary to First Street." SECTION 3.14.1: Utilities and Water Supply Assessment—Environmental Section Page 3.14-1: The text in the second and third paragraphs describing the Water Service — Water Supplier should be edited, as follows: "The Rancho California Water District(RCWD) currently provides water for urban and agricultural uses in the City of Temecula. The RCWD's service area encompasses approximately 155 square miles and includes the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta,and unincorporated areas of southwestern Riverside County. The RCWD currently has 40,009 over 42,400 service connections ,-..,.h nnn mlid.. e f Watff mains, -36 stefage ms . I Ffaee Feser-yeir- (Vail Lake), 47 gmandwater- wells, (44 ac-tik1t, we11s),and provides water to approximately 1 M,000 148,105 people(RGWT, 20 %) RCWD operates 31 potable water pump stations and 48 active potable groundwater production wells.The RCWD maintains 39 potable water storage reservoirs with a capacity of 149.7 million gallons (MG). In addition, the RCWD owns I open (surface) reservoir, Vail Lake, which is used to help recharge the groundwater basin, using natural runoff. The potable water system includes 903 miles of water pipelines that convey water from its source to water customers. RCWD operates 6 recycled water pump stations and 5 active recycled groundwater production wells. 9-E RCWD maintains 4 recycled water storage reservoirs with a combined capacity of 7.5 MG. RCWD owns 5 recycled water storage ponds with a total of 1,495 AFY of storage, including the Cole Creek Storage Pond. The recycled water system includes 58.9 miles of water pipelines that convey recycled water for irrigation. The recycled water supply is from tertiary facilities at the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF) and the seasonal storage ponds constructed adjacent to the reclamation facility. Recycled water is also received from the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF)under agreement with EMWD. In Fiscal Year 2014/2015, RCWD water eensists consisted of}seal native groundwater(34 36 percent), imported water (36 58 percent), and recycled water(44- 6 percent). Groundwater supply is derived from wells that tap into the "'uffiet T-emeeal Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin and from Vail Lake excess runoff released periodically for percolation into the groundwater basin. Imported water consists of State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)delivered through the Eastern Municipal Water District(EMWD) and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). Highly treated wastewater (recycled water) is obtained from the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF) and the Temecula Valley Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). Well water and imported water are utilized for residential,commercial,landscape irrigation, and agricultural uses.Recycled water is used primarily to irrigate golf courses and larger landscaped areas (RCWD,2011).Table 3.14-1 summarizes RCWD's current and projected water supplies." Page 3.14-2: The text in the third paragraph describing the Water Service — Water Demand should be edited, as follows: "Historically,groundwater has supplied between 25 to 40 percent of the District's total water supply and 9-F imported water has supplied between 60 to 70 percent. Wastewater is considered a reliable and drought- resistant water source and, if recycled, will reduce the RCWD's reliance on potable water supplies. 16UK:Im00l\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road•Post Office Box 9017•Temecula,California 92589-9017•(951)296-6900-FAX(951)296.6860 www.ranchowater.com Comment Letter 9 Letter to Luke Watson/City of Temecula May 17,2016 Page 4 Recycled water has provided approximately less than five percent of water supplied in the past; however, current and planned improvements will increase the use of recycled water up to an additional 4,500 AFY. Steps being taken inelude implementing a Reeyeled W-Aser- Sigp R tr-efit PFOgfflft ifiSiallifIg it b , 9-F Page 3.14-3: The text in the third paragraph describing the Water Service — Water Demand should be edited,as follows: "Water transfers and exchanges are a water management concept that helps to alleviate water shortages in the region and Santa Margarita Watershed. RCWD is eaffently deNelepifig an agmeMORI f0F 9-G installation€ recently installed two emergency interconnections with EMWD to be operated during periods of system failure. Water is also provided by EMWD and WMWD to RCWD on an annual basis for the wheeling of water to some of EMWD's and WMWD's water customers(RCWD,2015b)." Page 3.14-4: The text in the first paragraph describing Wastewater should be edited, as follows: "A peffien ef the City (pfifnafily the Westside Business Gentm afea west of inter-state 15) iq within RGWD's wastewateF seFYiee afea. Wastewater-Rows within this afea ftFe weated at RGWD's Santa R The project area would be served by the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility operated by EMWD. Santa Resa W to Reelainatien Plant. The S R ur. 9-H wastewatei:pef day.The plant eelleets flow ffem afeas within peoiens of RGWD'sser-yiee afea, , and Ek penien ef EisineFe Valley Water-Pistrief.The plant uses a bielegieal treatment pr-eeess PAURA-ved-by melainied water-eustel%OF'S use Yinually all ef the tFeated watef:in 2011,more than one billion gallons&f If you should have any questions or need additional information, please call me at the District office at(951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Jeff Kirshberg,P.E. Principal Engineer cc: Andrew Webster,P.E.,Chief Engineer Corey Wallace,P.E.,Engineering Manager-CIP&Development 16UK:1m001\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road•Post Office Box 9017•Temecula,California 92589-9017•(951)296.6900•FAX(951)296-6860 www.ranchowater.com 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 9: Rancho California Water District Comment 9-A: The commenter(Rancho California Water District [RCWD])provides minor revisions to Draft EIR Section 2.3.4, Utilities, concerning edits to reported pipe sizes from 21 inches to 24 inches in the main transmission line in Pujol Street. Response 9-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. The participation of RCWD in the public review of this document is appreciated. Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2,Errata, of this Final EIR. Response 9-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. The participation of RCWD in the public review of this document is appreciated. Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-B: The commenter provides minor text edits to Draft EIR Section 2.3.4, Utilities and Water Supply Assessment. Response 9-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Response 9-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-C: The commenter provides minor text edits to Draft EIR Section 2.3.4. Response 9-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Response 9-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-D: The commenter provides minor text edits to Draft EIR Section 2.3.4, Utilities. Response 9-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Response 9-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-E: The commenter provides edits to the Draft EIR Section 3.14-1 text regarding RCWD water supply and facilities. Response 9-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Altair Specific Plan 3-132 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 9-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-F: The commenter provides revisions to supplement the description of the RCWD system in the project area for the Draft EIR Section 3.14. Response 9-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Response 9-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-G: The commenter provides revisions to supplement the description of the RCWD system in the project area for the Draft EIR Section 3.14. Response 9-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Response 9-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Comment 9-H: The commenter provides revisions to modify the description of the RCWD system in the project area for the Draft EIR Section 3.14. Response 9-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Response 9-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Suggested revisions have been incorporated and are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Altair Specific Plan 3-133 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 10 Matt Peters From: Guerin,John <JGUERIN@rctlma.org> Sent: Friday, May 13,2016 10:50 AM To: Matt Peters Cc: Cooper, Ed;Santos, Barbara Subject: Altair Specific Plan Draft EIR and Appendices Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thank you for providing the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission with CD copies of the above-referenced documents. The proposed project is not located within an Airport Influence Area and does not propose structures taller 10-A than 200 feet above ground level or air transportation facilities. Therefore,ALUC has no comments,conditions,or recommendations. 1 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 10: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Comment 10-A: The commenter states that the proposed project is not located within an Airport Influence Area and does not propose structures taller than 200 feet above ground level or air transportation facilities. Therefore,the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC) has no comments, conditions, or recommendations. Response 10-A(Specific Plan Civic Center Use): Thank you for your comments. The participation of the ALUC in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record. Response 10-A(Specific Plan Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. The participation of the ALUC in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record. Altair Specific Plan 3-135 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 11 BOARD OF EDUCATION Julie Farnba& Kevin Hill TEMECULA VALLEY Sandra Hinkson UNIFIED C R C.p g or,Allen Pulsipher UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr,Kristi Rutz-Robbins SUPERINTENDENT Tim Ritter June 17, 2016 Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92592 matt.peters@ciiyoftemecula.org SUBJECT: Comments on Altair Specific Plan Dear Mr.Peters: On behalf of the Temecula Valley Unified School District,I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Altair Specific Plan The information in the document is dated, and therefore contains several errors. The schools serving the area of the proposed specific plan are Vail Elementary School,29835 Mira Loma Drive. The school serves grades TK-5. October 2015 Enrollment was 590 students,with a student capacity of 625 students. The middle school serving the area is Margarita Middle School,30600 Margarita Road,Temecula, 92592. The school serves grades 6-8. Enrollment in October of 2015 was 870 students,with a total capacity of 1,269 student, 513 students' capacity is housed in temporarily relos which has exceeded their useful life. 11-A The high school serving the site is Temecula Valley High School, 31555 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592. As of October 2015,the site enrollment was 2733 students with a total site capacity of 3,078 students. Nine hundred seventy two students of that capacity is in temporary relocatables however that have exceeded their useful life and should be replaced with permanent construction. The EIR sites a 1996 statewide bond as mitigation,that bond,along with other bonds passed between that period of time, and the last bond passed in 2006,have long since been depleted. 11-B Though there was a student generation rate included in the Draft EIR, I didn't see an actual calculation of students to be generated by the proposed development. 11-C 31350 Rancho Vista Road/Temecula,CA 92592/(951)676-2661 Comment Letter 11 I did not see any discussion of how the students were going to be transported to the schools that currently serve the area, all of which are on the other side of the I-15 corridor,and the impact on 11-D traffic. While bussing students would lessen the impact on traffic,the school district does not have a sufficient bus fleet or operational funds to transport an additional students, While the Draft EIR acknowledges that there is insufficient space to house students from the proposed development in existing facilities, it erroneously concludes that the statutory developer fees are sufficient to mitigate the additional school facilities needed. As of June 20,2016 statutory fees for residential units are$3.48 per square foot,and$0.56 per 11-E square foot for commercial/industrial development. The total school facilities impact per dwelling unit as of the March 21,2016 Fee Justification Report for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development was$17.454.81 per unit. The last state wide school facilities bond was passed in 2006,and state assistance is currently unavailable to assist local districts in the construction of new facilities,so absent an additional voluntary school facilities mitigation agreement,the statutory developer fees are the only funding available. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sin erely, J4e/t Dixon Director,Facilities Deve opment Temecula Valley Unified School District Cc: Lori Ordway-Peck, Assistant Superintendent of Business Support Services 31350 Rancho Vista Road/Temecula,CA 925921(951)676-2661 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 11: Temecula Valley Unified School District Comment 11-A: The commenter provides updated information regarding district schools, enrollment numbers, and capacities. The commenter also states that the middle school and high school temporary housing capacity has exceeded its useful life and should be replaced with permanent construction. Response 11-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. TVUSD's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Draft EIR Table 3.12-2 has been updated with the information provided. In addition, as described on Draft EIR page 3.12-14,the project would include construction of a new elementary school and would pay TVUSD's developer fees for residential development to help accommodate growth. Under CEQA,these development fees are considered adequate mitigation for direct and cumulative impacts to schools caused by new development. Response 11-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. TVUSD's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Draft EIR Table 3.12-2 has been updated with the information provided. In addition, as described on Draft EIR page 3.12-14,the project would include construction of a new elementary school and would pay TVUSD's developer fees for residential development to help accommodate growth. Under CEQA,these development fees are considered adequate mitigation for direct and cumulative impacts to schools caused by new development. Comment 11-B: The commenter states that the Draft EIR cites a 1996 statewide bond as mitigation but that bond, along with other bonds passed between that period of time, and the last bond passed in 2006,have long since been depleted. Response 11-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The Draft EIR Section 3.12,Public Services, references AB 2926 to provide the reader information regarding the legal authority of school districts to impose fees on new development for new or expanded school facilities and services. Under CEQA,these development fees are considered adequate mitigation for direct and cumulative impacts to schools caused by new development. The Draft EIR does not reference a 1996 bond referendum. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 11-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Draft EIR Section 3.12 references AB 2926 to provide the reader information regarding the legal authority of school districts to impose fees on new development for new or expanded school facilities and services. Under CEQA,these development fees are considered adequate mitigation for direct and cumulative impacts to schools caused by new development. The Draft EIR does not reference a 1996 bond referendum. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 11-C: The commenter states that the Draft EIR did not include a calculation of students to be generated by the project. Altair Specific Plan 3-138 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 11-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Student generation rates are provided in Draft EIR Table 3.12-4. The rates were calculated by multiplying each generation rate(provided in the second column)by the proposed 1,750 new residential dwellings,as identified in the third column heading. Response 11-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Student generation rates are provided in Draft EIR Table 3.12-4. They were calculated by multiplying each generation rate (provided in the second column)by the proposed 1,750 new residential dwellings, as identified in the third column heading. Comment 11-D: The commenter notes that the Draft EIR does not describe how the students are going to be transported to the schools that currently serve the area on the opposite side of 1-15. The commenter also states that TVUSD does not have a sufficient bus fleet or operational funds to transport additional students. Response 11-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Response 11-B.Moreover,the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed project includes all trips that would be generated by the proposed project,including those trips generated by the residential uses (including school trips) from the project site. Student transportation from the project site to existing and future district schools will be per school district transportation policies in place at the time of project completion. Response 11-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Response 11-B. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. The nature center Traffic Study(Appendix C)prepared for the proposed project includes all trips that would be generated by the proposed project, including those trips generated by the residential uses(including school trips)on the project site.Under the nature center use,trips generated by the project would be substantially reduced(reduced by 5,335 average daily trips) from those generated by the civic use. Student transportation from the project site to existing and future district schools will be per school district transportation policies in place at the time of project completion. Comment 11-E: The commenter states that the development fees have been increased, effective June 20, 2016. The commenter also states that developer fees are not sufficient to mitigate the need for additional school facilities. Response 11-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Draft EIR Section 3.12 has been revised to reflect these development fee increases in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR. Also,please refer to Response 11- B.Under CEQA,these development fees are considered adequate mitigation for direct and cumulative impacts to schools caused by new development. This comment is noted for the record Altair Specific Plan 3-139 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 11-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Draft EIR Section 3.12 has been revised to reflect these development fee increases in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR.Also,please refer to Response 11-B.Under CEQA,these development fees are considered adequate mitigation for direct and cumulative impacts to schools caused by new development. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-140 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 12 Chairperson: Neal Ibanez PECHAI`IGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Vice Chairperson: Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Bridgett Barcello Committee Members: Post Office.Box 2183•Temecula,CA 92593 Mary Bear Magee WtIwiSN Telephone(951)308-9295•Fax(951)506-9491 Evie Gerber Darlene Miranda Richard B.Scearce,III Michael Vasquez Director: June 17,2016 Gary DuBois Coordinator: Paul Macarro VIA E-MAIL and USPS Planning Specialist: Tuba Ebro Ozdil Mr. Matthew D. Peters Cultural Analyst: Associate Planner Anna Hoover City of Temecula, Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Notice of Availability for the Altair Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Lnpact Report,SCH No.2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters: This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (hereinafter, "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Tribe formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"). If you have not done so already, please add the Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental 12-A review documents, archaeological reports, and all,documents pertaining to this Project. The Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project. Please also incorporate these comments into the record of approval for this Project. The Tribe thanks the City of Temecula for consulting with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians regarding the Project. As is indicated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR), the Project will be impacting a portion of the recorded boundaries of a National Register listed Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), the Luisefio -Ancestral Origin Area, one of the most sensitive and sacred places to the Pechanga People and the Luiseno Nation. Although the DEIR 12-B indicates that no adverse effects will occur to the Origin Area, the Tribe wants to ensure this by not only implementing the existing mitigation measures with provided modifications, but by also including a measure that prohibits development outside the-studied area. We have reviewed the DEIR and our comments are below. The Tribe appreciates-the active role the City of Temecula takes to maintain the significant history of the Tribe,the City and California. Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Comment Letter 12 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Altair SP June 17,2016 Page 2 PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA As acknowledged in the DEIR, the Project area is part of Luiseno, and therefore the Tribe's, aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of a National Register listed TCP, Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), a Traditional Cultural Landscape (TCL), recorded named places, tangible and intangible items of cultural value, tbota yixelval (rock art, pictographs, petroglyphs) and an extensive Luiseno artifact record in the vicinity of the Project. This culturally sensitive area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this area as well as the close proximity of the Project to the Tribal reservation lands. 12-C The Pechanga Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in this Project as the Tribe is culturally affiliated with the geographic area that comprises the Project property and is the closest affiliated tribe to the Property. The Tribe has been named the Most Likely Descendent(Cal. Pub. Res. C. §5097.98) on Projects in the nearby vicinity of the proposed Project and has specific knowledge of cultural resources and sacred places near the proposed Project which we have shared with the County on previous occasions on this and other projects. If so desired, the Tribe welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City to further explain and provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction. REQUESTED TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT,DEIR CONCERNS AND MITIGATION The Pechanga Tribe is not opposed to this Project; however, we are opposed to any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts this Project may have to tribal cultural resources, 12-D traditional cultural landscapes and the National Register listed TCP. In reviewing the DEIR, the Tribe was concerned to discover the inclusion of highly sensitive information contained in the section, Human Remains Setting (page 3.4-11). While we understand the need to outline the high potential for impacting human remains during earthmoving activities, this section is too detailed and contains some inconsistencies. Due to 12-E confidentiality and resource protection issues, we would rather discuss our concerns with the City instead of documenting them in this public letter. Based upon the information provided to the Tribe, there were cultural artifacts identified during the Phase II testing. Thus, there is a potential to impact additional items and features during earthmoving activities and, more likely, the sensitivity of this Project lies with the potential to impact subsurface, unknown cultural resources. At this time, the Tribe proposes to include the mitigation measures in the DEIR, with modifications. These are identified in the 12-F DEIR as MM-CUL-Ia through Id and MM-CUL-3 and have been copied below. We have also added in a mitigation measure (MM-CUL-If) to address concerns related to off-site improvements and other activities that could impact the TCP. We would be happy to discuss our Pechanga Cultural Resources•Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183•Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Comment Letter 12 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Altair SP June 17,2016 Page 3 concerns and any other mitigation that may be appropriate to ensure the protection of this area in perpetuity. We request that these measures be incorporated into the final DEIR and the conditions of approval,and any other final environmental documents approved by the City. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-la—Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior,2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula,to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-Ib — Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation 12-F of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities, project grading and development scheduling, terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement: and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading;in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the_ l2ropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re-burial on the Project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1bc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must Pechanga Cultural Resources•Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183 •Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Comment Letter 12 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Altair SP June 17,2016 Page 4 take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-led — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Native ^meri Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM-CUL-la & lb. The archaeological and Native American monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and NativeAmeri ~ Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and *Native Amer- Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist 12-F shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. All cultural materials that are collected during the grading monitoring program and from M previous archaeological studies or excavations on the Project site, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and human remains which will be addressed in the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb, shall be curated in a tribally-owned facility according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the Pechanga Tribe's curation facility which meets the standards set forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 79 for Federal repositories. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lde — Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing Pechanga Cultural Resources•Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183•Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Comment Letter 12 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Altair SP June 17,2016 Page 5 activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs,and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. if:t:s detel!ffii ed that the dtf3@9very EHrtsrirtics a ` gnHri@am--ccsvH£C , a hister4eal resvuiti.i yr uiiyiw Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping;or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be-consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb. If the applicant, qualified archaeologist, and Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for resources, these issues shall be presented to the City 12-F Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law,the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall also be notified within 24 hours of the discovery and afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13, and invited to participate in the discussion of significance,mitigation, and/or treatment of resources. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lf— Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed Civic Center Area. This includes but is not limited to, off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work. Riverside County Flood Control improvements Water Department impacts Public Works projects biological and fire control programs and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Pechanga Cultural Resources•Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183•Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Comment Letter 12 Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Altair SP June 17,2016 Page 6 Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3—Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours . The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of 12-F treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continuing to work together with the County of Riverside in protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact me at 951-770-8104 or at ahoover@pechanga-nsn.gov once you have had a chance to review these comments if you have any comments or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Anna Hoover Cultural Analyst Cc Pechanga Office of the General Counsel Pechanga Cultural Resources•Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Post Office Box 2183•Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 12: Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Comment 12-A: The commenter requests to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning the project. Response 12-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter has been added to the mailing list for the project and this comment is noted for the record. Response 12-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter has been added to the mailing list for the project and this comment is noted for the record. Comment 12-B: The commenter states that, although the Draft EIR indicates that no adverse effects will occur to the Luiseno Ancestral Origin Area,the Tribe wants to ensure this by not only implementing the existing mitigation measures with provided modifications,but by also including a measure that prohibits development outside the studied area. Response 12-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. The Pechanga Tribe's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. The studied area of the project is considered to be that area within the project boundary. The Pechanga Tribe has proposed Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If to restrict development within the Traditional Cultural Property south of the Civic Site. This measure has been modified to better define the area where development is restricted. Please refer to Response 12-F and Chapter 2, Errata, of this Final EIR. This comment is noted for the record and provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 12-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. The Pechanga Tribe's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. The studied area of the project is considered to be that area within the project boundary. The Pechanga Tribe has proposed Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If to restrict development within the Traditional Cultural Property south of the Civic Site. This measure has been modified to better define the area where development is restricted. Please refer to Response 12-F and Chapter 2 of this Final EIR.Additionally,the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. This comment is noted for the record and provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 12-C: The commenter states that the Pechanga Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in this project as the Tribe is culturally affiliated with the geographic area that comprises the project property and has been named the Most Likely Descendent(Cal. Pub. Res. C. Section 5097.98) on projects in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project. The commenter also states that the Tribe has specific knowledge of cultural resources and sacred places near the proposed project and welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City to further explain and provide documentation concerning the tribe's specific cultural affiliation to lands within the City's jurisdiction. Altair Specific Plan 3-147 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 12-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. Follow-up meetings and conversations have occurred between the City and the Pechanga to gain more knowledge of the cultural resources and sacred places in the area of the project.Moreover,the Pechanga have proposed Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If to restrict development within the Traditional Cultural Property south of the Civic Site. This measure has been modified to better define the area where development is restricted. Please refer to Response 12-F and Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. These comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 12-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. Follow- up meetings and conversations have occurred between the City and the Pechanga to gain more knowledge of the cultural resources and sacred places in the area of the project.Moreover,the Pechanga have proposed Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If to restrict development within the Traditional Cultural Property south of the Civic Site. This measure has been modified to better define the area where development is restricted. Please refer to Response 12-F and Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Additionally,the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. These comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 12-D: The commenter states that the Tribe is not opposed to this project but is opposed to any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts the project may have to tribal cultural resources,traditional cultural landscapes, and the National Register listed Traditional Cultural Property(TCP). Response 12-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Direct and indirect impacts are discussed in the EIR in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, and cumulative impacts to cultural resources are discussed in Section 4.3,Description of Cumulative Effects, of the Draft EIR. With implementation of mitigation measures,the project's contribution to a cultural resource impacts would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable. This comment is noted for the record. Response 12-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Direct and indirect impacts are discussed in the EIR in Section 3.4 and cumulative impacts to cultural resources are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. With implementation of mitigation measures,the project's contribution to a cultural resource impacts would less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable. This comment is noted for the record. Comment 12-E: The commenter states that in reviewing the Draft EIR,the Tribe was concerned to discover the inclusion of highly sensitive information contained in the section Human Remains Setting(page 3.4-11). The commenter states that the section is too detailed and contains some inconsistencies but, due to confidentiality and resource protection issues,would rather discuss their concerns with the City instead of documenting them publically. Altair Specific Plan 3-148 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 12-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The City has met with the Tribe. This comment is noted for the record. Response 12-E (Nature Plan with Nature Center Use): The City has met with the Tribe. This comment is noted for the record. Comment 12-F: The commenter has suggested revisions to Draft EIR Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 a,MM-CUL-lb,MM-CUL-1 c,MM-CUL-1 d, and MM-CUL-3. In addition,the commenter suggested adding two new mitigation measures(Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-lb and MM-CUL-1 f). Response 12-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): All recommended edits have been incorporated into the EIR. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Final EIR for the changes/additions to the cultural mitigation measures. Response 12-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): All recommended edits have been incorporated into the EIR. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this Final EIR for the changes/additions to the cultural mitigation measures. Altair Specific Plan 3-149 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 13 TheNature 445 South Figueroa Street (213) 327-0104 Conservancy Suite 1950 nature.org Protecting nature. Preserving life:" Los Angeles, California 90071 nature.org/california June 17, 2016 Mr. Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Regarding: Altair Development Specific Plan ("Altair Project") Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Altair Project DEIR. The Nature Conservancy("Conservancy") has worked for more than 50 years in California to preserve and protect the extraordinary rich biodiversity that exists in the State. In order to achieve our mission of conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends, we work closely with cities, counties, unincorporated communities, individual landowners, developers, the military, public resource agencies, and various other public and private partners to protect many of the State's most ecologically significant natural areas. In Western Riverside County, the extraordinarily rich array of valuable natural communities and ecosystems provide habitat for rare plants and wildlife, cleaner water, cleaner air, opportunities for healthy outdoor recreation, peaceful oases for respite and rejuvenation, improved property values, tourist revenues,protection from disasters such as flooding and landslides, and climate change resilience. They help make a thriving, healthy and livable region. One of the Conservancy's State-level priority natural areas, as identified in local, regional and statewide studies and documents, is the landscape-scale wildlife linkage connecting the Santa Ana Mountains and Palomar Range ("Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage"). As a science-based organization,we have very serious concerns about the Altair Project and believe it will have negative and immitigable impacts on habitat connectivity in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. The Conservancy recommends that the Altair Project be redesigned to avoid 13-A impacts to wildlife movement. To accomplish this goal, the Altair Project redesign should: • Reflect the importance of the Santa Ana- Palomar Linkage as established in multiple studies and assessments and preserve the public and private investments that have been made in protecting this linkage; Comment Letter 13 • Restore the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing and protect the lands adjacent to it from further degradation to preserve the highest potential, near-term option for enhancing wildlife movement under Interstate 15 (I-15)while longer-term solutions are developed; • Include and follow the recommendations from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") that have deep understandings of the significant functions of Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan("MSHCP") Criteria Cells, which are vital for the success of the MSHCP and for ongoing and future development in cities; • Apply an existing,updated mountain lion movement model, developed by Zeller, et al (2015), to inform planning efforts for the Altair Project; • Ensure that connectivity provided by Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and 13-A Constrained Linkage 14 is maintained by containing the Altair Project within the boundary of the Western Bypass; and • Require mitigation and Criteria Cell Refinement to offset impacts to Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14. The Conservancy has recommended a suite of mitigation measures in Appendix A for consideration by the City of Temecula and the Applicant. The basis for these recommendations is included in this letter in four sections: • The importance of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage; • The importance of the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing to connectivity; • The importance the MSHCP plays in supporting connectivity; and • Unmet Criteria Cell conservation requirements, outdated modeling and insufficient mitigation, which undermine the MSHCP. We welcome the opportunity to speak with you, the Planning Department, City of Temecula Council Members, and the Applicant about our concerns and recommendations. The Importance of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage Significant natural areas and conservation investments occur within the Santa Ana Mountains, including Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve ("SRPER") Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER"), Tenaja Corridor, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the Cleveland National Forest and several wilderness parks in neighboring Orange County. These 13-B natural lands of the greater Santa Ana Mountains represent hundreds of millions of dollars in private and public conservation investments, yet remain at risk of isolation and fragmentation by roads and urban development. In particular, wildlife research studies of the past 25 years have Comment Letter 13 identified that I-15 has seriously reduced connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains with Palomar Mountain and the larger eastern Peninsular Ranges (Beier and Barret 1993). Recent genetic analyses relating to the Santa Ana Mountains' mountain lion (Puma concolor) population demonstrate ecological impacts of this loss of connectivity, finding significant genetic restriction and minimal evidence of migration into this population in recent years (Ernest, et al 2014). These studies indicate that genetic diversity for Santa Ana Mountains' mountain lions is lower than has been measured anywhere else in the west. Only in endangered Florida panthers, where severe genetic defects were present throughout the population before a genetic introgression program, has lower genetic diversity been found. The issues related to loss of connectivity in the Santa Ana -Palomar Linkage are not only concerning for the mountain lion, but for numerous other species that need to move in order to maintain gene flow and to respond to threats such as fire, floods, disease, and climate change. 13-B Several studies and documents have identified the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage as the last option for securing needed connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains and larger intact natural lands to the east. The Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage is identified as a priority wildlife corridor in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project developed by the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") and CDFW(2010). It has likewise been identified as a top priority in the South Coast Missing Linkages project (2004). The importance of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage has also been referenced in the City of Temecula's 2015 update document on the annexation of the Santa Margarita Area (http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonl3les/5424B7B2-FF83-4BBD-866B- 42DFA89B6701/0/SantaMargaritaArea.pdf). The Importance of the Temecula Creek Bridge Undercrossing to Connectivity Recognizing the importance of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage, several planning efforts have been implemented over the past 15 years to identify a range of conservation actions— ranging from land acquisition to the construction of wildlife crossing improvements for I-15 — needed to continue and restore connectivity in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage, and thereby ensure both the protection of conservation investments and the persistence of mountain lions and numerous other wildlife species. 13-C Because I-15, Rainbow Canyon Road, and associated urban and rural development have formed a nearly impenetrable barrier to east-west movement for mountain lions and other wildlife in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage, several research studies have been conducted to help inform the best locations for the placement of wildlife crossing infrastructure for 1-15 in this area (Tracey and Crooks 2001, Gibbons 2008, Zeller et al 2015, Huber unpublished data). These Comment Letter 13 modeling efforts have indicated that a number of different locations along a 3-mile stretch of I- 15 just south of the city of Temecula have potential as sites for new or improved wildlife crossing structures. To help inform planning for the Santa Ana—Palomar Linkage, in January of 2015 the Conservancy held a meeting of connectivity experts from throughout North America to help assess the best locations and options for improving connectivity along I-15. In addition to working sessions, the experts toured the Santa Ana—Palomar Linkage, and, in particular, walked the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing and along Temecula Creek along the northern boundary of the Temecula Creek Inn property. The experts continued south along I-15, stopped to examine 10 additional potential wildlife crossing locations identified by previous studies, and also hiked to locations on both sides of I-15 that provide an overview of the Linkage area. The expert consensus from these meetings was that more than one crossing structure including a land bridge, an arched culvert, and sound-dampening and other improvements to the Temecula Creek Bridge—is needed to meet the movement needs of mountain lions and a variety of other wildlife species. Notably, of the 11 wildlife crossing locations evaluated, the three highest ranking wildlife crossing locations identified by the experts are all located north of the I- 13-C 15 Border Patrol Check Point and within Temecula's City Boundary or Sphere of Influence. Among these needed structures, a land bridge and an arched culvert will be quite expensive, at least in the near term, and efforts to secure funding for engineering, design, and construction may take a decade or more. The experts identified that the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing, despite significant challenges due to road noise and human presence, currently has the highest existing potential for a more immediate, partial solution for enhancing wildlife movement. They felt that road noise and human disturbances could be sufficiently mitigated to increase this location's functionality for the greatest number of wildlife species, including mountain lions and deer. They felt that these improvements are affordable options that can be done in the short term while longer-term efforts to seek additional solutions move forward. To preserve this critical opportunity, it is vital that the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing be restored and that the lands adjacent to it be protected from further degradation as the total suite of solutions is developed and implemented. Importance of the MSHCP Habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban development is the greatest cause of biodiversity loss worldwide, and nowhere is it more acute than southern California,home to more than 400 native plant and animal species considered sensitive, rare, or endangered by 13-D government agencies and conservation groups. Significant investments to protect southern California's biodiversity have been made through the establishment of State natural communities Comment Letter 13 conservation plans ("NCCPs") and Federal habitat conservation plans ("HCPs"), including the MSHCP to which the City of Temecula is a signatory and permittee. The Conservancy is a long-time supporter of the MSHCP because it is a collaborative, cost-effective tool for meeting the needs of people and nature. The success of the MSHCP depends on the determination of signatories to constitute a system of reserves and steer development away from areas that have been identified as having core ecological and connectivity values to plants, animals, and their natural communities. Since the plan's implementation began in 2004, the MSHCP has guaranteed developers a 13-D higher level of regulatory certainty that the terms of take permits will not change over time, a condition commonly known as a 'no surprises'assurance. In exchange for this certainty, the MSHCP sets out "Criteria Cells"to guide the level of development. Functional Criteria Cells require that protected areas will remain ecologically healthy and stay linked together so species can access the resources they need to thrive, reproduce, and respond to threats such as flood, fire, disease, encroaching development, and climate change. Collaboration among member agencies with deep understandings of the significant functions of Criteria Cells is vital for the success of the MSHCP and for ongoing and future development in cities. Unmet Criteria Cell Conservation Requirements, Outdated Modeling, and Insufficient Mitigation The proposed location for the Altair Project is within the Southwest Area Plan, Subunits 1 and 6, which include important core and linkage habitat (Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13)between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve/Santa Margarita River and(Linkage 14)between the start of the Santa Margarita River (where Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek come together just west of I-15) and continuing east along Temecula Creek under I-15 (Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing) and then connecting with other lands east of I-15 and Pechanga Creek, and then Palomar Mountain and larger intact natural lands to the east. While the DEIR identifies the level of conservation required for each of the 9 Criteria 13-E Cells where the Altair Project area is located, the Applicant ignores these requirements when identifying lands for conservation. In the creation of the MSHCP, the process of defining Criteria Cells identified conservation requirements of up to 200 acres at the proposed Altair Project site to assemble Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, which would allow for the continued movement of mountain lion,bobcat and other species between core areas and the greater Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. The Applicant, however, puts forth a proposal for conservation of only 82.7 acres. Moreover, in ignoring conservation criteria and other requirements for Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, the Altair Project reduces the viability of the adjacent Constrained Linkage 14. This latter linkage in particular is critical for mountain Comment Letter 13 lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains across I-15 to the Palomar Mountain and other inland mountain ranges. Thus, the level of conservation proposed by the Altair Project is 13-E significantly inadequate, and jeopardizes the long-term functionality of regional wildlife connectivity. The failure of the Applicant to adequately address the functionality of Criteria Cells and their minimum conservation requirements appears to stem from its use of outdated modeling techniques. Helix Environmental, the Applicant's biological consultant, has developed mountain lion movement models for the project to assist with the identification of potential impacts of the proposed development on mountain lion connectivity through the area. The models are largely informed by mountain lion movement modelling efforts performed nearly ten years ago. While these were the best models at the time and provided useful information that is still relevant today, 13-F much finer scale movement modelling techniques, informed by empirical data of lion movement from throughout southern California, have been developed since this time. When these updated modelling techniques are applied to the Altair Project site, they show much different results than the models put forth in the DEIR. These more up-to-date models indicate greater negative impacts and alteration of mountain lion movement patterns as a result of the Altair Project and suggest greater impacts to mountain lion connectivity than are identified in the DEIR. The Conservancy also has serious concerns about the adequacy of proposed mitigation in the DEIR. The primary biological mitigation proposed by the Applicant to compensate for impacts to wildlife connectivity and habitat loss includes: 1)preservation of 83.7 acres of habitat within identified Criteria Cells associated with the project; 2) fencing along the western edge of the Western Bypass to prevent wildlife mortality; 3) a 900-foot set-back of the South Parcel (Civic Use) site from the Santa Margarita River; and 4) construction of"green walls" and a 10 foot revegetated berm to shield Constrained Linkage 13 and the Santa Margarita River from the intense human development on South Parcel. 13-G Given the importance of the Altair Project site to regional wildlife connectivity and the low level of conservation identified in the Applicant's Criteria Cell process, the Conservancy believes that these mitigation efforts are inadequate and that a containment of the Altair Project within the boundary of the Western Bypass, which would include moving Villages A and G along with the South Parcel to the east of the Western Bypass Road, is needed to ensure the continuation of linkage functionality for Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14. In closing, we restate our very serious concerns about the Altair Project and DEIR, and we urge the City of Temecula to compel the Applicant to redesign the Altair Project so that it 13-H allows the City to meet its commitment to the MSHCP and the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. If Comment Letter 13 you have questions about this response, please contact Chris Basilevac at 619-884- 6591/cbasilevac(c),tnc.org or Trish Smith at 714-955-2810/trish smith(&tnc.org. Sincerely, LAURA CRANE Deputy Director, California Land Conservation Program California Chapter ATTACHMENT: Appendix A - Specific Comments on the City of Temecula Altair Project DEIR Comment Letter 13 Appendix A The Nature Conservancy's Specific Comments on the City of Temecula Altair Development Specific Plan ("Altair Project") Draft Environmental Impact Report 13-1 ("DEIR") SCH No. 2014111029 June 17, 2016 1. Section 2.3.1: Land Use and Zoning The DEIR states that the South Parcel (Civic Use) site would be composed of 450,000 square feet of building space on 10 acres with buildings of up to 5 stories in height. We believe that the size, height and proposed land use for the South Parcel are incompatible with the protection of the Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14 as the proposed land use (University, hospital, or other civic use) will support high levels of human use both day and night that will create substantial noise, light, and vehicular traffic that will disrupt wildlife use of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14. Moreover, this intense land use will only serve to increase trespass and human disturbance in the nearby Temecula Creek, 13-J including the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing, along with Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The proposed mitigations to abate noise and light are not sufficient for the size of the facility proposed, and we recommend that this parcel be removed from the proposed development of the Altair Project. 2. Section 2.3.6 Project Conservation Features Additional conservation features proposed by the Applicant do not contribute measurably towards enhancing wildlife connectivity in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. Specifically, conservation of 269.6 acres of hillside escarpment in the city of Corona, which is more than 15 13-K miles north of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage and outside of any Criteria Cell area,would not contribute to attainment of any Linkage 10 function. Moreover, funding in the amount of $200,000 to the City to be used for conservation efforts is insufficient to complete any sort of meaningful engineering analysis for the I-15 wildlife crossing studies. 3. Impacts to Wildlife Movement for the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage The Altair Project lies within the Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 and adjacent to Constrained Linkage 14. These linkages connect the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve with the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the greater Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. The Santa 13-L Ana-Palomar linkage has been identified by South Coast Missing Linkages (2001, 2004) as critical for sustaining a regional network of interconnected wild lands in the South Coast ecoregion. The DEIR correctly identifies that the Altair Project would result in significant Comment Letter 13 impacts to wildlife connectivity. However, there are issues with the statements made regarding the importance and function of the linkages onsite as they relate to the broader Santa Ana— 13-L Palomar Linkage. a. The DEIR states on page 3.4-46: "Given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of Interstate 15), the project would have no direct or indirect effect on this linkage (Helix, 2015a)." One of the stated requirements of Subunit 1 is to "Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion linkage (Linkage 14)." Currently, Constrained Linkage 14 is the only potentially viable linkage between the Santa Ana Mountains and the inland Palomar Mountains, and is critical for the long term sustainability of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains. Impacts to Linkage 10 13-M and Constrained Linkage 13, which connect to Constrained Linkage 14 west of I-15, do have an impact on the long term function of Constrained Linkage 14 by significantly reducing the connectivity between these three linkages and increasing human activity in the vicinity of the confluence area. Note also that Constrained Linkage 14 starts west of I-15 where Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek come together for the start of the Santa Margarita River. The Altair Project area is adjacent to Constrained Linkage 14, with an estimated distance of less than 500 ft. (as opposed to "1800 feet") between the development footprint of the South Parcel and Constrained Linkage 14. b. The DEIR further states on p. 3.3-49: "The South Parcel ....... is set back approximately 900 feet from the Santa Margarita River. This linkage area provides an east-west connection that crosses beneath I-15 along the Santa Margarita River that was assumed to maintain the gene pool and genetic diversity of the mountain lion population on both sides of the freeway as part of the review and approval of the MSHCP. " However, based on radio collar data, there may no longer be mountain lion movement underneath I-I5 at this location. "Although, as the DEIR points out, mountain lions have not been documented to successfully use the Temecula Creek 13-N Bridge undercrossing portion of Constrained Linkage 14 in recent years for connectivity between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountains, this is likely due to an increase in illegal human presence and activities in and around the undercrossing area, extreme noise from vehicles traveling on I-15 using the Temecula Creek Bridge, and lighting at night from surrounding development. The additional impacts of the Altair Project on Constrained Linkage 14 still need to be considered and mitigated. Data from collared mountain lions over the last several years does show that numerous mountain lions have approached the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing from the west on many occasions, but were ultimately unable to use the undercrossing due to the above-described reasons. The Applicant's assertion that the proposed 10- W 13-0 Comment Letter 13 acre, 5-story development on the South Parcel would not be visible within the Santa Margarita River because of a 100 foot vertical cliff in the drainage does not acknowledge (as shown in Figure 3.3-4) that mountain lions travel along the entire slope and ridgeline that surround both sides the drainage and along the escarpment where the South Parcel is situated, and that the development would be visible from 13-0 these areas. Mitigation in the form of a 10 foot berm and"living walls" to shield the development from these linkages will not be sufficient to mitigate the noise, light and human activity of the proposed land use. 4. Section 3.3: Impacts to Linkage 10 On page 3.3-50 it is stated that, in addition to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, several redundant linkages exist west of the Altair Project site including Constrained Linkages 9, 10, 11 and 12. All of these redundant linkages are identified as "constrained" because they also involve ranchette-type development and agricultural uses which constrict or eliminate wildlife use and do not provide live-in habitat. While mountain lions and other wildlife do potentially use these constrained linkages, the level of rural and agricultural development puts lions and other wildlife at greater risk of negative human-wildlife interactions, including legal and illegal depredation, poisoning, and vehicle mortality. In fact, one mountain lion died from being illegally poisoned by a landowner in the vicinity of these constrained linkages just last year(UC Davis WHC 2015). Losses from depredation are of particular concern, as any loss further exacerbates issues related to small population size of 13-P the Santa Ana Mountain lion population. This lion population is experiencing a genetic bottleneck; while there may be as many as 25 lions inhabiting the Santa Ana Mountains, the effective population size -- i.e., the number of lions in the populations contributing to producing the next generation of mountain lions -- is closer to 5 individual lions (Ernest 2014). Ensuring the persistence of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains will require not only maintaining and restoring connectivity to large protected lands to the east of I-15, but also reducing the potential for human-lion interactions that result in mortalities. Relying on constrained linkages for maintaining connectivity for mountain lions will only increase the likelihood for increased mortalities due to human-lion conflicts. In contrast to these constrained linkages, Linkage 10 within the project area currently appears to be fairly intact and supports an undeveloped swath of intact linkage habitat. However, this assumes that large portions of the privately-owned and unprotected parcels that comprise a significant amount of Linkage 10 will remain in their natural state. If the MSHCP, City of Temecula ordinances, and/or other applicable laws, rules and regulations do not restrict these 13-Q private landowners from fencing and clearing these eastern portions of their properties on the escarpment, then Linkage 10 will be significantly compromised once residential sites (Villages A and G) and a "civic center"-type development(South Parcel) are constructed. Comment Letter 13 As a result, Linkage 10 will likely convert from what is currently a functional linkage into a constrained linkage and increase the likelihood of negative human-wildlife interactions. 13-Q 5. Mountain Lion Movement Modelling(pages 3.3-47 through 3.3-52) The mountain lion movement modelling provided by the Applicant's biological consultant, Helix Environmental, relies on modelling approaches that are nearly ten years old and likely inappropriate given their application to a small site. Several advancements in mountain lion modeling have been made over the past few years that are based on fine scale geospatial data 13-R as well as empirical data from mountain lion studies throughout southern California(Zeller et al 2014; Burdett 2010). The application of these more sophisticated models would likely result in quite different outputs on the effects of the Altair Project on mountain lion movement in Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14. The DEIR also states that the model produced identifies a"least cost path" linkage 1 mile west of the project site that connects the escarpment to SMER. However,this linkage does not overlap with Criteria Cells described for conservation and cannot be relied upon to 13-S remain viable in the long-term. The model presented in Figure 3.3.5 indicates that lions may continue to use constrained Linkage 13,where they will reach a dead end when they come to the location of the proposed Western Bypass. If this linkage is compromised, then a dispersing lion may find itself in conflict with humans and/or might not continue to disperse past the development area. 13-T Removal of Village G and the South Parcel from the Altair Project would reduce this potential conflict. The modelling used in the DEIR also indicates that there is very little difference between mountain lion use of Linkage 10 both with and without the proposed development. However, there are numerous studies (as stated in the DEIR) that indicate that residential and other active human uses can create a "negative zone of human influence" of noise, light and other effects that restrict mountain lion activity and movement as much as 600 meters from development areas (Wilmers, 2013, Zeller 2014). While it may be true that mountain lions might conceivably continue to use this corridor post construction, the reduction in corridor 13-U width, particularly near Village A, Village G, and the proposed South Parcel (Civic Use) site, puts lions at much greater risk of negative human interactions that would likely result in increased lion depredation. Removing development from Linkage 10 in these areas (Villages A and G along with the South Parcel (Civic Use) would both put development more in line with established conservation criteria and increase the long-term viability of Linkage 10 as a wildlife corridor. We recommend that more up to date modelling for the project area, as developed by Zeller, et al (2015), be consulted to inform planning efforts for 13-V the Altair Project. Comment Letter 13 6. MSHCP Criteria Cell Analysis (P. 3.3-63) The conservation of a total of 82.7 acres for the 9 Criteria Cells associated with the Altair Project site does not substantially contribute to the assembly of either Linkage 10 or Constrained Linkage 13. In fact, an assessment of the established MSHCP Conservation Criteria established for cells where development is proposed(7164, 7166, 7258 7264, 7355 and 7356) identifies conservation requirements that range between 15 and 80 percent for each cell, and would result in the conservation of over 140 additional acres onsite if implemented in accordance with the criteria. The gross inconsistency between the level of conservation proposed and what is required for many of the MSHCP Criteria Cells on the Altair Project site would likely result in a 13-W significant reduction and/or elimination of the use of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14 by mountain lions and other wildlife. In fact, the Altair Project would make these Criteria Cell conservation requirements unattainable. The method of analysis presented in the DEIR—which inappropriately argues for analysis of conservation criteria attainment at the Subunit rather than the Criteria Cell level --would render all the MSHCP's Criteria Cells' requirements meaningless. Again, removal of development Villages A and G along with the South Parcel (Civic Use) site would bring the development more in line with established Criteria Cell requirements and would increase the long-term viability of the impacted wildlife linkages. Even with removal of Village A, G, and the South Parcel,the Altair Project will still require mitigation and Criteria Cell Refinement to offset impacts to Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14. We suggest that the following mitigation measures, 13-X which would contribute to the function of the Santa Ana—Palomar linkage,be considered by the City and the Applicant. 1. Purchase of land adjacent to I-15 —on both the east and west sides, such as the "Wheeler" and"Applegate"properties—that would help assemble wildlife crossings south of the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing. These properties are critical to securing two identified crossing locations (both a wildlife overpass and wildlife undercrossing) that 13-Y were prioritized by wildlife connectivity experts during The Conservancy's January 2015 connectivity meeting. 2. Provide funds to fully and adequately complete a "Project Study Report,"to be completed in partnership with Caltrans, that would asses various locations and designs for wildlife crossing infrastructure that have been identified for I-15, including a wildlife overpass and arched culvert that would connect SMER/Wheeler property and the 13-Z Applegate property, and improvements (such as sound barriers) to the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing. 3. Include a Corridor Recovery Study as a condition of approval for Altair Project, to be T 13-AA Comment Letter 13 conducted by the City, and informed by ongoing mountain lion research being conducted by University of California—Davis Wildlife Health Center ("UC Davis"),within a reasonable period of time. This would assess the Temecula Creek Inn golf course and Temecula Creek Inn proposed development project, and evaluate how to restore 13-AA movement for mountain lion and other species on this property so as to make viable connections between Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. 4. Establishment of a Mountain Lion Education Fund that would be used to educate homeowners on how to keep their pets and livestock safe from mountain lions and other native predators. The fund could also provide financial assistance and guidance to 13-BB homeowners for properly designed fencing and other deterrents to native predators to keep pets and livestock safe. 5. Reduce human impacts to Temecula Creek, in particular the Temecula Creek Bridge Undercrossing, along with Murrieta Creek, Santa Margarita River and the confluence area where all three meet through the establishment of regular patrols to discourage 13-CC trespass and degradation of habitat. References Beier, P., and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. Final Report for Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study. Department of Forestry and Resource Management. University of California, Berkeley, California. Burdett, C. L., Crooks, K. R., Theobald, D. M., Wilson, K. R., Boydston, E. E., Lyren, L. M., ... & Boyce, W. M. 2010. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere, 1(1), art4. County of Riverside. 2003 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). Ernest, HB, Vickers, TW, Morrison, S, Boyce WM. Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma(Puma concolor)population. PLoS ONE. 2014, 9(10): e107985. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107985 Fisher, R., and K.R. Crooks. 2001. Baseline biodiversity survey for the Teneja corridor and southern Santa Ana Mountains. Final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California. Luke, C., Penrod, K., Cabafiero, C.R., Beier, P., Spencer, W., and S. Shapiro. 2004. A linkage design for the Santa Ana—Palomar Mountains connection Unpublished Report. South Coast Wildlands, Idylwild, California. Available from http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCML—SantaAna—Palomar.pdf(accessed Comment Letter 13 December 2007). Vickers TW, Sanchez JN, Johnson CK, Morrison SA, Botta R, Smith T, et al. (2015) Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0131490 Fisher, R., and K.R. Crooks. 2001. Baseline biodiversity survey for the Teneja corridor and southern Santa Ana Mountains. Final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California. Gibbons, P. 2008. Determining suitable wildlife crossing locations across a southern Californa Interstate. Final Master's Thesis. San Diego State University.\ Luke, C., Penrod, K., Cabaiiero, C.R., Beier, P., Spencer, W., and S. Shapiro. 2004. A linkage design for the Santa Ana—Palomar Mountains connection Unpublished Report. South Coast Wildlands, Idylwild, California. Available from http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCML—SantaAna—Palomar.pdf(accessed December 2007). Spencer, WD, P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.Available from: http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/CalifomiaEssentialHabitatConnectivityProj ect Vickers, T.W., U.C. Davis—Southern California Cougar Project 2015 Report. San Diego Area Governments. April2016. Wilmers CC, Wang Y, Nickel B, Houghtaling P„ Shakeri Y, Allen ML, Kermish-Wells J, Yovovich V, Williams T. 2013 Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS ONE 8, e60590. (doi:10. 1371/joumal.pone.0060590) Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Beier, P., Vickers, T. W., &Boyce, W. M. (2015). Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement:pumas as a case study.Landscape Ecology, 1-17. 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 13: The Nature Conservancy Comment 13-A: The commenter states the project would have unmitigable impacts on habitat connectivity in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage and recommends re-design of the project to avoid impacts to wildlife movement. The commenter provides specific recommendations to accomplish the goal of avoiding impacts to wildlife movement,which are based on four criteria: (1)the importance of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage; (2)the importance of the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing to connectivity; (3)the importance the MSHCP plays in supporting connectivity; and(4)unmet criteria cell conservation requirements, outdated modeling, and insufficient mitigation. These four topics are expanded upon in subsequent comments below. Response 13-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The Nature Conservancy's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Biological resource impacts and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources,of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.8. Response 13-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Nature Conservancy's participation in and assistance with the public review of this document is appreciated. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.8. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific environmental impact information. Comment 13-B: The commenter summarizes the importance of the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage and states that several studies and documents have identified this linkage as the last option for securing needed connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains and larger intact natural lands to the east. Response 13-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-C: The commenter summarizes the importance of the Temecula Creek bridge undercrossing to connectivity and states it is vital that the Temecula Creek Bridge undercrossing be restored and that the lands adjacent to it be protected from further degradation. Response 13-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-164 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 13-D: The commenter summarizes the importance of the MSHCP and states collaboration among member agencies with deep understandings of the significant functions of Criteria Cells is vital for the success of the MSHCP. Response 13-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.3. Response 13-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.3. Comment 13-E: The commenter states the level of conservation proposed by the project is significantly inadequate and jeopardizes the long-term functionality of regional wildlife connectivity. Response 13-E(Specific Plan with Civic Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Response 13-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Comment 13-F: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the mountain lion movement models used for the project. The commenter states that finer-scale modelling techniques have been developed and that these models indicate greater negative impacts and alteration of mountain lion movement patterns and connectivity as a result of the project. Response 13-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-G: The commenter expresses concern regarding the adequacy of proposed mitigation in the Draft EIR and suggests re-designing the project to be contained within the boundary of the Western Bypass. Response 13-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 13-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 13-H: The commenter reiterates concerns about the project and recommend re- designing the project to meet commitments of the MSHCP and the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. Response 13-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-165 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 13-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,3.2.4,and 3.2.8.Also refer to Response 13-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use). Comment 13-I: The commenter provides Appendix A to their comments on the Draft EIR. Response 13-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Responses to specific comments raised in Appendix A are provided in turn below. Response 13-I(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Responses to specific comments raised in Appendix A are provided in turn below. Comment 13-J: The commenter states the size,height, and proposed land use for the South Parcel are incompatible with protection of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14. The commenter also notes the project will increase trespass and human disturbance in Temecula Creek,Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The commenter states noise and light mitigation measures are insufficient and recommends removing development on the South Parcel from the project. Response 13-J(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Regarding trespass and human disturbances, as described in Section 3.12,Public Services, of the Draft EIR,the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 13-J(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Regarding trespass and human disturbances, as described in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR,the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Altair Specific Plan 3-166 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 13-K: The commenter states additional conservation features proposed by the project applicant, including the 270.0 acres of conservation in the City of Corona and funding in the amount of$200,000 for conservation efforts, do not contribute measurably towards enhancing wildlife connectivity in the Santa Ana-Palomar Linkage. Response 13-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.4. Response 13-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.4. Comment 13-L: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the Draft EIR's statements regarding importance and function of the linkages onsite. Response 13-L(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-L(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-M: The commenter states that contrary to text on page 3.4-46 of the Draft EIR, impacts to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 do have an impact on the long-term function of Constrained Linkage 14 by significantly reducing the connectivity between these three linkages and increasing human activity in the vicinity of the confluence area. The commenter states the project area is within 500 feet of Constrained Linkage 14 as it starts west of 1-15 at the confluence of Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek. Response 13-M(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-M(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-N: The commenter states that although mountain lions have not been documented to successfully use the Temecula Creek bridge undercrossing due to illegal human presence, extreme noise from vehicles on I-15, and nighttime lighting from surrounding development,the additional impacts of the project on Constrained Linkage 14 need to be considered and mitigated. Response 13-N(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-N(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-0: The commenter states the mitigation in the form of a 10-foot berm and"living walls"to shield the development from these linkages will not sufficiently mitigate the noise,light, and human activity of the project. The commenter specifically notes that the project would remain visible to mountain lions traveling along the ridgeline and slope surrounding the South Parcel. Response 13-0(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-0(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on Altair Specific Plan 3-167 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use.Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 13-P: The commenter states that while mountain lions and other wildlife do potentially use Constrained Linkages 9, 10, 11, and 12,the level of rural and agricultural development puts lions and other wildlife at greater risk of negative human-wildlife interactions, including legal and illegal depredation,poisoning, and vehicle mortality. The commenter further suggests relying on constrained linkages for maintaining connectivity for mountain lions will only increase the likelihood for increased mortalities due to human-lion conflicts. Response 13-P(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-P(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-Q: The commenter states Linkage 10 will be significantly compromised once residential sites (Villages A and G) and a"civic center"-type development(South Parcel) are constructed and will likely convert from what is currently a functional linkage into a constrained linkage and increase the likelihood of negative human-wildlife interactions. Response 13-Q(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-Q(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-R: The commenter states the application of more sophisticated models would likely result in quite different outputs on the effects of the project on mountain lion movement in Linkage 10,Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14. Response 13-R(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-R(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-5: The commenter states that while a"least cost path"linkage was identified 1 mile west of the project site,this linkage does not overlap with Criteria Cells described for conservation and cannot be relied upon to remain viable in the long term. Response 13-5(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-5(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-T: The commenter states removal of Village G and the South Parcel from the project would reduce the potential for a dispersing lion to find itself in conflict with humans. Altair Specific Plan 3-168 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 13-T(Specific Plan with Civic Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Response 13-T(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Comment 13-U: The commenter states removing development from Linkage 10 would put development more in line with established conservation criteria and increase the long-term viability of Linkage 10 as a wildlife corridor. Response 13-U(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Response 13-U(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Comment 13-V: The commenter recommends use of modelling developed by Zeller et al. (2015) be consulted to inform planning efforts for the project. Response 13-V(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-V(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-W: The commenter expresses concerns regarding consistency with the nine Criteria Cells associated with the project, stating that inconsistency with Criteria Cell conservation would likely result in a significant reduction and/or elimination of the use of Linkage 10,Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14 by mountain lions and other wildlife. The commenter states the method of analysis presented in the Draft EIR related to conservation criteria attainment is inappropriate and that removal of Villages A and G along with the South Parcel would bring the development more in line with established Criteria Cell requirements and would increase the long-term viability of the impacted wildlife linkages. Response 13-W(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.3. Response 13-W(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.3. Comment 13-X: The commenter states that, even with removal of Village A,Village G, and the South Parcel,the project will still require mitigation and Criteria Cell Refinement to offset impacts to Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14. Response 13-X(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.4 and 3.2.8. Response 13-X(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.4 and 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-169 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 13-Y: The commenter suggests as mitigation purchasing land adjacent to and on both east and west sides of I-15, such as the"Wheeler"and"Applegate"properties. Response 13-Y(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-Y(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 13-Z: The commenter suggests as mitigation a Corridor Recovery Study as a condition of approval for the project,to be conducted by the City and informed by ongoing mountain lion research being conducted by University of California, Davis Wildlife Health Center("UC Davis"),within a reasonable period of time. Response 13-Z(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendation. Please note that the project already includes Project Conservation Features as stated in Common Response 3.2.1, including funding for conservation efforts. Response 13-Z(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the project already includes Project Conservation Features as stated in Common Response 3.2.1, including funding for conservation efforts. Comment 13-AA: The commenter suggests as mitigation providing funds to fully and adequately complete a"Project Study Report,"to be completed in partnership with Caltrans,that would assess various locations and designs for wildlife crossing infrastructure that have been identified for I-15. Response 13-AA(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-AA(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-170 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 13-BB: The commenter suggests as mitigation establishment of a Mountain Lion Education Fund that would be used to educate homeowners on how to keep their pets and livestock safe from mountain lions and other native predators. Response 13-BB (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Response 13-BB (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendation. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8.Comment 13-CC: The commenter suggests as mitigation establishment of regular patrols to discourage trespass and degradation of habitat in Temecula Creek,Murrieta Creek, and Santa Margarita River. Response 13-CC (Specific Plan with Civic Use): As described in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR, the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 13-CC (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As described in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR,the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Altair Specific Plan 3-171 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 14 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE June 3, 2016 The Hon. Michael S.Naggar, Mayor City of Temecula 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Altair project and wildlife movement Dear Mayor Naggar and Councilmembers: Endangered Habitats League (EHL) extends its regards, and wishes to take this opportunity to share our views and otherwise "check in"with you on the Altair project. First, we appreciate meeting with City personnel on April 13, 2016, to discuss wildlife movement, as well a prior site visit and a meeting with the applicant. At stake is the City's compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSCHP). As you know,the City is a signatory to and permitted 14-A agency of the MSCHP, and as a plan participant receives local street and road funds from the transportation sale tax. The City has a good reputation in terms of the MSHCP, and should continue to set a high standard for other jurisdictions. However, all that is at risk with the Altair project. These following thoughts are based upon a review of the Altair Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA's) Joint Project Review(JPR) from 2015. As well documented in the JPR,there is major non-compliance with the MSHCP. The most important issues involve the significant impact that the Altair project would have on mountain lion and other wildlife movement in Linkage 10 (upland connection) and Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek connection)between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Core Areas) as well as in Constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River—Temecula Creek—Pechanga 14-B Creek connection). Constrained Linkage 14 in particular is critical for mountain lion and other wildlife movement between the Santa Ana Mountains across Interstate 15 to the Palomar Mountains: The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is in the center of the last viable linkage for wildlife that connects the Inland Mountains to the Coastal Mountain Range. This wildlife corridor is the only remaining natural habitat connection for the coastal Santa Ana Mountains to the inland ranges often referred to as the "Palomar to Pacific"wildlife linkage. The protection of wildlife movement is critical to the vitality of the ecosystem 8424 SANTA MONICA BLVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 ♦ WWW.EHLEAGUE.ORG ♦ PHONE 213.804.2750 Comment Letter 14 2 connecting the Pacific Ocean to the Inland Coastal Mountain Range.' 14-B During past discussions, EHL sought changes in the Altair project design that fix the problems, specifically containment of the development footprint within the boundary of the Western Bypass,which would include moving Villages A and G along with the South Parcel (Civic Use site)to the east of the Western Bypass road. Such a redesign would resolve most if not all issues,but efforts to engage the City on creative redesign 14-C have to date been unsuccessful. We continue to advocate for such redesign as the biologically superior solution. At our meeting in April, the City made the case that Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 should be viewed in a larger context. Specifically, that Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 were secondary in importance to Constrained Linkage 14 and that the Altair project—while compromising Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 — would leave these corridors at least minimally functional for the mountain lion. The City's argument was that we should not place too much emphasis on movement through these constrained and urban-adjacent spaces (i.e., Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13), but instead work to restore the Constrained Linkage 14, in particular the Temecula Creek portion of this corridor that crosses underneath I-15, as well as simultaneously establish a second or"redundant" connection across I-15 further to the south. In this way, wildlife movement along the Santa Margarita River could connect to points east. EHL fully agrees that the City should focus efforts on protecting and restoring 14-D Constrained Linkage 14, including working with Caltrans, RCA and San Diego State University, to better manage the Temecula Creek undercrossing by eliminating human trespass, etc. so that wildlife such as mountain lions are again able to naturally use the undercrossing for movement between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountains. But even if Constrained Linkage 14 is eventually improved, gross inconsistency remains with the conservation requirements of many of the MSHCP Criteria Cells. Indeed, according to the JPR, the project would make these Criteria Cell conservation requirements unattainable. Such inconsistency would likely result in a significant reduction—or even elimination—in the use of Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 by mountain lions and other wildlife due to the reduction in size of these linkages and negative edge effects of noise and light along with increased human presence within these linkages caused by the proposed development. Siting development within these linkages and adjacent to the confluence of these linkages will also increase the likelihood of negative human-wildlife interactions, and put species for which the linkages are designed—mountain lion, coyotes and bobcat—at risk of depredation (officially sanctioned killing due to danger to people or domestic animals). The measures proposed in the DEIR as mitigation do little to help. ' See Page 3 of the City of Temecula's 2015 update document on the annexation of the Santa Margarita Area(http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonlyres/5424B7B2-FF83-4BBD-866B- 42DFA89B 6701/0/S antaMargaritaArea.pdf). 2 As an example,Linkage 10 between the western boundary of Village G and the eastern fenced boundary of Assessor Parcel Number 940-240-012,which is privately-owned unprotected land, would be reduced to roughly 150 to 170 ft. in width. Comment Letter 14 3 We also note that the method of analysis in the DEIR—which inappropriately argues for large plan subunits as an accounting basis—would render all the MSHCP's Criteria Cell requirements meaningless. Using the planning subunits instead of Cell and Cell Group Criteria would obviate reserve configuration and connectivity objectives. This 14-E illogical method of analysis does not belong in the City's EIR. But most importantly, we must all work together on a remedy to bring Altair into MSHCP conformance. The proper remedy for both CEQA issues and MSCHP conformance is a Criteria Refinement, as required by the MSCHP and noted in the 2015 JPR.3 This is EHL's position, though it is our understanding that the City, RCA and wildlife agencies may have agreed to "alternative compliance"via the EIR process. We believe that this 14-F sets an adverse precedent, but in either case, the pertinent question is, how to make the MSCHP whole? As a first priority, we continue to urge that Villages A and G along with the South Parcel (Civic Use site) must be moved to the east of the Western Bypass road with lands outside the Bypass going into the reserve. This will significantly reduce the amount of 14-G the inconsistency of the project with the conservation requirements of the associated Criteria Cells. If the City continues to propose land for development outside of the Bypass, then it needs to 1) make a compelling biological case that the lost functions and values of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13 and Constrained Linkage 14 for mountain lion and other wildlife movement can be compensated for, and then 2)provide such additional and meaningful compensatory measures as project requirements. This would at least provide 14-H some equivalency to a formal Criteria Refinement. If a"Biologically Equivalent or Superior Determination" cannot be made for a proposed refinement, or if there is a reduction in Criteria acres, then an amendment to the plan must be sought, with concurrence of the wildlife agencies. What sorts of measures are eligible for such criteria refinement purposes? The 270 acres of land proposed in the DEIR for protection further north near Corona is irrelevant to this question. It is located in an area with altogether different conservation purposes and requirements and would not in any way benefit habitat or wildlife movement associated with Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. (And, as a practical matter, any monies spent on acquiring these lands near Corona would be 14-1 wasted, as the rock bottom price of a few hundred dollars per acre shows that they will likely never be developed.) Also, lands already described for conservation in the MSCHP—like escarpment lands in Linkage 10 previously purchased by the City—are not eligible for refinement purposes as they've already been described in the City's 3 "Criteria Refinement Process"means the process through which changes to the Criteria may be made,where the refined Criteria result in the same or greater conservation value and acreage to the MSHCP Conservation Area as determined through an equivalency analysis provided in support of the refinement. (MSHCP Implementing Agreement at 3.39) Comment Letter 14 4 MSHCP Conservation Area requirements and do not add new value to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Finally, because it may be unrealistic to "expand"the affected 14-1 linkages into adjacent locations, compensatory measures should instead focus on the "bigger picture" strategy outlined above. Besides project redesign, we suggest the following options for mitigation under CEQA and for Criteria Refinement: 1. Purchase land adjacent to I-15on both the east and west sides, such as the "Wheeler"and "Applegate"properties—that would help assemble the second, southerly crossing of I-15. This would help compensate for lost Criteria Cell acreage and linkage function. We note that the DEIR proposes such potential acquisitions in the more southerly Special Linkage Area portion of the MSHCP. However, wildlife connectivity experts have recently opined that, in addition to the Temecula Creek undercrossing portion of Constrained Linkage 14, the Wheeler and Applegate properties—rather than the previously mapped Special Linkage Area—may be most important for function of the "Palomar to Pacific" wildlife linkage. Wheeler and Applegate are the appropriate sites for investment. Furthermore, these properties are located closer to the project site and impacted areas, thus likely more appropriate for mitigation purposes. 2. Provide funds to fully complete a "Project Study Report," to be prepared by Caltrans to preliminary engineering standards,proposing a system of wildlife 14-J crossings for I-15. This study would likely evaluate improvements (such as sound barriers) to the Temecula Creek undercrossing, constructing a vegetated bridge for wildlife movement across I-15 that connects the Wheeler and Applegate properties, and installing culverts under I-15 that are designed specifically for wildlife movement that would connect the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Temecula Creek Inn golf course lands. There is no evidence that the $200,000 proposed in the DEIR for such purposes is sufficient to complete a proper study. 3. Include a Corridor Recovery Study as a condition of approval for the Altair project. This would be conducted by the City, and informed by ongoing mountain lion research being conducted by UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, within a reasonable period of time. It would assess the Temecula Creek Inn golf course and proposed development project, and how to restore movement for mountain lion and other species on this property so as to make viable connections between Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. In EHL's view, the City absolutely must be a"good actor" vis a vis the MSHCP and lead the way for others. Compliance is an obligation that must be taken seriously. The City understands the role of a viable ecosystem as a valuable community asset. 14-K Attaining this vision is not easy. And if the City of Temecula falters, I am deeply pessimistic. Comment Letter 14 5 We look forward to further discussion and are available to assist you and the applicant in resolving these issues in the context of the Final EIR. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director cc: Planning Department Regional Conservation Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife Altair project Johnson & Sedlack Interested parties Comment Letter 14 Matt Peters From: Dan Silver <dsilverla@me.com> Sent: Friday,June 17, 2016 12:27 PM To: Matt Peters Subject: Altair Specific Plan DEIR Attachments: EHL-Altair-6.3.16.pdf,JPR14052701- maps combined.pdf,JPR 14-05-27-01 Cover Letter for Altair.pdf, 15BO192-15CPA0229 JPR 14-05-07-01 Alta ir_20150415.pdf June 17,2016 Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Altair Specific Plan DEIR Dear Mr Peters: Endangered Habitats League(EHL) appreciates the opportunity to participate in the public review process for this proposed project. Under separate cover, comments as to the adequacy of the DEIR will be submitted on our behalf by Johnson&Sedlack. I would also like to submit: 1)A letter previously transmitted to the City on MSHCP issues and biological impacts and mitigation 2)The 2015 Joint Project Review conducted by the Regional Conservation Authority and associated figures If you might confirm your receipt of this message and a total of four attachments,that would be much appreciated. EHL looks forward to continuing to work with you on this project and achieving important biological goals. With best regards, Dan Dan Silver, Executive Director Endangered Habitats League 8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite A 592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267 213-804-2750 i Comment Letter 14 dsilvcrla@me.com www.chleague.orl; 2 Comment Letter 14 egional onservation Authority Western Riverside Cuunty Board f r April 1, 2015 Chairman John Tavaglione County.f Rirkervidr Vice Chairman Fugcne Montanez. Cilyt+f cartttro Matt Peters Marion Ashley City of Temecula C„untilofRizirrwi e 41000 Main Street Kevin Kash Temecula, CA 92590 City i f Norm Ben Benoit CityetfWildnnrar Dear Mr. Peters, John Benoit CountyifRiveside Please find the following JPR attached: Tim Brown Cify'?fCmryorr Luke JPR 14-05-27-01; the Local Identifier is the Altair Project. The JPR file Maryann Edwards City of Tenrei ufa attached includes the following: Jeffrey Hewitt city ofcalintesa The JPR file attached includes the following: Kevin Jeffries G+utrtyofRimrsidr * RCAJPR D.Laeonna Jempscm City of Moreno Yirlley * y Map s g Exhibit A, Vicinity M with MSHCP Schematic Core and Linkages Natasha Johnson + Exhibit B, Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Vegetation and Project City tfUkeElsinore Location Linda Krupa . Exhibit C, Criteria Area Cells with MSHCP Soils and Project City of Hemet Location Verne Lauritzen Ciryoflurupa Valle/ • Exhibit D, Criteria Area Cell with Aerial Photography and Proposed Matt Liesemeyer Project Impacts City ofMetrifee . Regional Map Clint Lorimore City of Lag1va1r Andy Melendrez CitytfRiverside T nk yo Scott Miller City of San lacinto George Mayer Cily of Banning Mark Oroyett Laurie Dobson Correa City of Beaumont Director of Reserve Monitoring & Management David S.Rabb City of Perri., Harry Ramos Cc: Karin Cleary-Rose Heather A. Pert City of Nfatrrirta U.S, Fish &Wildlife Service California A. Dept. of Fish &Wildlife o utyofRi ersi&gton 777 East Tah uitz Canyon Way 3602 Inland Empire Blvd. # C220 County ofRivcrside � y y p Executive stafF Suite 208 Ontario, CA 91764 Charles Landry Palm Springs, CA 92262 Lxecurive Director Agency enclosures: 3403 de, street, is 92501 JPR,Altair Project MSHCP Consistent LBV Survey, BUOW Survey Riverside,California y25()7 J y� y� y P.O.BoxIb67 Riverside,California 92%02-1667 Phime:(qS1)955_9700 Fax:(951)955-&973 www.wrc-rca.org Comment Letter 14 0Wes egiogoo nalnation RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) uthority JPR#: 14-OS-27-01 tern Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 r Project Information Permittee: City of Temecula Case Information: PR13-0043, Altair Specific Plan Site Acreage: 270 acres Portion of Site Proposed for MSHCP Conservation Area: 83.8 acres Criteria Consistency Review Consistency Conclusion: The project is not consistent with both the Criteria and Other Plan requirements. Data: Applicable Core/Linkage: Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Area Plan: Southwest APN Sub-Unit Cell Group Cell See Application SU1 -Murrieta Creek K' 7077 SU 6-Santa Rosa Plateau 7161 Independent 7078 7164 7166 7258 7264 7355 7356 Criteria and Project Information Criteria Comments: a. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, "Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 10 in the south. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban Development and agricultural use and the planned land use surrounding the Linkage consists of city (Murrieta and Temecula). Therefore, care must be taken to maintain high quality riparian Habitat within the Linkage and along the edges for species such as yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the creek. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek is also important to western pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area." 1 of 10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 a. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, "Proposed Linkage 10 consists of an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Existing Core G (Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) in the south. Private lands compose the entirety of the Linkage, which consists of upland Habitat complementary to the riparian Linkage provided between these two Cores by Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). This Linkage, which is only somewhat constrained by existing urban Development, provides for movement between these two Cores for species such as bobcat and mountain lion. Although the Linkage is somewhat lengthy at 5.5 miles, it is also nearly a mile wide and thus provides Live-In Habitat for many species. Surrounding planned land uses are approximately evenly divided between Rural Mountainous and city (Murrieta, Temecula). In areas of the Linkage bordering Cities, treatment of edge conditions will be necessary to maintain the proper Habitat and movement functions of the Linkage." b. The project is also located in Cell Group K', which includes Cells 7077, 7161 and 7254. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group J' to the west and in Cell #7164 to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 35%-45% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group." The proposed project includes approximately 8.1 acres of Cell Group K'. All of the project area in this Cell Group is proposed for conservation. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the Reserve Assembly goals of Cell Group K'. c. The project site is located within Cell 7078. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell#7021 to the north and in Cell #7079 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 15%-25% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell." The project site is not near Murrieta Creek in Cell 7078, which is the area described for Conservation, and therefore is consistent with the Cell Criteria. d. The project is located in Cell 7164. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this C ell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group K' to the west, in Cell #7258 to the south, and in Cell #7166 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 70%-80% of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell." 2of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation ,Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Westem Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 The proposed project covers approximately 92.3 acres within the southwestern portion of the Cell. Of those 92.3 acres, the project proposed to conserve approximately 25.7 acres. There are approximately 40.4 acres already conserved. There are no other acres potentially available for conservation in Cell 7164. With the 40 acres already conserved and 25.7 acres proposed for conservation by the project, a total of 65.7 acres would be conserved. To meet the mid-point of the targeted Cell Criteria 120 acres would need to be conserved. The project will impact approximately 66 acres that is described for conservation and will therefore preclude the Cell Criteria from being met in Cell 7164. e. The project site is located within Cell 7166. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest and grassland habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral habitat within the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7079 to the north, to chaparral, grassland, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to the south and to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7164 to the west. Conservation within this Cell will range from 35%-45% of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell." The project is not in the area of this Cell which contributes to Murrieta Creek/Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project area in Cell 7166 would contribute to Proposed Linkage 10 and impacts approximately 28 acres. The project will impact all of the remaining acreage available for conservation in this Cell which will preclude the Cell Criteria from being met in Cell 7166. f. The project is located in Cell 7258. As stated in section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7164 to the north and to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to the east. Conservation within this C ell will range from 30%-40% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell." The project includes approximately 5.3 acres of Cell 7258; 3.1 acres will be conserved by the project and 2.2 acres will be impacted. There are approximately 21.5 acres already conserved in this Cell, and approximately 46.7 acres are undeveloped and potentially available for conservation outside the proposed project. To meet the midpoint of targeted Cell Criteria 56 acres would need to be conserved. With the 21.5 acres already conserved and the 3.1 acres to be conserved by the project, there will be 24.6 acres conserved. Since there are 46.7 acres potentially available for conservation, the project would not preclude the ability to meet the Cell Criteria for Cell 7258. 3of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 g. The project is located within Cell 7264. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral, grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat within the Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland, riparian scrub, woodland, forest and chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7166 to the north and to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7258 to the west and Cell #7355 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 70%-80% of the Cell focusing in the western portion and eastern edge of the Cell." The project will impact approximately 66 acres of this Cell and proposes to conserve approximately 9.2 acres. In order to meet the midpoint target for Cell 7264, 120 acres needs to be conserved. There are approximately 38 acres outside the project potentially available for conservation in this Cell and approximately 9.3 acres already conserved that contribute to Proposed Linkage 10. The project's proposed conservation of 9.2 acres, existing conservation of 9.3 acres and 38 acres potentially available results in a total possible conservation of 56.5 acres, well short of the 120 acre midpoint. Therefore, the project's impacts will preclude the ability to meet the Cell Criteria for Cell 7264 and Proposed Linkage 10. h. The project is located within Cell 7355. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral, woodland, forest, and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to the north and Cell #7356 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 40%-50% of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell." The project impacts approximately 17 acres within Cell 7355 and proposes to conserve approximately 17.4 acres. In order to meet the midpoint target conservation for this Cell, 72 acres would need to be conserved. Of the 117 acres in Cell 7355 outside the project, approximately 56 acres is undeveloped and potentially available for conservation. The 17.4 acres of conservation from the project and the 56 acres potentially available for conservation will potentially allow the 72 acreage target for this Cell to be met. However, the proposed development will encroach into the negative influence zone for mountain lion movement, one of the primary objectives of Cell 7355 and Proposed Linkage 10 therefore, is in conflict with reserve assembly goals. i. The project is located in Cell 7356. As stated in Section 3.3.15 of the MSHCP, "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat and on riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat along Temecula Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7355 to the 4of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 west and to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7357 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 50%-60% of the C ell focusing in the western and southeastern portions of the Cell." The project will impact 10.9 acres of this Cell, and conserve 19.9 acres within the area that is intended for conservation. In order to meet the midpoint of the targeted range for conservation, 88 acres need to be conserved. There are approximately 122 acres outside the project area in this Cell. Of those 122 acres, approximately 23 acres is potentially available for conservation that would contribute to Proposed Linkage 10. There are 6.6 acres of existing conservation in Cell 7356 made up of PQP Lands in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. A project to expand the I-15/State Route 79 South interchange is in process and is expected to impact a portion of the remaining acreage. The interchange project is considered a Covered Activity; therefore, those impacts cannot be avoided. The City was asked to evaluate the cumulative effect of the proposed Altair Specific Plan and the interchange project on the ability to meet the Cell Criteria. Although no information was provided, the estimated right-of-way based on current design was excluded from potentially available conservation acres. The proposed project conservation of 19.9 acres, 6.6 acres of existing conservation, and the 23 acres of potentially available conservation total 49.5 acres, which would preclude the ability to meet the target conservation range for Cell 7356 of 88 acres. j. Rough Step: The proposed project is within Rough Step Unit 5. Rough Step 5 encompasses 91,734 acres within the southwestern corner of western Riverside County and includes the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Tenaja Corridor, and Murrieta Creek. It is bounded by Interstate 15 to the northeast, San Diego County to the south and the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest to the west. Within Rough Step 5, 24,326 acres are located within the Criteria Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step Unit 5 include coastal sage scrub; grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and woodlands and forests. Based on the 2012 MSHCP Annual Report, all vegetation categories are "in" rough step. Based on the MSHCP vegetation mapping (Exhibit B), vegetation on the proposed project site includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, woodlands and forests, grassland and developed/disturbed. Therefore, development on the project site will not conflict with or interfere with the Rough Step Status of Unit 5. k. Project information was provided by the Permittee in the JPR application and the original HANS package from the City dated May 23, 2014, which included a MSHCP Compliance Analyses and Surveys report prepared by HELIX dated May 2, 2014. Three revisions to the original MSHCP report prepared by HELIX were provided in response to requests from RCA in order to complete the MSHCP documentation package. This JPR analysis is based on the third revisions from HELIX, dated January 14, 2015. In March 2015, the City also submitted a September 19, 2014 Burrowing Owl Survey Report as well as an August 14,2014 Least Bell's Vireo Survey Report for the project to the RCA. 5of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 1. The project site is currently undeveloped and located west of Old Town Temecula along the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in an area known as the "escarpment." Murrieta Creek is to the east of the site. The proposed project consists of a specific plan on approximately 270 acres that includes up to 1,900 residential units, a small commercial component, and a civic/commercial center at the south end of site. The proposed project also includes construction of the Western Bypass Corridor, which is a Covered Activity per Section 7 of the MSHCP. According to the shapefiles provided by the City there is approximately: 83.3 acres of conservation; 179.9 acres of development; 7.1 acres of"Impact Neutral" areas; 1.3 acres of off-site impacts; and 15.8 acres of re-vegetated slopes. m. The Western Bypass as originally envisioned in the MSHCP analysis for Covered Roads would have impacted 127.9 acres according to the HELIX report. The proposed project redesigned the alignment of the Western Bypass and it will result in 72.1 acres of impact. The Western Bypass is a roadway that was considered in the MSHCP analysis and is depicted on Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP with a 100-foot right-of- way. The proposed design of the Western Bypass includes a split road design in order to minimize the grading impacts. The alignment of the Western Bypass is along the western edge of the project site where it will be a barrier between the proposed development and conservation areas within Proposed Linkage 10. a. Species appropriate wildlife fencing must be provided along the entire western edge of the Western Bypass. n. Reserve Assembly: The project site encompasses multiple Criteria Cells and one Cell Group as listed above. As discussed above, the project meets the criteria in some cells, but in other cells (7164, 7166, 7264, and 7356), will preclude the ability of the Cell Criteria to be met. In Cell 7355 the Cell Criteria may be met, but the project will encroach into the negative influence zone for mountain lion. Since the project cannot meet the Cell Criteria requirements of the MSHCP, a Criteria Refinement can be proposed. The RCA and Wildlife Agencies advised the City and applicant of this option several times in meetings and in writing. Because a Criteria Refinement is not being proposed, the project cannot be found to be consistent with the Reserve Assembly requirements of the MSHCP. o. Proposed Linkage 10 is intended to provide linkage for movement of bobcat and mountain lion, as well as live-in habitat for these species, among others. The proposed configuration of the project site in cells 7355 and 7356 will significantly reduce the viability of Proposed Linkage 10 as movement and live in habitat for mountain lions. Per Section 6.2 of the HELIX report,the project will occur within the negative influence zone of 490'-1,970' where nearly all mountain lion activity (i.e., breeding, hunting, moving) will be affected, which is in conflict with what the MSHCP intended for this linkage. In addition, the proposed project will reduce the width of Linkage 10 from the expected range of 1,200 to 2,700 feet within the project area to less than 500' at its narrowest point. Particularly critical is the movement and use constraint which would be created at the southern end of the project, at the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, where the most concentrated mountain lion use currently occurs. 6of10 Comment Letter 14 egional legion ation RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onser Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 Proposed Linkage 10, the crossing under I-15 at Temecula Creek, and another crossing under I-15 being considered several miles south of the project site are critical to allow for mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Cleveland National Forest east of I-15. p. Fee credits - The Helix report indicates the City of Temecula intends to allow the applicant $150,000 in MSHCP fee credits in exchange for the 270 acres of land offered off-site. The project as proposed would require a Criteria Refinement to be consistent with the MSHCP,which would allow the 270 acres to be used as replacement land if it is biologically equivalent or superior. Fee credits are intended to provide incentive/compensation for on-site conservation that contributes to Reserve Assembly that would otherwise need to be acquired. Allowing fee credits for replacement lands that would not otherwise need to be acquired is not an appropriate use of MSHCP fee credits since it creates a financial drain on already limited funding and incentivizes the potential development of land needed for conservation. Other Plan Requirements Data: Section 6.1.2—Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. There are riparian/riverine areas on the project site. There are no vernal pools on the project site and soils are not consistent with vernal pool soil types and are not suitable for fairy shrimp habitat. Section 6.1.3 —Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area(NEPSSA). Section 6.3.2—Was Additional Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is not located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area(CASSA). The project is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl. Section 6.1.4—Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The property is located near future and existing Conservation Areas. Other Plan Requirement Comments: a. Section 6.1.2: According to the MSHCP Consistency Report prepared by HELIX dated January 14, 2015, there is approximately 2.56 acres of riparian and riverine habitat on the project site. As outlined on Table 2 of the HELIX report, of those 2.56 acres, 0.49 acres is riparian woodland, 0.38 acres is southern willow scrub, 0.08 is herbaceous wetland, 0.64 is coast live oak woodland, and 0.97 acres is riverine streambed. HELIX determined that suitable habitat was present for least Bell's vireo (LBV). Focused surveys were 7of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 conducted on April 18, 28, May 8, 19, June 2, 13, 26, and July 8, 2014. No LBV were identified on the project site during those surveys; however, HELIX did report hearing LBV in Murrieta Creek during two of the site visits. No suitable habitat was identified on site for southwestern willow flycatcher or yellow billed cuckoo. Soils on the site are reported to be primarily sandy to rocky loams; vernal pools were not identified on-site. HELIX reports that there were 12 small basins located in the northern portion of the site associated with a previously graded area. The basins are reportedly associated with the compaction on the graded areas and HELIX determined them to be man-made. Given the sandy, loamy and rocky soil types on-site, no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp occurs on—site; therefore, no focused surveys were conducted. Of the 2.56 acres of riparian and riverine habitats on site, the project will impact 1.21 acres. Of those 1.21 acres, 0.38 acres will be to southern willow scrub; 0.08 acres will be to herbaceous wetland; 0.15 acres will be to coast live oak woodland; and 0.60 acres will be riverine streambeds. Of the 1.21 acres of impacts to riparian and riverine resources, HELIX reports that 0.57 acres are attributed to the Western Bypass alignment and 0.64 acres will be impacted by the development. Since there are impacts to riparian and riverine resources,the project requires the preparation of a DBESP. A request was made on November 10, 2014,but a DBESP was not submitted with the JPR materials. The HELIX report does not provide an analysis of the functions and values of the riparian and riverine resources on-site as required by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Factors to be addressed per Section 6.1.2 are: hydrologic regime, flood storage and flood flow modification, nutrient retention and transformation, sediment trapping and transport, toxicant trapping, public use, wildlife habitat, and aquatic habitat. The functions and values assessment is to focus on the areas that are priorities for conservation as well as the downstream values related to conservation and MSHCP Covered Species. This information has been provided. Analysis was also not provided on the project's impacts to Conserved Habitats, riparian species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, effects on riparian Linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area. The HELIX report indicates that a 3:1 mitigation ratio will be applied to most project impacts; however, there is no discussion on the biological equivalency of the mitigation relative to the functions and values of the riparian impacts on-site as is required in a DBESP. There also are no details about where the proposed"off-site"mitigation will be located or what type of mitigation will be proposed (creation, enhancement,etc.). A DBESP needs to be submitted and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies and RCA in relation to the JPR in order to be compliant with the MSHCP requirements. Therefore, because the project has impacts to riparian and riverine resources and a DBESP has not been provided, and the project is not consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. b. Section 6.1.3: Although the project is not located within a NEPSSA,HELIX has identified a population of approximately 300 individuals of San Diego ambrosia on the project site as depicted on Figure 6 and 8 of the HELIX report. The HELIX report states, "The applicant has agreed, however, to translocate the population from the project impact area to lands already conserved within 10 miles of the project site. 8of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 i. The City shall consult with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies once a draft translocation has been prepared and the RCA and Wildlife Agencies shall approve the receptor site and methods. This shall be a condition of approval of the project and the receptor location and translocation plan shall be approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies prior to issuance of a grading permit. c. Section 6.3.2: The project site is located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl. HELIX conducted habitat suitability surveys on April 10 and May 31, 2007. Suitable habitat was identified on-site in the flatter areas primarily along the eastern and southern portions of the site. HELIX conducted focused protocol surveys on March 4, 13, 25 and April 8, 2014. HELIX determined that none of the suitable burrows showed sign of occupation by burrowing owls. Given the suitability of the site however, the City shall condition the project to conduct 30-day pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl prior to grading. i. Should owls be identified on-site during these surveys, the City and applicant shall provide results to the RCA and contact the RCA about appropriate relocation methods. Passive relocation or eviction should not be the only mitigation option. Based on the information provided by HELIX, and as long as pre-construction surveys are conducted and the RCA is consulted with the results of those surveys, the project demonstrates consistency with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. d. Section 6.1.4: Future and existing Conservation Areas are located adjacent to the project site. To preserve the integrity of areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall be implemented by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. Specifically,the Permittee should include as project conditions of approval the following measures: i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. 1. Downstream drainages that must be protected from high volumes and contamination include Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat, or water quality, shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. Ili. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. 1. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. All roadway and project lighting adjacent 9of10 Comment Letter 14 egional RCA Joint Project Review (JPR) onservation Authority JPR#: 14-05-27-01 Western Riverside County Date: 04/01/15 to conservation areas must be the minimum lumens needed for safety and must be shielded so light does not spill into any Conservation Area. iv. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features. vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. 1. The City shall condition the project to provide fencing adjacent to all existing and proposed Conservation Areas. The fencing plan will be submitted to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval. 2. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. SNS 10 of 10 Comment Letter 14 a o = cu U X Y U 0 y U O m X O Ul m r+ W m 6 r O6 C 2 = 2 L J C J J 7 � lC� � °a c d W U V c U N 0) L. 0 ++ f6 N L (6 N C C J +L o +L O U o 0 O mu c Y n U c Y c a c d O c: •X cM O O S O 6 O ° O d 0 U � W = U U -D Z o U M Z 0C. U aL ; w aL U 2 I � too Iv O I- � N LO H J O O Z O a ism w N , N► t� to R N 3 + r�•y 4� t P f } V 1 u� N N +J W o Q . .. co co DOOM 1 it iii Ir / •i� iD• �i IL Ift co 1 i i! !�`�►j�i 7 .'�►OC •dOtr•.►O♦ ip• •.N►O . �� ��®� i�l����i►'.:ifs 'G��`� p"pi•p } �Ai�►pp� �.►oi �.►off ��..►o.,� / Illllllllluuuuui � ® ,;`.� 1 it�►o� i ►of � 1 I ' Comment Letter 14 U C a H O o m +r a) X O o a W J m m � \J o o U a 0 -0 m Eli OL � o ° 2 o d L o w - Fn M c u U) a) C CL w aa)) L) a o a 0M Q a m o W N m a w o m m 0 0 o °° m o � O _ 2 , C LO .-. U i fn a) N ^ V Uj a) O N a) a) O 0 co a. ° ° _° Q `° V VV c -Fu Q o t° 00 �' o 2 co -a '� U7 O N VCC) a� C a N �+ ° a) Q Q c E a) o 0 0 E c .3 Z N � M -0 @ N O 'O $ O a) n 0 g L N U m Q m > (n as o > 0 c m m N -Oc: aa)i d 0 0 — (D a) > o f f6 a > Y Cp �' C i U -0 c U " a) a) T o a) ca > d a C p O O 0) > > T L L) N L c c -o Y 0 0 0 m 0 M a) 0 Q d o =o o w w o -0 a) m M Cott —cm cm 0 U U Q 0- a- U) F— Q w Li (D C7 (� ° o OD® 0001 � 111 _ 1111 � 0 cq o LO LO 0 0 0 0 CD O J a 0 0 `O M ti r•,. <, O N M 0 co Ni F- cfl Lc) O O N ti ti ti ti n ti LO ti ti OO ti Go fO G � LC> �` LOM o� ti� ti ' ti ti o W o ti o O ti ti J 1 ". lam-.. "�'�,�� •�' �yy � it .� �3 �` jrCL _ •` •a. .� •y 7 mot. �i • IL CL �s dam• r ` 1 • • • i 00 p a fl ''•>' _ !!.�s��s..17�',11 �• ►-.i. 1 "'� rs. it ham--!' ..r I ��l• ry.Sri ' ye MCI N Vr Lh kD- 3 ,R r # t . IL f{��'o vim' - -' �� ■ � - � ':�� • .,` �„ I� !i��� lit40 70 F_y t' 64 144, 4 r r r ezn 4�,,,., ._�r • ,.r , an 17 ` 4% . -•� a _ram • N i • r ti p. o I . M0C • • 1 2 ' • of T J ■ • • I � 1 I ---. • • I • .* I I I DPW ' 3 :15 • c� C ■ _r ��. I _ LL . �.. ' ' , ■ ■ 0 U ■ ■ ■ ■ AL ,vh "0 yr r A k s I. 7�_t 1$1 r' J let %!f rr� _ •�, � �fJJJ ' �• � � � }Jam_ 1� '\� - Awn �\ -f�-. I I � . �}� r // ' ti �, 11 'a:� '� .`III-' r� •. k // '� •yam � F --i--=�—�— 1 f fl '� • rr_ _ _ f F V r4 �L L I 9. �r�/�1��J� � �////// f'f./rl` •=••k�r �1_ �� �i ' •�� '��P r :Jti >, _ 'is`.--J.Y�?.T I . .. 0 y .�' /r 1,.,'r., �` I a• d �� '�` � ll �i F�'�.����-1f r I � # "-! �( 1 - IAA If kra � l � � � ;�}��� I � � �'I �� �� ���I � � i�� ' vg`j �?:.� �';•sc: vas, � �_ '95 0 0 440 0 AA �fr �%✓��//�/���r ��" ' f bf ��T�r 'l � '�� • �•!— I�1' � 1'i' .i r. -gyp Alm / '.NrKA �'�Y'� -i f �:�r'aV,'•�*� ' 1'1 �;� 1 fr �� .. 31 ,�b ram` r OA r Tt ; ... j ti"f�[�—r I ' I � - 1�1 � _•r'�\�r! ��ff :'�T��1 .1 i r '� a* �1' �:� Ww �`�+ ��• ' fi_ � �'�- oz ■ •1 ?fu Ire i 1 �. T�1 "� I ���4_• f Comment Letter 14 y ��� co _ N E • C � ': n � . ■ / . ) 0 @� \«- 00 . N \Z/§ ( ::\ . \�\ � . y �_ \ o 10 / / . .(Z� 9 LL o t 2. Id I | 06 - ! kg ! $) ' - {)= j . ( § IL E _ VIA&NTA®® o - _ (}) � z > 2 > ) iz \ / = f ) ) 0. \ 2`\ ) / � ( ) ( ;= r ! 00 2 « z 3 < ! � 3k !!Ez ! § z w { ; � � gq� 11 Ilk go I Comment Letter 14 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife SEEMCE Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Inland Deserts Region 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 208 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Suite C-220 Palm Springs,California 92262 Ontario,California 91764 760-322-2070 909-484-0167 FAX 760-322-4648 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0229 Mr. Matt Peters APR 1 5 2015 City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula-,CA.92590 __ Subject: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01 for the Altair Project,Temecula,California Dear Mr.Peters: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department),hereafter referred to jointly as the Wildlife Agencies,have reviewed the Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01 (JPR)for the Altair Project(project),received April 2,2015. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA)has found this project to be inconsistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Wildlife Agencies concur with the RCA's determination and consider the project to be inconsistent with the MSHCP criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function. The 270-acre project site is located in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula(City), Riverside County,west of Old Town,and is generally bound by Ridge Park Drive and Vincent Moraga Drive to the north,Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek to the east,and undeveloped land to the west and south.The proposed project includes the revised alignment of the four-lane divided Western Bypass that will connect Temecula Parkway and Rancho California Road,development of up to 1,900 residential units,limited neighborhood-serving commercial,civic/institutional uses,parks,and open space. A portion of the Western Bypass alignment would be eliminated from the City's circulation element. The project footprint is within MSHCP criteria cells which describe the assemblage and confluence of Proposed Linkage 10,which provides an upland connection between Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve,and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 along Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. We discussed the project and its conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly at meetings with the project proponent and the RCA on March 20th and August 21 st of 2014. At both of those meetings we expressed strong reservations about the project design and advised that a Criteria Refinement is needed to achieve proper MSHCP implementation. We again recommend that the project be redesigned and/or that a Criteria Refinement be provided. We also note that the project has not yet complied with the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine policy,so MSHCP implementation is not also complete,but recognize that the project has acknowledged the outstanding requirement. Comment Letter 14 Mr. Matt Peters(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0229) 2 Project Consistency Analysis for Reserve Assembly The MSHCP Consistency Report(HELIX,2015)for the Altair project provided analysis of all three reserve assembly components: 1)cores and linkages,2)Area Plans and subunits,and 3) criteria cells. However,the analysis did not properly account for the presence of existing development and the project footprint on acreage goals for each criteria cell and subunit. It also seemed to imply that the status of Western Bypass as a covered activity is a reason to discount the reserve assembly criteria,which is not correct. The MSHCP Consistency Report appropriately identified reserve assembly shortfalls,i.e. instances where the project footprint precludes reserve assembly as described,and correctly identified the barriers to mountain lion movement and reserve function that would result from the project. The Consistency Report then reaches the contradictory conclusion that the project is consistent with MSHCP reserve assembly and connectivity needs. The evidence and analysis provided did not support this conclusion. The project is located at the confluence of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 along Murricta Creek and Proposed Linkage 10 between the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 along Temecula Creek,and the Santa Margarita River. The Wildlife Agencies are concerned that the project will degrade the biological connectivity between these areas and preclude MSHCP reserve assembly goals. The proposed project would limit the viability of Proposed Linkage 10 as live-in habitat and a wildlife movement corridor for small and large mammals, including mountain lion,bobcat,and deer and obstruct the connectivity between the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve via Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Mountain lions have been recorded at the southern edge of the project site near the confluence of Temecula Creek,Murrieta Creek,and the Santa Margarita River. The project has proposed an unspecified civic use that would bring night lighting,noise,and traffic to a currently undisturbed portion of the linkage. The project negatively impacts the stated goals of Proposed Linkage 10 to provide live-in habitat and a movement corridor for mountain lion by narrowing the linkage and at one point reducing the linkage width to approximately 600 feet along the southern portion of the project in cell 7355. Proposed Linkage 10 is described as 5.5 miles long and nearly a mile wide (5280 feet). In cell 7355,the project would reduce the linkage to a distance of 600 feet. A linkage of 600 feet in width is too narrow to provide sufficient habitat for movement by mountain lion and bobcat,the planning species for Proposed Linkage 10. Our concerns regarding the degradation in the function of Proposed Linkage 10 echo those identified in the MSHCP Consistency Report,which acknowledges that there will be significant reduction in the suitability of the linkage for mountain lions post-project. Despite recognition of the significant impediments to reserve function the Consistency Report provides a hopeful but unsubstantiated assertion that some use by mountain lions is anticipated to continue. The MSHCP Consistency Report describes the post project dimensions of the reserve assembly features for bobcat,but does not say whether or not they will function. It also recognizes that pond turtle conservation is expected in the Conservation Area near the project,but does not provide any information about any potential impacts to pond turtle nesting habitat. The project footprint and proposed conservation strategy do not provide the cell conservation I requirements or the dimensional data anticipated for this linkage. The project conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly acreage goals. It precludes the conservation described in MSHCP criteria cells 7164, 7166,7264 and 7356. Our calculation is that the project Comment Letter 14 Mr. Matt Peters(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0229) 3 would result in a reserve assembly short fall in the neighborhood of 200 acres. The MSHCP Consistency Report points out`that acreage requirements are not the only criteria used when determining overall consistency with the MSHCP.' We do not disagree with this statement but wish to clarify that the other MSHCP elements are additive to the acreage requirements not substitutes for them. We request clarification of Table 3 and 6 in the Consistency Report for the disposition of the 8.1 acres in Cell 7254. Table 3 indicates the 8.1 acres are not conserved and Table 6 indicates the 8.1 acres are conserved. To address the reserve assembly short fall that would result from the proposed development,the project proponents have offered to conserve 270 acres in Temescal-Canyon Area Plan located between the National Forest and a residential community near the City of Corona. While the addition of 270 acres would theoretically address the reserve assembly shortfall resulting from the proposed development,those acres are well to the north and west of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 and do not address the target acreage shortfalls in the Southwest Area Plan subunits 1 and 6. The MSHCP is plain in providing that an equivalency analysis is required in instances where applicants or permittees propose implementation of a project that is not in accordance with the reserve assembly criteria. The equivalency analysis must address effects on reserve assembly features(Cores,Linkages and Constrained Linkages). The identified 270 acres are not a suitable replacement for the acreage shortfall or the degradation of reserve function resulting from the proposed project. The MSHCP Consistency Report states that the City of Temecula proposes to offset the applicant's purchase costs of$150,000 for 270 acres through Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF)credits. The LDMF is intended to be the primary funding source for MSHCP reserve acquisition. As stated above,the additional 270 acres is not within either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 of the Southwest Area Plan and therefore does not contribute to the conservation goals for those subunits or address the inadequacies of the project's MSHCP implementation. In this instance, providing LDMF credits for acreage that is not described for conservation and does not support reserve assembly subsidizes degradation of the conservation area instead of fostering reserve assembly. We agree with the RCA's assessment that this is an inappropriate and counterproductive use of LDMF credits. Western Bypass The Western Bypass is a covered activity and identified as a circulation element in Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that the project's redesign of the Western Bypass reduces the identified impacts in the northern portion of the roadway. The Consistency Report states that reduction of the Western Bypass footprint will offset project road impacts. We request that the City work with the RCA on a minor amendment to the MSHCP that modifies Figure 7-1 to reflect the removal of the northern portion of the Western Bypass and documents the exchanged impact acreage. Once the minor amendment is complete,then the acreage reduction can be credited to the project. Comment Letter 14 Mr, Matt Peters(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0229) 4 San Diego Ambrosia The JPR text and the project MSHCP Consistency Report(Helix 2015)correctly point out that the San Diego ambrosia(Ambrosia pumila,)population on the project site is not within an MSHCP narrow endemic plant survey area and that surveys and subsequent conservation,are not required by the MSHCP. We however,would like to point out that the population of San Diego ambrosia under discussion is within criteria cell 7166 in the area described for conservation. In other words,while the MSHCP does not require surveys for the plant on the project site,it does require that the area which supports the population be conserved. The translocation of this population should be addressed in the project's Criteria Refinement. Riparian/Riverine DBESP As acknowledged by the Consistency Report,a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP)document is required for unavoidable impacts to riparian and riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP. The consistency Report provides that temporary and permanent impacts to riparian(vegetated)streams will be mitigated at a ratio of 3 to 1,but that impacts to riverine resources will be mitigated at a ratio of 1 to 1. The Consistency Report describes the function of riverine streams as providing water conveyance,flood attenuation,sediment transport and energy dissipation. Mitigation of permanent impacts at a 1 to 1 ratio results in a 50 percent loss of the resource in question. While we look forward to reviewing the project's DBESP,we are skeptical that such a strategy can be biologically equivalent or superior to avoidance of the riverine resources. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the JPR and request a meeting with the City,the RCA and the applicant prior to project approval. We look forward to working with the City of Temecula and the applicant. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to schedule a meeting please contact Karin Cleary-Rose of the Service at 760-322-2070, extension 206,or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692. Sincerely, r' ennon A.Corey Leslie MacNair Assistant Field Supervisor Inland Deserts Region U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Charles Landry,Regional Conservation Authority Literature Cited Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.2015. Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report. Prepared for Ambient Communities,January 2015. 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 14: Endangered Habitats League Comment 14-A: The commenter references the April 13,2016,meeting the group had with the City to discuss wildlife movement and explains that the City has a good reputation in terms of the MSHCP,but it is at risk with the project. Response 14-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The participation of the Endangered Habitats League in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 14-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The participation of the Endangered Habitats League in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 14-B: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's consistency with the MSHCP. The commenter states the most important issues involve the significant impact that the project would have on mountain lion and other impacts to regional wildlife movement in Linkage 10(upland connection)and Constrained Linkage 13, as well as in Constrained Linkage 14. Response 14-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): MSHCP consistency is documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.8. Response 14-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.8 and to Appendix A. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific environmental impact information. Comment 14-C: The commenter expresses that the project should be redesigned by moving Villages A and G along with the South Parcel(i.e.,by moving all development)to the east of the proposed Western Bypass Road. Response 14-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 14-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 14-D: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's consistency with the MSHCP Criteria Cell conservation requirements. The commenter states such inconsistency would likely result in a significant reduction—or even elimination—in the use of Linkage 10 and Altair Specific Plan 3-200 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Constrained Linkage 13 by mountain lions and other wildlife due to the reduction in size of these linkages and negative edge effects of noise and light along with increased human presence within these linkages caused by the proposed development. Response 14-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Response 14-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Comment 14-E: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the Draft EIR's analysis of consistency with the MSHCP's Criteria Cell requirements. Response 14-E(Specific Plan with Civic Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.3. Response 14-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 and to Appendix A. Comment 14-F: The commenter states a Criteria Refinement is the proper remedy for both CEQA issues and MSHCP conformance. Response 14-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.4. Response 14-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.4. Comment 14-G: The commenter expresses that the project should be redesigned to move Villages A and G along with the South Parcel to the east of the Western Bypass. Response 14-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 14-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 14-H: To provide some equivalency to a formal Criteria Refinement,the commenter states that if development outside of the Western Bypass is proposed,the City should provide (1) a compelling biological case that the lost functions and values of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14 for mountain lion and other wildlife movement can be compensated for and(2) such additional and meaningful compensatory measures as project requirements. Response 14-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.4 and 3.2.8. Response 14-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.4 and 3.2.8. Comment 14-I: The commenter inquires what sorts of measures are eligible for such criteria refinement purposes. The commenter states the 270 acres of land proposed in the Draft EIR for protection further north near Corona is irrelevant to this question as it is located in an area with Altair Specific Plan 3-201 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments altogether different conservation purposes and requirements and would not in any way benefit habitat or wildlife movement associated with Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Response 14-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features) and 3.2.4. Response 14-I(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features) and 3.2.4. Comment 14-J: The commenter suggests the following options for mitigation: • Purchasing land adjacent to and on both east and west sides of I-15, such as the "Wheeler"and"Applegate"properties. • Providing funds to fully and adequately complete a"Project Study Report,"to be completed in partnership with Caltrans to preliminary engineering standards,proposing a system of wildlife crossings for I-15. • A Corridor Recovery Study as a condition of approval for the project. Response 14-J(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Please also note that the project already includes Project Conservation Features as stated in Common Response 3.2.1, including funding for conservation efforts. Response 14-J(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please note that the proposed acquisition is not necessary as a mitigation measure for the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and Common Response 3.2.8. Please also note that the project already includes Project Conservation Features as stated in Common Response 3.2.1, including funding for conservation efforts. Comment 14-K: The commenter states the City must be a"good actor"vis-a-vis the MSHCP and notes compliance is an obligation that the City must take seriously. Response 14-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.2. Response 14-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.2. Altair Specific Plan 3-202 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 15 5111�1 DIEV O STATE Diego ltateege University " San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive,MC-1010 UNIVERSITY San Diego,CA 92182.1010 619-594-5142/619-594-6381 June 27, 2016 Mr. Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Submitted via e-mail: mattpeters@cityoftemecula.org Subject: SMER comments, Altair Development Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters: This letter is to provide comments by the staff of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Temecula for the Altair project. This project is contiguous with portions of the 4,443-acre Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve of San Diego State University. The mission of the SMER and the San Diego 15-A State University Field Stations Program is to conserve significant natural areas while promoting scientific research and education. As presently designed, the Altair project will have a number of direct and indirect negative impacts on the SMER and the natural and cultural resources that it helps protect. The project will introduce dense urban residential and other developments into an area that historically has functioned as a buffer between Temecula and adjacent natural conservation and peri-urban areas. The substantial numbers of people who will occupy the Altair project will require active recreation opportunities and their presence will likely increase the chronic trespass and vandalism that already occurs on SMER land at the southern end of the proposed project. 15-B Residential Units A and G and the South Parcel (Civic Use), which lie to the south of the proposed Western Bypass will negatively impact the viewshed, will increase ambient noise, and will increase light pollution, especially from large multi-story buildings such as those suggested by Altair for the South Parcel. 1 Comment Letter 15 The SMER provides a key section of habitat linkage in Southern California, especially as part of the connection between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges that is critical for survival of the mountain lion,bobcat, and other animals. The Altair project would significantly reduce the physical boundaries of the current corridor and introduce dense development, noise, and lighting that would further impact the functionality of the linkage. The project, as currently advocated by Altair, would negatively impact the migration of the mountain lion through the SMER as well. 15-C This incompatible development adjacent to the SMER would comprise the reserve's research value. We concur with the analysis of the habitat linkage impacts in the letters submitted to the City of Temecula regarding the DEIR by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife,by the U.C. Davis Southern California Mountain Lion Project,by Endangered Habitats League, and by the Regional Conservation Authority. The project as laid out in DEIR would also have significant negative impacts on the cultural resources of the SMER. A portion of the SMER near the confluence of the Murrieta and Temecula creeks is within the Origin Landscape TCP that was officially listed in the National Register in October 2014. This part of the SMER includes part of the village site, boulders, and oaks that has been subject to repeated trespass and vandalism, including destruction of rock art 15-D and painting of graffiti, and illegal camping by persons crossing the City of Temecula's property. The DEIR does not address this chronic problem, which will only intensify if the project continues forward as currently specified. The Altair plan seems to conflict with the City of Temecula General Plan Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. The project's plans to contain stormwater quantity and quality are inadequate and would produce, especially after completion of the construction phase, increased runoff due to significant increases in hardscape without adequate installation of green infrastructure. The increased surface runoff will include urban toxic materials from the new residential and commercial development of the project. The ecosystem services provided by wetlands and riparian areas downslope from the project will be reduced from current levels as the project calculates an onsite shortfall for riparian habitat of 1.45 acres. The result will be a negative impact of the water quality in the Santa Margarita River that flows through the SMER and 15-E eventually to the Pacific Ocean at Camp Pendleton. The river has been designated as a high priority for the recovery of the federally listed endangered Southern California steelhead and seems to be an excellent opportunity to reestablish a steelhead population in Southern California. However, the altered hydrology and nonpoint pollutant discharge of the Altair project will possibly adversely impact steelhead habitat throughout the Santa Margarita River and downstream estuary. The DEIR for the project does not address the steelhead. We are in agreement with the comments on the DEIR provided to your office by California Trout. With the exception of our concerns about wetlands, runoff, and the impact on the water quality in the downstream Santa Margarita River, the following alterations to the Altair plan would address 15-F the issues that we raise: 2 Comment Letter 15 1. Change the use of the South Parcel from Civic Use to conservation open space. The Civic Use could be moved northward to the School site. I 15-G 2. Residential sections A & G should be located to the east of the re-aligned Western Bypass. t 15-H 3. The Western Bypass, which will then demark the boundary between the project and conservation habitat, should be provided with a berm and fence or berm and wall to physically separate the development from the habitat and as a measure to reduce sound and light problems 15-I on the habitat area. Finally, we feel that proposal to leave a portion of Camino Estribo unpaved needs to be re- examined in order to consider other traffic calming measures and potential problems with this 15-J roadway as a corridor for movement of trespassers into the conservation areas and nearby sensitive natural and cultural sites. Please contact me if you need additional information or have questions. Best wishes, Paul Ganster, Ph.D. Director, Field Stations Program 619-594-5423 3 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 15: San Diego State University Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) Comment 15-A: The commenter introduces SMER and its mission and states that SMER is submitting comments on the Draft EIR. Response 15-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The participation of SMER in the public review of this document is appreciated. Response 15-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The participation of SMER in the public review of this document is appreciated. Comment 15-B: The commenter raises concerns regarding the direct and indirect impacts on SMER and the natural and cultural resources that occur within the reserve. The commenter states the project will likely increase trespass and vandalism on SMER land, and Residential Units A and G and the South Parcel will negatively impact the viewshed and will increase noise and light pollution. Response 15-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As described in Section 3.12,Public Services, of the Draft EIR,the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 15-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 15-C: The commenter states the project would significantly reduce the physical boundaries of the habitat linkage between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges, and would introduce dense development,noise, and lighting that would further impact functionality of the linkage. The commenter notes this linkage is critical for survival of the mountain lion,bobcat, and other animals. Response 15-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-206 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 15-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 15-D: The commenter states that the project would have a significant impact on cultural resources within SMER. Specifically,the area near the confluence of the Murrieta and Temecula creeks is within the Origin Landscape TCP that was officially listed in the National Register in October 2014. The commenter states that this includes a part of the village site, boulders, and oaks that have been subject to repeated trespass and vandalism, including destruction of rock art and painting of graffiti, and illegal camping by persons crossing the City of Temecula's property. The commenter also states that the project seems to conflict with the City of Temecula General Plan Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Response 15-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Refer to Response 15-B.Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of the CEQA document,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Regarding consistency with the City of Temecula General Plan's Goal 6, as described in Draft EIR Table 3.9.4,the project has been designed to preserve archeological and paleontological resources within the Specific Plan area from future development. Mitigation measures MM-CUL-la through MM-CUL-If will be implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts to cultural resources. In addition, as stated in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a, a Paleontological Mitigation Program will be implemented. With implementation of mitigation,it was determined that the project would not have a significant effect on cultural or paleontological resources and would be consistent with Goal 6 of the General Plan. Response 15-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Refer to Response 15-B. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of the CEQA document,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Regarding consistency with the City of Temecula General Plan's Goal 6, as described in Draft EIR Table 3.9.4,the project has been designed to preserve archeological and paleontological resources within the Specific Plan area from future development. Mitigation measures MM-CUL-la through MM-CUL-If will be implemented to avoid and/or minimize impacts to cultural resources. In addition, as stated in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a, a Paleontological Mitigation Program will be implemented. With implementation of mitigation, it was determined that the project would not have a significant effect on cultural or paleontological resources and would be consistent with Goal 6 of the General Plan. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center Altair Specific Plan 3-207 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific environmental impact information. Comment 15-E: The commenter states that the increased surface runoff will include urban toxic materials from the new residential and commercial development of the project. The commenter also states that the ecosystem services provided by wetlands and riparian areas downslope from the project will be reduced from current levels, and the result will be a negative impact of the water quality in the Santa Margarita River that flows through SMER and eventually to the Pacific Ocean at Camp Pendleton. Further,the commenter states that the Draft EIR for the project does not address impacts to steelhead from altered hydrology and nonpoint pollutant discharge of the project. Response 15-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Impacts to riparian habitat are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.3,Biological Resources. As described beginning on Draft EIR page 3.3-41,the project proposes to compensate for impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to unvegetated channel at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined during the wetland permitting process through USACE,RWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. In addition,Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b would further reduce impacts to riparian habitat. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.6. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9 regarding impacts to Southern California steelhead. Impacts associated with runoff and on-point source pollutants are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality. Implementation of the proposed project would include compliance with all required laws,permits, and plans, including the MS4 Permit, WQMP, and Construction General Permit requirements, all of which have been designed to reduce impacts associated with water quality, erosion, flooding, and drainage. All stormwater would be filtered and infiltrated to protect surface water quality and groundwater quality to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed drainage system would mimic the existing water quality and hydrology conditions of the project area. Runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages,using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscaping areas between sidewalk and curb,where feasible. Therefore,the project would not result in substantial increases in erosion or siltation on or off site. In addition, a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)has been prepared that identifies the Best Management Practices(BMPs) for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design(Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of stormwater runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed treatment system would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. As a result,runoff from the project area would be filtered prior to discharge as part of project design and would not result in adverse water quality impacts. Altair Specific Plan 3-208 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 15-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Impacts to riparian habitat are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.3,Biological Resources. As described beginning on Draft EIR page 3.3-41,the project proposes to compensate for impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to unvegetated channel at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined during the wetland permitting process through USAGE,RWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. In addition,Mitigation Measures MM-13I0-4a and MM-BIO-4b would further reduce impacts to riparian habitat. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.6. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9 regarding impacts to Southern California steelhead. Impacts associated with runoff and on-point source pollutants are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality. Implementation of the proposed project would include compliance with all required laws,permits, and plans, including the MS4 Permit, WQMP, and Construction General Permit requirements, all of which have been designed to reduce impacts associated with water quality, erosion, flooding, and drainage.All stormwater would be filtered and infiltrated to protect surface water quality and groundwater quality to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed drainage system would mimic the existing water quality and hydrology conditions of the project area. Runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages,using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscaping areas between sidewalk and curb,where feasible. Therefore,the project would not result in substantial increases in erosion or siltation on or off site. In addition, a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)has been prepared that identifies the Best Management Practices(BMPs) for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design(Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of stormwater runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed treatment system would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. As a result,runoff from the project area would be filtered prior to discharge as part of project design and would not result in adverse water quality impacts. Altair Specific Plan 3-209 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 15-F: The commenter recommends revisions to the proposed project to address issues raised in their comments to reduce impacts. Response 15-F (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 15-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 15-G: The commenter recommends changing use of the South Parcel from Civic use to conservation open space. The commenter notes the Civic use could be moved northward towards the school site. Response 15-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 15-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 15-H: The commenter recommends re-locating Villages A and G to the east of the Western Bypass. Response 15-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 15-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 15-I: The commenter recommends the Western Bypass should be provided with a berm and fence or a berm and wall to address noise and light pollution. Response 15-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 15-I(Specific Plan with Nature Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 15-J: The commenter states that leaving Camino Estribo unpaved as proposed would provide a corridor for trespassers into conservation areas and sensitive cultural sites located near the project. Response 15-J(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1.Also, as noted in Response 15-13,the issue of trespassing is beyond the scope of CEQA. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.Response 15-J(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Altair Specific Plan 3-210 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Common Response 3.2.1.Also, as noted in Response 15-B,the issue of trespassing is beyond the scope of CEQA. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-211 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 16 Santa Margarita Group 31915 Rancho California Road Ste. 200-133, Temecula, Ca. 92591 (951)506-9607; fax (951)506-4497 Email: sierraclubsmg@gmail.com SIERRA www.sierraclubsmg.org CLUB r:ouNDED 1892 June 17, 2016 The Hon. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor City of Temecula 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mayor Naggar and Councilmembers: The Santa Margarita group of the Sierra Club (San Gorgonio Chapter) has been a willing and pleased community partner with the City of Temecula on many projects and endeavors. We admire and appreciate the City's ongoing efforts to improve and protect the quality of life for its residents. We gratefully recognize your strides to make Temecula an environmentally- friendly place to live as shown by your ongoing support for the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail and other Sierra Club projects, the Jefferson Corridor plans and the improvements to your city-trail system. Thanks, too, for your willingness to provide continued contact and information to our group and the public, a very important service to the community. But we have been contacted by several highly reputable entities that are 16-A concerned about the Altair project, particularly about the significant impact that the project would have on wildlife movement in Linkage 10 (upland connection), constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek connection) between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and in constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River - Temecula Creek - Pechanga Creek connection. Wildlife movement between the Santa Ana Mountains across Interstate 15 to the Palomar Mountains has been a concern for decades. We are now at a point where it appears that the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is in the center of the last viable linkage for wildlife that connects the Inland Mountains to the Coastal Mountain Range. We must face the fact that 16-B enhancing our last wildlife corridor system may be the only way to save the wildlife that are now stranded on the west side of Freeway 15. Unfortunately for the Altair project, the south end of the site's footprint intrudes on land that could possibly be the area for a wildlife corridor system 16-C Comment Letter 16 that could alleviate the problem. The area that must be enhanced and protected involves the intersection of Corridors 10, 13 and 14. The easiest first step is to plan for the widest corridor possible on this site while the 16-C Western Bypass, the Temecula Parkway clover-leaf and the Altair projects are in the making. The City of Temecula could do what the MSHCP failed to do; plan for the wildlife corridor infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure was the theme of the Plan, but there were only "linkages" described—not a true infrastructure for wildlife movement. Temecula could be the Champion of 16-D the MSHCP and show others how a City can take the Plan a step further and actually implement a working "linkage". Several changes to the project could accomplish this. 1) Moving the Villages A and G and the South Parcel (Civic Use site) to the 16-E east of the Western Bypass. 2) Any mitigation of land parcels should have equivalency to a formal Criteria Refinement as the MSCP describes, if a "Biologically Equivalent or Superior Determination" cannot be made for a proposed refinement, or if there is a reduction in Criteria acres, then an amendment to the plan must be sought, with concurrence of the wildlife agencies. The 270 acres of land 16-F proposed in the DEIR for protection near Corona is not satisfactory habitat or siting for this purpose. Land parcels that could enhance Linkages 10, 13, and 14 or lands adjacent to I-15 that would enhance those linkages would be appropriate. 3) Funding for a complete "Project Study Report," to be prepared by Caltrans to preliminary engineering standards, proposing a system of wildlife crossings for I-15 should be provided. Parcels to be acquired, culvert improvements and a connection from the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve 16-G and the Temecula Golf Course Plan that would make a viable Temecula River wildlife corridor would be studied. 4) Endangered Habitat League has suggested a Corridor Recovery Study be a condition of approval for the Altair project. "This would be conducted by the City, and informed by ongoing mountain lion research being conducted by UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, within a reasonable period of time. It would assess the Temecula Creek Inn golf course and proposed development 16-H project, and how to restore movement for mountain lion and other species on this property so as to make viable connections between Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkages 13 and 14". We strongly support this proposal. We feel that your primary goal and ours coincide, that the City of Temecula be in compliance with the MSHCP Once that goal is met, Temecula can show the region how the Plan should be responsibly implemented by putting our 16-1 recommendations into effect. Temecula would be an example to all participants in the MSHCP, which would be beneficial to everyone. Comment Letter 16 Sincerely, The Santa Margarita Group of the Sierra Club Pam Nelson, Chair Sierraclubsmg.org 951 767-2324 Pamela05n@yahoo.com 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 16: The Sierra Club Comment 16-A: The commenter introduces the Sierra Club and its relationship with the City of Temecula and states that it is concerned about the significant impact that the project would have on wildlife movement in Linkage 10, constrained Linkage 13, and constrained Linkage 14. Response 16-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The participation of the Sierra Club in the public review of this document is appreciated. Project impacts to wildlife movement are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 16-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The participation of the Sierra Club in the public review of this document is appreciated. Project impacts to wildlife movement are documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific environmental impact information. Comment 16-B: The commenter expresses concern that the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) is in the center of the last viable wildlife movement linkage for wildlife that connects the Inland Mountains to the Coastal Mountain Range and states that enhancing the linkage is the only way to save the wildlife that are stranded on the west side of 1-15. Response 16-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project impacts to wildlife movement are documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Response 16-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Project impacts to wildlife movement are documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.3 and 3.2.8. Comment 16-C: The commenter states the intersection of Linkage 10,constrained Linkage 13, and constrained Linkage 14 must be enhanced and protected. The commenter recommends planning for the widest corridor possible. Response 16-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 16-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental Altair Specific Plan 3-215 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 16-D: The commenter states the City could plan for the wildlife corridor infrastructure to facilitate a working linkage. Response 16-D: This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 16-E: The commenter suggests moving Villages A,G and the South Parcel to the east of the Western Bypass. Response 16-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 for a discussion of the proposed revised land use for the South Parcel. Response 16-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 for a discussion of the proposed revised land use for the South Parcel. Comment 16-F: The commenter requests that a Criteria Refinement be prepared and processed to address MSHCP consistency issues, and indicates that the Property located in Corona will not demonstrate consistency with MSHCP goals for the project area. Response 16-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 for a comprehensive response to Criteria Refinement and MSHCP consistency comments. The MSHCP mitigation property located in Corona that was discussed in the Draft EIR is longer proposed. Please refer to the Section 2.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. Response 16-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 for a comprehensive response to Criteria Refinement and MSHCP consistency comments. The MSHCP mitigation property located in Corona that was discussed in the Draft EIR is longer proposed. Comment 16-G: The commenter requests that the project applicant fund the entire I-15 wildlife crossing study. Response 16-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Section 2.1 in the Final EIR and Common Responses 3.2.2 for a summary of currently proposed wildlife crossing project conservation features and mitigation measures. Response 16-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Section 2.1 in the Final EIR and Common Responses 3.2.2 for a summary of currently proposed wildlife crossing project conservation features and mitigation measures. Altair Specific Plan 3-216 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 16-H: The commenter requests that the project applicant fund the entire I-15 wildlife crossing study be made a condition of approval. Response 16-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Section 2.1 in the Final EIR and Common Responses 3.2.2 for a summary of currently proposed wildlife crossing project conservation features and mitigation measures. Response 16-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Section 2.1 in the Final EIR and Common Responses 3.2.2 for a summary of currently proposed wildlife crossing project conservation features and mitigation measures. Comment 16-I: The commenter summarizes previous comments and suggests that the City of Temecula should be an example to all MSHCP participant with this project. Response 16-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Response 16-1(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Altair Specific Plan 3-217 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 17 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS asp v'oR Q, C _ +1 BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO -__ o SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ S = bnvs SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE ONE SHIELDS AVENUE ONE HEALTH INSITUTE DAVIS,CALIFORNIA 95616-8734 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (530)752-4167 FAX(530)752-3318 hftp://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ohi Mr. Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Altair Development Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters, We are writing in regards to the DEIR for the proposed Altair development in the city of Temecula. Dr. Winston Vickers is the field lead and Co-Principal Investigator for the Southern California Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) Project of the Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center, a division of the One Health Institute at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Zeller is a quantitative wildlife biologist with a focus on wildlife corridors and connectivity who has been studying mountain lion movement in southern California for the last five years. The Southern 17-A California Mountain Lion Project's focus since 2001 has been mountain lions and other wildlife species in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, with a special focus on connectivity between conserved lands (Vickers 2015). Our study has included extensive examination of movement patterns of mountain lions, and the pathways and corridors they and other wildlife require in order to assure adequate connectivity for long term population health. We have examined the Altair Project DEIR, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Joint Project Review from 2015 (JPR#: 14-05-27-01) and the response to the JPR by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192- 15CPA0229). Dr. Vickers has also participated in multiple meetings regarding the proposed development with personnel representing the developer, the developer's biological consulting firm, the City of Temecula, wildlife agencies, and other interested 17-B parties. We are concerned that the DEIR for the proposed Altair Development in Temecula has not adequately addressed a number of serious issues with the project that relate to conforming with the Multi-Species Conservation Plan for the region, and likely negative impacts of the project on wildlife. Recognizing that this development will likely go forward in some form, our intent is to provide a scientific assessment of the current DEIR and to provide suggestions as to how 17-C Comment Letter 17 negative impacts may be reduced or eliminated. We are currently funded by CDFW and the San Diego County Association of Governments (SANDAG)to define (via GPS-collar data and modeling) resource use, movement pathways, and corridors that are essential to connectivity for mountain lions in the region(Vickers 2016). The most pertinent findings 17-C from our study that relate to the Altair Project DEIR are those that relate to gene flow on the landscape, habitat use, movement, and mortality risks. It is our scientific opinion that the proposed Altair development will not only negatively impact mountain lion and other wildlife connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Linkage 10—upland linkage) and Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek connection), but will also negatively impact Constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River—Temecula Creek—Pechanga Creek 17-D connection) which is critical to mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains east of Interstate 15 (I-15). This "Palomar to Pacific"wildlife linkage is critical to gene exchange between mountain lion populations on either side of I-15. Genetic exchange between mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains and populations of mountain lions east of I-15 has been severely curtailed in recent decades (Ernest et al. 2003, Ernest et al. 2014). This population isolation has resulted in the two populations east and west of I-15 being genetically distinct and the Santa Ana Mountains population being seriously genetically restricted and showing signs of possible inbreeding(Ernest et al. 2014). This genetic restriction is presumably due to high traffic levels on I-15 and development along the vast majority of the interstate's length,preventing normal movement between the two mountain lion populations. Genetic restriction of the 17-E population of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Range, combined with low annual survival for mountain lions in the region(Vickers et al. 2015),poses a likely threat to the persistence of Santa Anas population(Ernest et al. 2014, Vickers et al. 2015). Thus, preservation of all remaining pathways that can enhance mountain lion movement and gene flow to and through the Temecula Creek bridge area(Constrained Linkage 14) from both east and west is critical. The proposed Altair development will have negative impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife. The DEIR should clearly identify and acknowledge these impacts, and it should be based on the best available science. In summary, we feel that the DEIR, as it currently exists, likely understates the level of negative impacts of the Altair development on mountain lion and other wildlife movement, especially in regards to Linkage 10, and does not adequately address negative impacts on regional connectivity between the Santa Ana 17-F Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges via Constrained Linkage 14. The DEIR does not address shortcomings in Linkage width definitions related to conservation status of lands within the Linkages, and suggests alternate movement pathways that are not realistic. The modeling advanced in the DEIR in support of the project cannot be adequately evaluated as to its accuracy, or compared to other models, due to the lack of transparency about the modeling process. Specific criticisms of the DEIR and suggested remedies: Comment Letter 17 1. As explained in detail below, the corridor modeling in the DEIR is flawed and provides a poor assessment of the impact of the Altair development. In our estimation, the inadequacies of this model render many of the conclusions in the DEIR as scientifically indefensible. Therefore, we contend that the report's conclusion that, "There is effectively no change in Linkage 10 permeability based on the model" is not scientifically valid due to a number of issues: a. There was no scientifically defensible reason provided for the use of the habitat/GIS variables in the corridor model. From the report, it appears the model used inputs provided by connectivity modeling software (Corridor Designer) and were not chosen based on the biology of mountain lions in Southern California. b. No information was provided on how resistance values were estimated. Resistance values are the basis for any connectivity modeling effort and the apparent lack of attention paid to resistance values in the DEIR study is concerning. We have shown that resistance surfaces and the resultant corridors for mountain lions in this very study area are extremely sensitive to the following factors; (1) data type used, (2) spatial scale of analysis, (3)the way the GIS layers are represented in the model, and(4)which 17-G GIS layers are used in the model (Zeller et al. 2014; 2015, Zeller 2016). Simply selecting one GIS layer over another, or using a different scale significantly alters corridor location. Given these findings, the output of the DEIR modeling effort may simply be a spurious result that does not accurately reflect mountain lion use of the landscape or identify functional corridors (Zeller 2016). c. The modeling used least-cost corridors, which are the least effective at assessing connectivity for an area(Cushman et al. 2013). The scientific literature promotes the use of more effective corridor modeling tools such as circuit theory, resistant kernels, and factorial least cost paths (Cushman et al. 2013). d. The modeling only assessed connectivity between the Santa Margarita and Santa Rosa preserves. However, given the genetic analysis by Ernest et al. (2014) described above and the urgent need for gene flow into the Santa Ana population from populations to the east and south, the impact of the Altair development on connectivity should be assessed at a larger scale. Specifically connectivity should be assessed between large protected areas on either side of I-15. Recommendation: As also noted in Item 2 below, we recommend that past (Zeller et al. 2015, Zeller 2016) and near-term future modeling that is part of our team's ongoing 17-H research be incorporated into future planning decisions related to the Altair Project. With these concerns about the corridor modeling in mind, we provide specific comments about the results of the DEIR model and how the proposed development may affect mountain lion survival and connectivity: 17-1 2. Whereas the corridor analysis in the DEIR infers local movement patterns utilizing only a limited set of point data in the area between the Santa Margarita Comment Letter 17 and Santa Rosa reserves, analyses that our team has completed at the request of, and sponsorship by, CDFW and SANDAG, assesses connectivity for mountain lions between the entirety of the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular ranges. We reiterate that this larger scale is critical to any decision-making at the local level in that disruption of movement in a local area can have implications not only at that site but also across the range. Multiple peer reviewed scientific publications have resulted from this research (Zeller et al. 2014; 2015, Zeller 2016), and additional publications are expected. A complete draft report is also scheduled for submission to CDFW and SANDAG in December 2016. We analyzed high resolution GPS-collar data on mountain lions in a Path Selection Function model to assess connectivity between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountains (Zeller 2016). To identify the very best Path Selection Function model we used 7 GIS variables represented in different ways to develop 2,000 models. We competed these models against one another and identified the top model. We predicted the probability of movement from this top model and used the inverse of this probability of movement surface as our empirically- derived resistance surface. We then modeled the amount of flow between the two ranges using circuit theory. We identified the top 20 locations on I-15 with the highest amount of flow (Figure 1). These points on I-15 are the presumed best 17-1 road crossing locations for mountain lions moving in and out of the Santa Ana Mountains (Zeller 2016). Figure I clearly depicts the importance along the Santa Margarita reserve with 3 of the 20 points located at the Temecula creek crossing. The proposed Altair development has high potential to negatively impact these 3 potential mountain lion crossings. Some things to highlight between this modeling effort and the one presented in the DEIR: a. Our models were based on empirical movement data from mountain lions in the area. b. Our models explored a large parameter space to determine the best representation of the GIS layers for modeling mountain lion connectivity. The best model included layers not included in the DEIR model. c. Our models incorporated connectivity over a larger area than the DEIR model. We acknowledge our models to date did not explicitly identify corridors, like the DEIR model. However, our research is ongoing, and future results will likely be informative to the issue of expected Linkage function and the planning process 17-J relating to the Altair Development. Recommendation: As noted above, we recommend that results of our past research, and the most up-to-date results from our ongoing research into connectivity for mountain lions in this area, should be included in the EIR and planning decisions related to the 17-K Altair Project, and any other projects that are proposed for the area that would impact the Comment Letter 17 "Palomars to Pacific" linkage. Expansion of planned modeling to potentially include impacts on other predators such as bobcats and golden eagles should also be considered. 17-K Additionally, we recommend that additional significant funding for mitigation measures in Constrained Linkage 14, and for engineering planning and construction of new wildlife crossings over I-15 be required as part of the approval process for the Altair Project. Our recommendations relating to I-15 (with minor variations) are consistent with multiple studies and modeling efforts that have identified the Palomars to Santa Ana Mountains linkage as critical and have recommended construction of new structures to enhance wildlife connectivity across that highway(Tracey and Crooks 2001, Luke et al. 2004, 17-L Gibbons 2008, Spencer et al. 2010, Zeller et al 2015, Huber, P. unpublished data). Additional funding mechanisms should be identified and pursued by the City of Temecula and other entities in the region to create redundancy for wildlife movement across the barriers of 1-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road. 3. Though the DEIR acknowledges that mountain lion activity will likely be diminished on the escarpment west of the proposed development(Linkage 10), it appears to minimize the level of negative impacts by pointing to alternate pathways through private,partially developed and agricultural lands west of the escarpment. In our modeling work, we have found that mountain lions select against agricultural lands, thus the use of those lands by mountain lions likely represent exploratory or foraging movements versus regular use of those habitat areas (Burdett et al. 2010; Zeller et al. 2014). This, along with the increased risk posed to mountain lions traversing partially developed or agricultural lands 17-M (Burdett et al. 2010), makes it inappropriate for the DEIR to suggest that these agricultural lands represent an increase in effective linkage width or functional connectivity. For example, one of only two surviving offspring of the most genetically important mountain lion that we have identified in the Santa Ana Mountains population("M86, deceased": Ernest et al. 2014) died of poisoning by an agricultural pesticide in those very agricultural lands that are described as a potentially viable part of the linkage. Recommendation: We recommend that the language in the DEIR relating to the effective widening of the linkage by inclusion of agricultural lands west of Linkage 10 be removed, and that lands adjacent to the various linkages not be considered as likely 17-N movement pathways for mountain lions in planning considerations. 4. The DEIR defines the width of Linkage 10 at various points by measurement of the distance between the footprint of the Western Bypass, or the footprints of buildings that are associated with the project, and the developed properties to the west(generally at the top of the escarpment). However,because numerous properties that are part of Linkage 10 are still in private ownership and thus not conserved, it is inappropriate to calculate linkage widths utilizing this method. 17-0 Unless permanent conservation easements are in place for these properties, or other restrictions on modification of the habitat within the Linkage boundaries (fencing, grading,building, vegetation modification, etc.), they cannot be considered as part of the functional width of the linkage. In their absence, Comment Letter 17 numerous points in Linkage 10 are much narrower than the values stated in the DEIR. When Linkage width values are derived from measuring the distances from the eastern edges of private properties present in Linkage 10 to the aforementioned Western Bypass and/or proposed development west and south of the Bypass, then the Linkage width values are substantially lower than those stated in the 17-0 DEIR in many locations. These narrow "pinch points" in the Linkage would likely eliminate mountain lion movement through those areas or curtail it to a much greater degree than is currently acknowledged in the DEIR. Recommendation: We recommend that the DEIR be modified to reflect this lack of accuracy in definition of Linkage 10 widths, and that the conclusions relating to Linkage 10 be modified to say that it is unlikely to function at all for mountain lions and some other wildlife species in some locations unless the private properties still currently existing within the confines of the linkage are conserved. We recommend that modification of the habitat within the confines of Linkage 10 be prohibited, the properties 17-P purchased, or conservation easements obtained, in order to preserve the already minimal widths of this Linkage that are currently present, and that permanent conservation of these properties be a condition of approval of the Altair Project(with further modifications as noted below). 5. The DEIR states that Constrained Linkage 9, Proposed Constrained Linkage 10, Proposed Constrained Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 represent alternative routes of movement between the Santa Rosa Plateau(itself only tenuously connected to the larger conserved lands of the Cleveland National Forest(Morrison and Boyce 2009)) and the Santa Margarita River. Though it is likely that some movement of mountain lions will occur along those routes over time, it is important to note that they are all in the same general region, and they 17-Q are all "Constrained", meaning they are suboptimal, not yet fully conserved, and may represent higher risk movement areas for mountain lions. The DEIR appears to be overstating the value of these linkage areas as alternatives to Linkage 10, thus, the amount of further constraint of Linkage 10 that will be associated with the Altair development should be minimized as much as possible. Recommendation: We recommend that our modeling involving the above-named constrained linkages be incorporated into planning for the Altair Project, along with mortality factors, in order that a more accurate assessment can be made regarding whether these Constrained Linkages truly represent alternate pathways for regular and 17-R sustainable mountain movement between the Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve and the Santa Margarita River. 6. The DEIR characterizes the portions of Constrained Linkage 14 just east of the Temecula Creek Bridge (The Temecula Creek Golf Course and Pechanga Creek) as being highly constrained. Our GPS collar data reveal that some mountain lion home ranges include golf courses and that mountain lions use golf courses for 17-S travel and foraging, sometimes on a frequent basis (Zeller 2016, Vickers unpublished data). Rankings from a recent workshop of outside experts Comment Letter 17 examining connectivity improvement across I-15 (Smith, Vickers, and Riley in prep) support this view that the Temecula Creek Golf Course can facilitate movement of mountain lions into and out of the Santa Ana Mountains. Pechanga Creek along one side of the golf course may also be a viable pathway for mountain lion movement along at least a portion of its length. The DEIR is correct that there are factors associated with the Temecula Creek bridge itself (light, noise, human presence, etc) and the landscape immediately to the east of it 17-S that require alteration in order to improve connectivity through that area. However, our modeling suggests that the golf course area and Pechanga Creek remain at least partially viable as movement pathways (Zeller 2016), and any further constraint of the linkage in this area, as well as west of the bridge, would significantly damage what remains of connectivity between the Santa Ana Range and the eastern Peninsular Ranges. Recommendation: We recommend that no additional development be allowed that would further restrict Constrained Linkage 14 in any way, nor further degrade the habitat at either end of this linkage. We also recommend that significant positive steps be taken to improve this linkage via modification of the Temecula Creek bridge to reduce light, noise, and human presence in the vicinity of the bridge, restoration of habitat east of the 17-T bridge to assure adequate natural movement corridors exist for mountain lions and other wildlife from conserved areas in the Palomar Mountains to the bridge, and creation of adequate wildlife crossing structures across Rainbow Canyon Road to the east. As in Item Number 2 above, we also recommend that funding for redundant crossings for wildlife over or under I-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road be required as part of the Altair Project and other development approval processes, and directed toward engineering 17-U studies and construction of crossing structures. 7. The DEIR mentions that wildlife use, especially mountain lion travel, would be negatively affected some distance from the development, and that this "zone of negative influence" distance varies dependent on individual animal characteristics such as demographic group (Wilmers et al. 2013, Smith et al. 2016). Research also suggests that adult males and females without kittens may not use the linkage at all in its narrowest sections, and other studies suggest that even females with kittens that might utilize the area for a certain amount of hunting behavior are likely to leave feeding sites prematurely due to the proximity of humans, thus 1 TV limiting the usefulness of the habitat to this species (Wilmers et al. 2013, Smith et al. 2016). We feel that the likely extent of these negative effects on the functions of Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 make their characterization as "linkages" less accurate, and even"constrained linkage"may overstate their actual level of function in the sense of promoting use by all demographic groups in the mountain lion population. Recommendation: The width of Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 should be maximized and visual and noise impacts in the Linkages minimized by additional mitigation measures (increased visual and noise screening along the western side of the 17-W Western Bypass), restrictions on habitat modification(as noted in Item 4 above), and possible Project redesign as noted below. Comment Letter 17 8. It is our understanding that a building up to five stories tall has been proposed for construction on the South Parcel (Civic Site)portion of the property. The DEIR does not appear to take the height of buildings into account when discussing impacts on the Linkages, especially the escarpment comprising most of Linkage 10. Mitigation measures that are listed in the DEIR regarding the Civic Site that are specifically intended to reduce visual noise and light impacts to mountain lions and other wildlife include vegetation and a berm located to the south of the site. However, the DEIR does not discuss the possibility of negative 17-X effects on animals moving on the escarpment west of the Civic Site building that would be exerted by light and noise from the upper floors of a tall building if constructed on that site, nor the impact of height of the building on visibility from the Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Nor does the DEIR discuss additional mitigation measures that might be necessary as a result of different building heights. The DEIR also does not address how different types of use of the Civic Site building might cause variation in its expected negative impact. For example, the degree of nighttime use, number of people cycling in and out of the building, or whether(in the case of a medical facility) operations such as patient, ambulance, or helicopter arrivals and departures would continue throughout the night. Even a 17-Y college campus-type building, or a community center, are likely to have night time activities either continually or intermittently that would potentially negatively impact use of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14 by mountain lions and other wildlife. Recommendation: The DEIR should thoroughly assess each potential design and pattern of use of a future building on the South Parcel and state the likelihoods of those eventual uses. These potential designs and uses should be incorporated in any future 17-Z predictions or modeling relating to impacts on wildlife used of Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Likewise, proposed mitigation measures should be judged based on the possible building types and uses. Because it is unlikely in our view that the negative impacts of any building on that site, especially one of the height and likely uses that have been proposed, could be completely 17-AA mitigated for, it is our opinion that Project redesign should be done in order to move the proposed building to a site on the east side of the Western Bypass. 10. We feel that the negative impact on mountain lion movement that we would expect to be exerted by the human activity associated with Villages A and G are also underestimated in the DEIR. Location of these residential villages immediately next to Linkage 10 habitat decreases the likelihood of mountain lion and other wildlife use of the linkage (Wilmers et al. 2013, Smith et al. 2016). Even if full conservation of all private parcels in Linkage 10 can be effected, the most constrained portion of 17-BB Linkage 10 (approximately 600 foot width) will remain just north of Village G and the civic site, and significant suppression of mountain lion activity would be expected from that highly constrained portion in the north to the area past the Civic Site in the south(a distance of approximately 1,000 meters, or over one half mile), we are Comment Letter 17 concerned that the total negative effect of a constrained area of this total length and minimal width(600 to less than 1,000 feet)would likely be significantly more than the simple added negative effects of each component. In other words, in our view, animals are less likely to successfully move along a constrained corridor the longer it is, both due to the cumulative negative influence on their behavior from human- 17-BB related activities at the edges (Wilmers et al. 2013, Smith et al. 2016), and also due to the more prolonged exposure to higher risk from human interactions (Burdett et al. 2010). Recommendation: It is our recommendation that the Altair Project be redesigned in order to move the residences currently associated with Villages A and G to locations east of the Western Bypass. Combined with our recommended redesign of the Project to move the 17-CC building planned for the Civic Site (South Parcel)to the area east of the Western Bypass, and other measures we have recommended, the cumulative negative impacts of the Altair Project would be substantially reduced. 8. The DEIR addresses some of the concerns associated with the Camino Estribo roadway, which bisects Linkage 10 to the west and south of the Civic Site by noting that it will remain unpaved in the section on the escarpment. However, the DEIR does not address the potential for negative effects to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14 function that may result from an increase in vehicle and foot traffic in those linkages because of a Project-related substantial increase in the human population in the immediate area. Currently there is regular human presence in the Santa Margarita River and Temecula Creek channels from the juncture with Murrietta Creek eastward, and is only controlled to the west of that location when San Diego State University or law enforcement personnel are actively patrolling there. Though the extent of the increase in human presence of 17-DD all types in Linkage 10 and constrained Linkage 14 as a result of the Camino Estribo pathway into those areas is very difficult to predict, increased human presence would be expected to cause a decrease in use of this area by mountain lions and other wildlife (Wilmers et al. 2013, Smith et al. 2016). In the absence of mitigation steps to minimize these negative impacts, the cumulative effects on the function of Linkage 10 and constrained Linkage 14 may be substantial. This potential negative impact does not seem to be discussed to any degree in the DEIR, nor are possible mitigation measures discussed and budgeted for. Recommendation: We recommend that potential mitigation measures for this anticipated increase in human presence could include signage and patrol by security personnel, or fencing preventing human entry into the Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14 areas with gating that restricts access to the that section of the roadway. 17-EE Gating could be regulated to allow access by residents who currently access their homes or agricultural lands via this roadway, and others such as conserved land managers,utility maintenance, and emergency personnel. Comment Letter 17 In summary, we feel that the DEIR as it currently exists understates the likely level of negative impacts of the Altair development on mountain lion and other wildlife movement, especially in regards to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, and does not adequately address negative impacts on regional connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges (Constrained Linkage 14). The modeling 17-FF advanced in support of the project cannot be adequately evaluated as to its accuracy, or compared to other models, due to the lack of transparency related to its formulation,thus should not be considered in assessments of impacts of the proposed development. We have made multiple recommendations throughout this document to attempt to assist the City of Temecula and the developer and their consultants to accomplish the goal of increasing housing for the residents of the City,while preserving the legal and biological 17-GG goals set out in the MSCP. We have attempted to only base criticisms and recommendations on the best science that we can bring to bear. We are hopeful that our input is of some value to the City as it makes its development decisions going forward. We are available for discussions or to answer questions relating to this document and our studies of mountain lions in the region if requested. Tt �,. T. Winston Vickers, DVM, MPVM Associate Veterinarian Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center University of California, Davis 949-929-8643 twvickers@ucdavis.edu & 2&n Kathy Zeller, PhD Department of Environmental Conservation University of Massachusetts 406-546-4154 kathyzeller@gmail.com Comment Letter 17 Figure 1. Priority locations for mountain lion road crossings from Zeller (2016). Protected Land Proposed Altair �1. ■ i Development Ae f Points along 1-15 with the highest potential for :- = connectivity y between the Santa Ana and Palomar V Mountains .<r .t I•I Ey E.-t.t Comment Letter 17 References: Beier, P., and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. Final Report for Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study. Department of Forestry and Resource Management. University of California, Berkeley, California. Burdett, C. L., Crooks, K. R., Theobald, D. M., Wilson, K. R., Boydston, E. E., Lyren, L. M., ... &Boyce, W. M. 2010. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat.Ecosphere, 1(1), art4. County of Riverside. 2003 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Cushman SA, McRae B,Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K. 2013. Biological corridors and connectivity. In: Macdonald DW,Willis KJ (eds) Key topics in conservation biology 2.Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 384-404 Ernest HB, Boyce WM, Bleich VC, May B, Stiver SJ, Torres SG. 2003. Genetic structure of mountain lion(Puma concolor)populations in California. Conservation Genetics, 4: 355-366. Ernest, HB, Vickers, TW, Morrison, S, Boyce WM. Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma(Puma concolor)population. 2014. PLoS ONE. 9(10): e107985. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0107985 Gibbons, P. 2008. Determining suitable wildlife crossing locations across a southern Californa Interstate. Final Master's Thesis. San Diego State University.\ Luke, C., Penrod, K., Cabaiiero, C.R., Beier, P., Spencer, W., and S. Shapiro. 2004. A linkage design for the Santa Ana—Palomar Mountains connection Unpublished Report. South Coast Wildlands, Idylwild, California. Available from http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCML-SantaAna-Palomar.pdf(accessed December 2007). Smith, J.A., Wang, Y. & Wilmers, C.C. 2016. Spatial characteristics of residential development shift large carnivore prey habits. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21098. Comment Letter 17 Spencer, WD, P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.Available from: http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/CalifomiaEssentialHabitatConnectivityProj ect Vickers TW, Sanchez JN, Johnson CK, Morrison SA, Botta R, Smith T, et al. (2015) Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0131490 Vickers, T. W. 2015 —Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual report of the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California Mountain Submitted January 2016 Vickers, T.W., U.C. Davis—Southern California Cougar Project 2015 Report. San Diego Association of Governments. April 2016. Wilmers CC, Wang Y,Nickel B, Houghtaling P„ Shakeri Y, Allen ML, Kermish-Wells J, Yovovich V, Williams T. 2013 Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS ONE 8, e60590. (doi:10. 1371/j oumal.pone.0060590) Zeller, KD, McGarigal, K, Beier, P, Cushman, T, Vickers, TW, and WM Boyce. 2014. Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology DOI 10.1007/s 10980- 014-9991-4. Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Beier, P., Vickers, T. W., & Boyce, W. M. 2015. Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study.Landscape Ecology, 1-17. Zeller, Katherine. 2016. Evaluating resistance surfaces for modeling wildlife movement and connectivity. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Dissertation. 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 17: T. Winston Vickers, U.C. Davis, Wildlife Health Center Comment 17-A: The commenter introduces the Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center, as well as the credentials for biologists undertaking mountain lion movement studies. Response 17-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. Response 17-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. Comment 17-B: The commenter expresses concern the Draft EIR did not adequately address issues with the project that related to conformance with the MSHCP and likely negative impacts on wildlife. Response 17-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project conformance with the MSHCP is documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.7. Response 17-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Project conformance with the MSHCP is documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.7, and to Appendix A. Comment 17-C: The commenter notes their intent to provide a scientific assessment of the current Draft EIR and provide suggestions as to how negative impacts may be reduced or eliminated. The commenter acknowledges their current research and that the most pertinent findings of their research relative to the project are those related to gene flow on the landscape, habitat use,movement,and mortality risks. Response 17-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments.Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. Response 17-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. Comment 17-D: The commenter states they believe the project will negatively impact mountain lion and other wildlife movement within Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Constrained Linkage 14. Response 17-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-D(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment17-E: The commenter notes genetic exchange between mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains and populations of mountain lions east of 1-15 have been severely curtailed in recent decades and expresses that preservation of all remaining pathways that can enhance Altair Specific Plan 3-231 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments mountain lion movement and gene flow to and through the Temecula Creek bridge area (Constrained Linkage 14) is critical. Response 17-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-E(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-F: The commenter states the project will have negative impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife and expresses concern the Draft EIR likely understates this project impact, especially in regards to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14. The commenter states the Draft EIR suggests alternative movement pathways that are not realistic and suggests the modeling used for the Draft EIR cannot be evaluated due to lack of transparency about the modeling process. Response 17-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-G: The commenter contends corridor modeling in the Draft EIR is flawed and summarizes four specific issues. Response 17-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-H: The commenter recommends specific modeling approaches be incorporated into future decisions related to the project. Response 17-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-I The commenter summarizes the modeling they have undertaken,noting that the project has high potential to negatively impact three potential mountain lion crossings. Response 17-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-I: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-J The commenter acknowledges their models do not explicitly identify corridors but that their research is ongoing and future results will likely be informative to the project. Response 17-J(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.12.8. Response 17-J: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-K: The commenter recommends the most up-to-date results from their ongoing research into connectivity for mountain lions in the area be included in the EIR and planning Altair Specific Plan 3-232 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments decisions related to the project. The commenter states expansion of planned modeling to potentially include impacts on other predators such as bobcats and golden eagles should also be considered. Response 17-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.8 and 3.2.9. Response 17-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.8 and 3.2.9. Comment 17-L: The commenter recommends that additional significant funding for mitigation measures in Constrained Linkage 14,and for engineering planning and construction of new wildlife crossings over I-15,be required as part of the approval process for the project. Response 17-L(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendations. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features). Response 17-L(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendations. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features). Comment 17-M: The commenter states the Draft EIR appeared to minimize the level of negative impacts by pointing to alternate pathways through private,partially developed, and agricultural lands. The commenter notes that their modeling work has found that mountain lions select against agricultural lands. Response 17-M(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-M(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-N: The commenter recommends removing language in the Draft EIR relating to effective widening of the linkage by inclusion of agricultural lands west of Linkage 10, and that lands adjacent to the various linkages not be considered as likely movement pathways for mountain lion. Response 17-N(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.22.8. Response 17-N(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-0: The commenter states it in inappropriate to include private parcels in the calculation of linkage widths because permanent conservation easements are not in place. The commenter notes that, accounting for private parcels, linkage widths are substantially lower. Response 17-0: (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-233 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 17-0: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-P: The commenter recommends the Draft EIR be modified to reflect the comment in Comment 17-0 and reflect a conclusion that Linkage 10 is unlikely to function at all for mountain lions and some other wildlife species in some locations unless the private properties are conserved. The commenter suggests permanent conservation of private properties be a condition of approval. Response 17-P(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-P(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-Q: The commenter expresses that Constrained Linkage 9,Proposed Constrained Linkage 10,Proposed Constrained Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 are all "Constrained",meaning they are suboptimal,not yet fully conserved, and may represent higher risk movement areas for mountain lions. The commenter states the Draft EIR appears to overstate the value of these linkage areas as alternatives to Linkage 10. Response 17-Q(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-Q(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-R: The commenter recommends incorporating their modeling related to Constrained Linkage 9,Proposed Constrained Linkage 10,Proposed Constrained Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 be incorporated, along with morality factors,to inform the assessment regarding alternate pathways. Response 17-R(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-R: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-S: The commenter states their GPS collar data reveal that some mountain lion home ranges include golf courses and that the Temecula Creek Golf Course can facilitate movement of mountain lions. The commenter states constraint of linkage in the area of the golf course and Pechanga Creek, as well as west of Temecula Creek,would significantly impact connectivity. Response 17-S(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-S(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-T: The commenter recommends that no additional development be allowed that would further restrict Constrained Linkage 14, and that steps be taken to improve this linkage via modification of the Temecula Creek bridge to reduce light,noise, and human presence in the vicinity of the bridge,restoration of habitat east of the bridge, and creation of adequate wildlife crossing structures across Rainbow Canyon Road. Altair Specific Plan 3-234 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 17-T(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendations. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 17-T(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendations. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 17-U: The commenter recommends funding for redundant crossings for wildlife over or under I-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road be required and directed toward engineering studies and construction of crossing structures. Response 17-U(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your recommendations. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features). Response 17-U(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your recommendations. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.1 (Project Conservation Features). Comment 17-V: The commenter states the likely extent of the negative effects on the functions of Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13 make their characterization as"linkages"less accurate, and even"constrained linkage"may overstate their actual level of function in the sense of promoting use by all demographic groups in the mountain lion population. Response 17-V(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-V(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-W: The commenter recommends maximizing the width of Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage and minimizing visual and noise impacts in the linkages. Response 17-W(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Response 17-W(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Comment 17-X: The commenter states the Draft EIR does not appear to account for a building up to five stories tall on the South Parcel when discussing impacts on linkages,particularly Linkage 10, and notes the Draft EIR does not discuss the possibility of negative effects on animals moving on the escarpment west of the Civic Site building that would be exerted by light and noise from the upper floors of a tall building if constructed on that site,nor the impact of height of the building on visibility from the Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Altair Specific Plan 3-235 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 17-X(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Response 17-X(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use.Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 17-Y: The commenter states the Draft EIR does not address how different types of use of the Civic Site building might cause variation in its expected negative impact use of linkages. Response 17-Y(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Response 17-Y(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 17-Z: The commenter recommends a thorough analysis of each potential design and pattern of use on the South Parcel. Response 17-Z(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-Z(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 17-AA: The commenter expresses that the project should be redesigned to move the proposed building to a site on the east side of the Western Bypass. Altair Specific Plan 3-236 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 17-AA(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 17-AA(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 17-BB: The commenter states negative impacts on mountain lion movement associated with human activity at Villages A and G are underestimated in the Draft EIR. Response 17-BB (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Response 17-BB(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Comment 17-CC: The commenter recommends redesign of the project to move the residences currently associated with Villages A and G to locations east of the Western Bypass. Response 17-CC (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Response 17-CC(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.1. Comment 17-DD: The commenter states the Draft EIR does not address the potential for negative effects to Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14 function that may result from an increase in vehicle and foot traffic in those linkages because of a project-related substantial increase in the human population in the immediate area. Response 17-DD(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-DD(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-EE: The commenter recommends including as mitigation signage and patrol by security personnel,or fencing preventing human entry into the Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14 areas with gating that restricts access to the that section of the roadway. Response 17-EE (Specific Plan with Civic Use): As described in Section 3.12,Public Services, of the Draft EIR,the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 17-EE (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As described in Section 3.12,Public Services, of the Draft EIR,the project would require approximately five to six new police officers and the project would pay development impact fees to accommodate the need for increased police Altair Specific Plan 3-237 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments services and patrol in the area. In addition, exclusionary fencing will be installed along the proposed Western Bypass where it abuts conservation lands to help control wildlife and human interaction. Although the evaluation of trespass and vandalism is beyond the scope of CEQA,the comments have been noted for the record and have been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 17-FF: The comment summarizes the previously presented comments,including the comment that the Draft EIR underestimates the likely level of negative impacts on mountain lion and other wildlife movement and that negative impacts on regional connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains and eastern Peninsular Ranges are not adequately addressed. Further,the commenter states the modeling used for the project cannot be evaluated due to lack of transparency. Response 17-FF(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 17-FF(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use):Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 17-GG: The comment summarizes the previous comments and requests that the information be incorporated into project decision making. Response 17-GG(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. Your comments have been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 17-GG(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. Your comments have been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-238 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 18 Mr. Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 cc: Mayor Mike Naggar Temecula City Council Ambient Communities California Department of Fish and Wildlife US Fish and Wildlife Service Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Subject: Altair Development Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters, On behalf of the Mountain Lion Foundation and the undersigned groups, we oppose the Altair development project on the basis of severe inadequacies with the DEIR and the 18-A unavoidable, irreversible damage to southern California's wildlife that would occur if the development moves forward. Deny the development permit because of DEIR deficiencies. The DEIR used an outdated model, unavailable to the public, to evaluate the impacts on wildlife habitat. This lack of transparency means we cannot verify the accuracy of Helix's model nor properly compare it to other models generated by wildlife researchers in the region.' Any proposed development project in Temecula should be utilizing data from mountain lions collared in the region by UC Davis Wildlife Health Center's Southern California Mountain Lion Project. Their peer-reviewed publications and models for habitat 18-B usage and gene flow were not incorporated into the DEIR.2 To make matters worse, the DEIR anecdotally mentions some of the Mountain Lion Project's findings to imply lions will find a way across I-15 and through new housing tracts; this is inappropriate and shows an alarming disregard for modern wildlife conservation efforts. Non-conformance with MSHCP is unacceptable. Habitat connectivity cannot be viewed on such a small scale, and the vital link this region plays as a corridor for wildlife between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges needs 18-C to be taken into account.3 The Altair project is the epitome of how smaller, seemingly- Comment Letter 18 innocuous impacts can generate very complicated and devastating results to the big picture for not only mountain lions, but all wildlife and the human population. Narrowing corridors and degrading habitat has far reaching impacts for the environment beyond the project borders and even beyond local communities.4 Steps must be taken to ensure that a breakdown of critical habitat connectivity does not occur. The Altair housing development and Civic Site, combined with the separately planned housing tract on the eastern side of 1-15 along the golf course, will collectively shut down 18-C this wildlife corridor for mountain lions. We will then see a complete isolation of the mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains, which already suffers from one of the highest mortality rates and lowest genetic health of any lion population ever recorded in North America. Again, the DEIR should have worked with southern California's wildlife researchers to show broader impacts to dispersal and gene flow of wild animals in the region.6 The Civic Site plan omission could be devastating for wildlife. The Civic Site needs to be fully planned before the project and CEQA process can move forward. News reports mention plans to possibly use this property for a hospital or university.6 Both of these facilities would see 24-hour activity, higher levels of noise and 18-D lights than a residential area, and severely impact the movements and reproductive ability of local wildlife. Mountain lions and other wildlife may travel through urban areas at night, but can be deterred by lights and sound, thus making the Civic Site an exponentially larger blockage along the wildlife corridor. The proposed development is also within close enough proximity to the Golden Eagle Core Breeding Area and nesting sites of other important 18-E bird species that primary and secondary impacts on these species should have been considered in all environmental reviews.' Until more information is available about the intended use of the Civic Site and a comprehensive impact evaluation is undertaken, the entire plan must not move forward. Omitting the Civic Site from the DER indicates even more ambiguity, secrecy, and 18-F violations of CEQA. Eventual extirpation of mountain lions from the Santa Ana Mountains. As mentioned above, decades of research have shown mountain lions in this region are 18-G suffering from habitat loss and limited connectivity. Even before the Altair proposal, lions Comment Letter 18 in the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountains were facing enormous challenges against their immediate survival and long term genetic health. The Altair proposal further threatens these populations by effectively removing their natural corridor, and replacing it with an 18-G urban community that is likely to kill lions through depredation permits, vehicle collisions, and fears for public safety.8 With its insufficient model, the DEIR lists linkages they claim to still be usable by mountain lions after the Altair project's completion. It also over-emphasizes lions' potential use of agricultural lands.9 Both of these claims contradict models created by the best available 18-H science. We believe this region cannot afford any narrowing or additional degrading of current usable corridors. If anything, developments along I-15 should be required to expand all wildlife crossings. California spends millions of dollars annually to protect wildlife habitat, corridors, and restore lost linkages.10 The City of Temecula should not even consider the Altair development as this reverses conservation efforts in the region. We cannot rely on the proposed severely-constrained linkages and the possibility of building a new crossing 18-1 further South. If anything, current crossings should be improved and new ones built, and proven effective, before moving forward with any new developments like Altair. Placing a housing tract directly on a wildlife corridor not only restricts gene flow for mountain lions, but increases conflicts with people and domestic animals. Living on the urban edge means pets and small livestock are at risk from depredation by mountain lions, coyotes and bobcats.11 Wild animals are often killed in retaliation for these losses by 18-J people unaccustomed to and intolerant of sharing the land with large wildlife. These losses can lead to increased fear for personal safety, and ultimately more mountain lions killed by people. Data from the Southern California Mountain Lion Project shows lions are frequently killed near Temecula for preying on domestic animals. Poisoning from chemicals used on agricultural lands and household rodenticides are also becoming more common.12 To make matters worse, this region is also a hotspot for roadkill. Collisions on roadways have 18-K become so extreme that some areas have mandated new fencing along freeways to funnel wildlife to safe crossing points.13 These are multi-million dollar construction efforts and should not be excluded from the Altair proposal. The Altair development, and resulting increased human activity, will create a barrier for 18-L wildlife who desperately need this corridor of habitat. Negative human-wildlife Comment Letter 18 interactions will increase. And ultimately, we will see the isolated population of Santa Ana mountain lions die off from human impacts and genetic decline. But you can choose a 18-L different future. We encourage you to deny the Altair proposal on the basis of its flawed DEIR and unacceptable negative consequences to our wildlife. We will stand behind you as you set 18-M an example, preserving our remaining open spaces for future generations to enjoy. Sincerely, �- TxF. COUGAR FUND THE HUMANE SOCIETY Pmteedag AnfYka's GM West Cat 6 DF THE UNITED STATES Amy Rodrigues Courtney Fern Penelope Maldonado Biologist California State Director Executive Director Mountain Lion Foundation The Humane Society of The Cougar Fund the United States The Fund for t )4ANIMALS Wildlife Canter Christopher Spatz RCH }NS Ali Crumpacker President Leigh Bittner Director Cougar Rewilding Foundation Managing Director The Fund for Animals Wildlife Research Institute, INC Wildlife Center 91� 9 Predator Defense Errfna.vneedd Center af'utan 3'e�a Helping people&wildlife coexist since 7990 Pam Heatherington Duncan McFetridge Brooks Fahy Board Member Director Executive Director The Environmental Center of Cleveland National Forest Predator Defense San Diego Foundation Comment Letter 18 OJAI t ,l 'FE,fi I RAPTOR Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. w,...,..��..R...,o�.,�.T. &CENTER Elisabeth M. Brown, Ph.D Sharon Negri Kimberly Stroud Director Executive Director President Ojai Raptor Center Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. Wild Futures IILY y a 3 n San Joaquin M LOS ANGELES Audubon Society FOR NATURE AU D V BON Margot Griswold, Ph.D Dale Smith Larry Wan President President Chairman Los Angeles Audubon San Joaquin Audubon Western Alliance for Nature Ballona\Wt1an&s Ladd'lnls[ RUSSIAN a ANIMAL RESCUE TEAM RIVERKEEPER Julia DiSieno Walter Lamb Don McEnhill Director President Executive Director Animal Rescue Team, Inc. Ballona Wetlands Land Trust Russian Riverkeeper IMION z. FOA MlNALB Jess Morton Eric Mills Treasurer Coordinator Cindy Kamler Palos Verdes/South Ba Director Y Action for Animals Audubon Society Eastern Sierra Wildlife Care NATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE a�� Injured& RESCUE Orphaned�ij dlife Reha6flSONOMA COUNTYa!Ho Doris Duncan ® Campbell:California Executive Director Norma Campbell Wildlife Rescue Eve Egan President Executive Director Injured &Orphaned Wildlife Native Animal Rescue Comment Letter 18 Anna Marie Reams Nancy Hilding Dave Thraen Director President Executive Director Wildlife Care of SoCal Prairie Hills Audubon Society All Wildlife Rescue & Education Mike McCoy Donald Goeschl Peggy Chase President President Lead Educator Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Antelope Valley Audubon Orange County Bird of Prey Center Association Society Helen McGinnis Laurel Scheidt Dr.John Laundre Treasurer Hiking guide book author large mammal predator ecologist Prairie Hill Audubon Society volunteer wildlife rehabber Mary H. Clarke Veronica Yovovich Oceanside resident Researcher UC Santa Cruz 1 See comment letter submitted by T.Winston Vickers, UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Heath Center,Southern California Mountain Lion Project. Z Zeller KA, et al. (2015) Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology(Nov 2015): 1-17.doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0301-6 3 Vickers TW,et al. (2015)Survival and Mortality of Pumas(Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131490 4 McGarigal K, et al. (2016) Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landscape Ecology(Apr 2016): 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10980-016-0374-x 5 Ernest HB, et al. (2014) Fractured Genetic Connectivity Threatens a Southern California Puma (Puma concolor) Population. PLoS ONE 9(10): e107985.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107985 6 Claverie A(2014)TEMECULA: Review of 270-acre housing project wrapping next year.The Press Enterprise:Sept 22. Accessed June 17,2016. http://www.pe.com/articles/development-750398-review-city.htm1 See comment letter submitted by Dave Bittner,Wildlife Research Institute. 8 James E(2014) Mountain lion deaths spike in Southern California.The Orange County Register:Apr 7.Accessed June 17,2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mountain-608556-lions-lion.html 9 Zeller KA, et al. (2014)Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology(Mar 2014): 541-557.doi:10.1007/s10980-014-9991-4 10 California Wildlife Protect Act of 1990(Proposition 117)allocates$30,000,000 per year for 30 years(through 2020) to acquire,enhance, or restore specific types of lands for wildlife and open space. 11 Smith JA,Wang Y,Wilmers CC(2016)Spatial characteristics of residential development shift large carnivore prey habits.The Journal of Wildlife Management(Jun 2016). doi:10.1002/jwmg.21098 12 Riley SPD, et al. (2007)Anticoagulant Exposure and Notoedric Mange in Bobcats and Mountain Lions in Urban Southern California.The Journal of Wildlife Management(Aug 2007): 1874-1884.doi: 10.2193/2005-615 13 Brennan P(2013) Fences would protect wildlife along toll road.The Orange County Register: Dec 9.Accessed June 17,2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mountain-540797-road-lions.html 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 18: The Mountain Lion Foundation Comment 18-A: The commenter expresses opposition for the project on the basis of severe Draft EIR inadequacies and the irreversible damage to Southern California's wildlife that would occur if the development moves forward. Response 18-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 18-B: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the adequacy of analysis used in the EIR including the lack of utilization of UC Davis Wildlife Health Center's Southern California Mountain Lion Project. Response 18-B: (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-B: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-C: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's impact on mountain lions and mountain lion movement. Response 18-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-245 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 18-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-D: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's planning and the proposed land use effects on wildlife. Response 18-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.8 and to Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-E: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's primary and secondary effects on area wildlife. Response 18-E(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.8 and 3.2.9. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-E(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 and to Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-F: The commenter states that until more information is available about the intended use of the Civic Site and a comprehensive impact evaluation is undertaken,the entire plan must not move forward. Omitting the Civic Site from the Draft EIR indicates even more ambiguity, secrecy,and violations of CEQA. Response 18-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "The description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact."The Altair Specific Plan Project is intended to provide guidance for development on the Altair site. Although the exact use of the civic site is unknown at this time,the Draft EIR has evaluated impacts associated with the most-intense land use proposed for the site—a higher education facility. This conservative approach ensures that other less-intense land uses that are allowed have been adequately covered in the environmental analysis. Response 18-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Refer to Responses 18-A and 18-F (Specific Plan with Civic Use). Comment 18-G: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's effect on mountain lion movement corridors. Altair Specific Plan 3-246 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 18-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-H: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the adequacy of wildlife movement analysis methodology used in the EIR. Response 18-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-I: The commenter expresses concern over reliance on constrained linkages and potential future 1-15 crossings for wildlife movement. Response 18-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-I(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-J: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's consistency with urban wildland edge effects on wildlife. Response 18-J(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-J(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-K: The commenter expresses concern regarding the existing level of mountain lion deaths in the Temecula area due to urban/wildland interface impacts. Response 18-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-247 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 18-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-L: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project's impact on mountain lion viability in the Temecula area. Response 18-L(Specific Plan with Nature Center): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-L(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 18-M: The commenter requests that the city deny the proposed project based upon wildlife movement impacts. Response 18-M(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 18-M(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Response 18-A. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-248 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 19 WILDLIFE RESEARCH 114 1 June 16, 2016 The Hon. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor City of Temecula 41000 Main St Temecula, CA 92590 RE:ALTAIR project and golden eagles/mountain lions Dear Mayor Naggar and Councilmembers. The Wildlife Research Institute (WRI)thanks you for the opportunity to provide our biological opinions on the ALTAIR project. "Conserve golden eagle nest site in Temecula Gorge. Status—This issue is not applicable to the Proposed Project because the Temecula Gorge does not occur within the project area. The open space in the southern parcel totals 34.7 acres as part of the 83.8 acres of open space on the overall Proposed Project, and occurs adjacent to a portion of the Temecula Gorge and an approximately 900 foot setback from any development from the Santa Margarita River is provided(Figure 8)." We must disagree that this issue is not applicable to the Proposed ALTAIR project because the "Temecula Gorge nest site is not within the project area". Because of the relative 19-A proximity to the Golden Eagle Core Breeding Area, a complete golden eagle survey needs to be included in the DEIR to determine the status of the golden eagle nesting and foraging areas of this historic nest breeding site with nesting data dating from the early 20th Century. Golden eagle breeding territories encompass much more than a particular nest site. Only after a complete survey and study can the USFWS make a determination of the impact of the ALTAIR project on this Golden Eagle Core Breeding Area. "Impact BI0-1:Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant impact on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark." We believe the golden eagle should be included in this Impact statement as well as a survey included in the MM-BIO-1 as quoted from the current DEIR. (see below) 19-B "Mitigation Measure MM-BID-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys." PO Box 10 Julian, CA 92036 760-765-1957 www.wildlife-research.org Comment Letter 19 "6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Section 21100(b)(2)(8)of the CEQA Statutes and Section 15126.2(c)of the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze the extent to which the proposed project's primary and secondary effects would impact the environment and commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would not be able to reverse. "Significant irreversible environmental changes"include the use of nonrenewable natural resources during the initial and continued phases of the project, should this use result in the unavailability of these resources in the future." 19-C The ALTAIR project, without including a biologically sound golden eagle survey and mitigation of the impact on Golden Eagle Core Breeding Area will violate the above CEO,A guidelines and the intent of the MSHCP, and the City of Temecula General Plan, including the possibility of"significant irreversible environmental changes". Once these last remaining and important habitats are extinguished and diminished from edge effect, it is irreversible for our most sensitive umbrella and keystone species. Further, WRI is concerned about the irreversible environmental changes that will impact our mountain lions, and in particular the lack of suitable wildlife corridors for our isolated mountain lion populations. A serious corridor issue involves the significant impact that the ALTAIR project would have on mountain lion movement in Linkage 10 (upland connection) and Constrained Linkage 13 19-D (Murrieta Creek connection) between the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Core Areas) as well as in Constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River—Temecula Creek—Pechanga Creek connection). Constrained Linkage 14 in particular is critical for mountain lion and other wildlife movement between the Santa Ana Mountains across Interstate 15 to the Palomar Mountains. We are willing to discuss these important issues and are available to assist. Best Regards, Dave Bittner Director and Senior Eagle Biologist Cc: Regional Conservation Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife ALTAIR project Interested parties PO Box 10 Julian, CA 92036 760-765-1957 www.wildlife-research.org 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 19: Wildlife Research Institute Comment 19-A: The commenter states a complete golden eagle survey needs to be included in the Draft EIR to determine the status of golden eagle nesting and foraging areas. Response 19-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 19-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 19-B: The commenter states golden eagle should be included in Impact BI0-1 and that a golden eagle survey should be included in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1. Response 19-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 19-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 19-C: The commenter states the project will violate CEQA without a biologically sound golden eagle survey and mitigation of impacts on the golden eagle core breeding area. Response 19-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 19-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 19-D: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the project impacts to mountain lions and wildlife corridors. Response 19-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 19-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-251 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 20 Am JAN Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. a non-profit corporation June 15,2016 Mr.Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 By email: matt.peters@cityofremecula.org RE: Altair project and wildlife movement Altair Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") SCH No.2014111029 Dear Mr Peters,Mayor Naggar and Council members: We urge you to reject the DEIR and amend the Altair project to comply with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP) to avoid diminishing the functionality of the important wildlife corridors in and adjacent to the project site. Failure to protect these wildlife movement corridors will have a profound, deleterious effect on many tens 20-A of thousands of acres of wilderness parks and preserves far from Temecula, in Orange County. Laguna Greenbelt,Inc.,is a long time grassroots organization,dedicated since 1968 to the preservation of natural lands in Orange County,especially in the coastal canyons near Laguna Beach.We have successfully advocated for the preservation and public ownership of a 22,000- 20-B acre system of state and county parks and preserves known locally as the Laguna Greenbelt,or the Coastal Subarea of the Orange County Central Coastal NCCP/HCP. Due to the rapid urbanization in Orange County,the entire 22,000-acre Greenbelt became an island of wilderness surrounded by urban development about 25 years ago. Only one route remains to reconnect the Greenbelt to the much larger wild lands of the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest) and the inland mountain ranges to which they are connected. 20-C Reconnection will relieve the genetic restriction that afflicts all our coastal wildlife. Even birds such as the Coastal Cactus Wren need this corridor.We call it the `Coast to Cleveland Wildlife Corridor.' Fifteen years in the planning,the major 6-mile long wildlife corridor through Irvine is designed specifically to benefit large and mid-sized carnivores such as cougars,bobcats and coyotes, though many other species will also benefit. The central reach alone is estimated to cost 20-D $13 million. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018. Other segments are already in place. Will this massive undertaking to ensure a healthy future for coastal wildlife or instead deliver them to another dead end island of habitat? Comment Letter 20 Blocking or diminishing existing wildlife movement corridors is contrary to last year's successful AB498(Levine) about protecting existing wildlife corridors.This year,multiple bills are building on that success,including (AB 2087 (Levine), SB 901 (Bates) and AB 2444 (E.Garcia). The bills address regional planning to avoid fragmentation of habitats and wildlife 20-E corridors,habitat restoration for connectivity,and various funding options for wildlife corridors. Sacramento has gotten the message about preventing habitat fragmentation by encouraging regional planning for connectivity. Prevention is always more successful and much less expensive than trying to put habitat lands back together again. Reconnecting two fragments of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area by bridging the 101 Fwy in Liberty Canyon,Agoura,will cost a staggering $56 million. 20-F Los Angeles and Orange County learned too late the true cost of heedless development leading to habitat fragmentation. Temecula must not repeat their mistakes. The wildlands are the last safe refuge of native wildlife.Wild animals forced into human developments suffer and die from urban ills such as mange from rodenticide poisoning.This painful disease killed a famous Griffith Park Puma,P-34,in Los Angeles. Other wild animals suffer premature death as road kill due to lack of safe road crossing structures.Domestic dogs 20-G attack smaller wildlife like bobcats.Finally,inbreeding in isolated habitat fragments results in reduced reproductive success and failure of the young to thrive. Small populations often just disappear. We urge you to take into account the far-reaching effects of isolating the Santa Ana Mountains from the Inland Coastal Mountain Range before you consider approving the Altair development DEIR. The impacts to Orange County wildlife,and the park visitors who come to see them must be addressed. Orange County residents,like most Californians,support and use nearby open 20-H spaces throughout the year,and they value healthy wildlife.If you disrupt the `Palomar to Pacific' wildlife corridor,you also thwart the `Coast to Cleveland' corridor.That would be a tragedy. Information about the Coast to Cleveland Corridor may be found at wildlifecorridor.org. Thank you for considering these remarks. Sincerely, President,Laguna Greenbelt,Inc. P 0 Box 860 Laguna Beach CA 92652 949-494-81 90 www,lag unagreen belt.org 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 20: Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. Comment 20-A: The commenter urges rejection of the project as currently designed and amending the project to comply with the MSHCP to avoid diminishing the functionality of important wildlife corridors. Response 20-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.8. Response 20-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.8 and to Appendix A. The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 20-B: The commenter introduces Laguna Greenbelt,Inc. Response 20-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 20-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 20-C: The commenter introduces the"Coast to Cleveland Wildlife Corridor." Response 20-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 20-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 20-D: The commenter notes the"Coast to Cleveland Wildlife Corridor"is designed to benefit large and mid-sized carnivores and expresses concern regarding the project's impact to this corridor. Altair Specific Plan 3-253 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 20-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 20-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 20-E: The commenter notes that blocking or diminishing existing wildlife movement corridors is contrary to AB 498. Response 20-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 20-E(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 20-F: The commenter states that the City must not repeat other jurisdictions' mistakes regarding fragmentation of habitat. Response 20-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 20-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 20-G: The commenter notes that wildlife forced into human developments suffer and die from urban ills such as mange from rodenticide poisoning, suffer premature death as road kill due to lack of safe road crossings, are preyed upon by domestic dogs, and suffer from inbreeding. Response 20-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 20-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 20-H: The commenter urges that isolating the Santa Ana Mountains from the Inland Coastal Mountain Range be taken into account and reiterates concerns regarding impacts to the "Coast to Cleveland"corridor. Response 20-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 20-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Altair Specific Plan 3-254 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 21 CALIFORNIA TROUT / Mr. Matt Peters oS�ATF Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department F I S N-WATER PEOPLE TROUT rn UNLIMITED 41000 Main Street Q „ wFIsT cavKcn]Ffifi Temecula, CA 92590 y — 18 June 12, 2016 Many Clubs... all Submitted via email: matt.peters@cityoftemecula.org RE: Altair Specific Plan Draft EIR, Santa Margarita River Watershed(SCH No. 2014111029) Dear Mr. Peters, This comment is respectfully submitted by the South Coast Steelhead Coalition Coordinator in response to the call for public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Altair Specific Plan within the City of Temecula. The South Coast Steelhead Coalition brings together over 20 federal, state and local agencies, Tribal Nations, and non-profit organizations to integrate conservation and recovery efforts for the endangered Southern California steelhead in Orange, San Diego, and Riverside County watersheds. Coalition conservation and recovery 21-A efforts focus on identifying,prioritizing and implementing restoration projects in high priority watersheds using a science-based approach to restore steelhead to their native range, conserve their ecological resilience, and protect other watershed beneficial uses. Comment: This comment provides information regarding the federally listed endangered Southern California steelhead, which was not addressed in the DEIR Biological Resources 21-B evaluation, and summarizes steelhead recovery efforts underway in the Santa Margarita River downstream of Murrieta Creek and Project site. The Altair Project is a residential mixed use development project located near Old Town Temecula and includes plans for a new Western Bypass roadway. The northern parcel, which comprises the primary project area, is approximately 215 acres that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the north and Temecula Parkway on the south. The southern parcel is approximately 55 acres and is located south of future Temecula Parkway/Western Bypass. A portion of Murrieta Creek is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project. The proposed 21-C Project site does not coincide with known aquatic habitat of steelhead. But due to its eastern abutment with Murrieta Creek, it has the potential to adversely impact steelhead habitat through altered hydrology and surface run-off patterns in Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, and discharge pollutants into the Santa Margarita River and downstream estuary, which contain essential spawning and rearing areas for steelhead. The Santa Margarita River forms at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek near 21-D the city of Temecula west of Interstate 15 in Riverside County. The Santa Margarita River is the 11Page Comment Letter 21 longest free flowing river in coastal Southern California. It runs in a southwesterly direction to the Pacific Ocean just north of Oceanside, along the southern border of United States Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Twenty seven miles of the mainstem river are potentially accessible to steelhead, terminating at a natural complete barrier at the headwaters where Temecula and Murrieta Creeks join together. It is relatively lightly impacted by urbanization throughout its length, has perennial flow ranging between 3-7 cubic feet/second which is unusual for Southern California rivers, and has a spring creek like character in the upper watershed protected in the Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve which extends to the headwaters. The Santa Margarita River offers one of the best opportunities to re-establish a steelhead population in coastal Southern California. Steelhead historically occupied the Santa Margarita River watershed(Becker and Reining, 2008; Becker et al 2010 and references therein; US FWS 21-D 1998; Cardno ENTRIX 2013 Section 3.3; U.S. Dept of the Interior Draft EIS/EIR SMR 2014). The sharp decline in Southern California Steelhead populations in the mid-1900s led to the federal listing under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) of the Southern California Coast steelhead in 1997 from the Santa Maria River at the north end to Malibu Creek at the south end. Following steelhead sightings and genetic documentation in watersheds south of Malibu Creek, the geographic boundary was extended southward to the U.S.-Mexico border in 2002. The NMFS (2012) Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies recovery objectives, remediation actions for threats to steelhead viability, and designates high priority watersheds. The recently released NMFS 5-yr update summarizes progress to date in recovery. The Santa Margarita River is designated a high priority Core 1 population in the NMFS Recovery Plan. It still has natural channel characteristics for migration and propagation of steelhead and suitable rearing habitat"from about the De Luz Ford on the Base to the top of the gorge..." (Warburton et al 2000). The steelhead habitat assessment study completed in 2013 (Trout Unlimited/CardnoENTRIX)mapped habitat quality and fish passage barriers upstream of Camp Pendleton. Observations over the past decade indicate that steelhead are sporadically present in the river. For example, three observations in 2009 documented trout physically similar 21-E to steelhead upstream of Camp Pendleton in the main stem of Santa Margarita River. Native trout lineage was confirmed by DNA analysis (NOAA, 2010). Remnant native trout populations of coastal steelhead descent were documented recently in remote headwaters throughout Southern California(Jacobson et al 2014, Abadia-Cardoso et al 2016). Two of these landlocked populations are nearby in the Santa Ana River watershed in Riverside County, and in the San Luis Rey watershed in San Diego County. Limiting factors to endangered steelhead recovery are tightly linked to features of their life history as an anadromous species. Steelhead live in freshwater as juveniles for at least one year 21-F before migrating to the ocean where they feed and grow for several months to years before returning to freshwater to spawn. Some fish only enter the estuary or briefly enter saltwater 2 1 P a g e Comment Letter 21 before moving back up to tributary habitat. They require passage up and down the main stem of a river, normally during periods of winter high water flow, and need sites with appropriate gravel for spawning and year-round refuge areas for rearing. As such, steelhead use multiple parts of watersheds and are key biological indicators of water quality and ecosystem integrity. They are sensitive to environmental alterations including fish passage barriers, non-native species, altered hydrologic regimes and sediment loading, increased urban run-off and impervious groundcover, and water quality impacts of land use from agricultural, mining and grazing operations. Three of the main threats to steelhead population viability are currently being addressed in the Santa Margarita River to promote their recovery: fish passage barrier removal/improving fish passage, non-native aquatic species removal and sediment reduction. Fish passage barriers in the form of dams,bridges and diversion structures block access of steelhead to upstream habitat. 21-F Anadromous fish are particularly sensitive to these barriers that impede or totally block their migration between fresh water spawning and rearing areas, and the ocean/estuary. Improvements to fish passage through a weir structure on Camp Pendleton at Lake O'Neill are underway in consultation with NMFS. Fish passage enhancement alternatives were presented in the draft EIS/EIR for the Conjunctive Use Project(2014). A fish passage barrier upstream at Sandia Creek confluence was recently approved for remediation through CDFW funding and is being pursued by Trout Unlimited starting this month. When fish passage is improved through these two areas, steelhead will have unimpeded access to good habitat upstream in the SMR Ecological Reserve. The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, immediately downstream of Murrieta Creek, has some of the highest quality habitat in the Santa Margarita River. Further habitat enhancement via non- native aquatic species removal and sediment reduction is underway to promote steelhead rearing and spawning in that part of the river. These activities are being pursued now in anticipation of steelhead arrival when downstream fish passage projects are completed. The Santa Margarita 21-G Ecological Reserved is owned and operated by San Diego State University as an educational and research facility with limited public access. This provides an ideal location to concentrate efforts to reintroduce a stable steelhead population, demonstrating that this can be accomplished in a pragmatic manner in the context of urbanized Southern California. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Specific Plan within the City of Temecula. Sincerely, Sandra Jacobson, Ph.D. California Trout South Coast Steelhead Coalition Coordinator 810 Emerald Street, Suite 114 San Diego, California 92109 3 1 P a g e Comment Letter 21 References Abadia-Cardoso, A., Pearse, D.E., Jacobson, S., Marshall, J., Dalrymple, D., Kawasaki, F., Ruiz- Campos, G. and J.C. Garza(2016)Population genetic structure and ancestry of steelhead/rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) at the extreme southern end of their range in North America. Conservation Genetics Vol 17 (3)p. 675-689. Becker, G.S., Smetak, K.M. and D.A. Asbury(2010). Southern Steelhead Resources Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Watersheds South of the Golden Gate. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Becker, G.S. and I.J. Reining(2008) Steelhead/Rainbow Trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California. Center for Ecosystem Management & Restoration. Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy and The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. Cardno ENTRIX(2013) Santa Margarita Steelhead Habitat Assessment and Enhancement Plan. Prepared for Trout Unlimited-South Coast Chapter, Orange County and Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos, CA. Jacobson, S., J. Marshall, D. Dalrymple, F. Kawasaki, D. Pearse, A. Abadia-Cardoso and J. Carlos Garza(2014) Genetic Analysis of Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Southern California Coastal Rivers and Streams. Final Report for California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program; Project No. 0950015. National Marine Fisheries Service (2012) Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan. Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division. Long Beach, California. National Marine Fisheries Service (2016) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of South- Central California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. National Marine Fisheries Service. West Coast Region. California Coastal Office. Santa Rosa, California. NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Memorandum of March 12, 2010 from Rodney McInnis,NMFS Regional Administrator to Mr. William Berry, Resource Management Division Head, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base Re: DNA analysis of sample from O. mykiss caught in Santa Margarita River. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, and Fallbrook Public Utility District(2012) Southern California Steelhead Passage Assessment: Lower Santa Margarita River, California and CUP Surface Water Availability Analysis (TM 1.1). Prepared by Stetson Engineers and Cardno ENTRIX. 4 1 P a g e Comment Letter 21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) Southern Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss habitat suitability survey of the Santa Margarita River, San Mateo and San Onofre creeks on Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton. United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Coastal California Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, CA. Prepared by Lang, J.S., Oppenheim, B.F. and R.N. Knight for Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security. U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fallbrook Public Utility District (2014)Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project(CUP). Warburton, M.L., Swift, C.C. and R.N. Fisher(2000) Status and Distribution of fishes in the Santa Margarita River Drainage. US Geological Survey. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 5 1 P a g e 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 21: South Coast Steelhead Coalition Comment 21-A: The commenter introduces the South Coast Steelhead Coalition and describes its conservation and recovery efforts for the endangered Southern California steelhead in Orange, San Diego, and Riverside County watersheds. Response 21-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 21-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 21-B: The commenter states the Southern California steelhead was not addressed in the Draft EIR. Response 21-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 21-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Project impacts to biological resources and MSHCP consistency are documented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources,of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Common Response 3.2.9 and Appendix A. Comment 21-C: The commenter acknowledges the project site does not coincide with known aquatic habitat of steelhead but states that due to its eastern abutment with Murrieta Creek, it has the potential to adversely impact steelhead habitat through altered hydrology and surface run-off patterns in Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, and discharge pollutants into the Santa Margarita River and downstream estuary,which contain essential spawning and rearing areas for steelhead. Response 21-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 21-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 21-D: The commenter describes the Santa Margarita River and states it offers one of the best opportunities to re-establish a steelhead population in coastal Southern California. Response 21-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 21-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-260 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 21-E: The commenter states the Santa Margarita River is designated a high priority Core 1 population in the NMFS Recovery Plan and summarizes a steelhead habitat assessment study completed in 2013 upstream of Camp Pendleton. Response 21-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 21-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 21-F: The commenter summarizes steelhead life history and threats, and states that ongoing fish passage improvement efforts will provide steelhead unimpeded access to good habitat upstream in the SMER. Response 21-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Response 21-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.9. Comment 21-G: The commenter states the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, immediately downstream of Murrieta Creek,has some of the highest quality habitat in the Santa Margarita River. Further habitat enhancement via non-native aquatic species removal and sediment reduction is underway to promote steelhead rearing and spawning in that part of the river. These activities are being pursued now in anticipation of steelhead arrival when downstream fish passage projects are completed. The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserved is owned and operated by San Diego State University as an educational and research facility with limited public access. Response 21-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 21-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment has been noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-261 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 22 Johnson�Sedlack AT TO R SatLAW Raymond W.Johnson,Esq.,AICP,LEED GA 26785 Camino Seco,Temecula,CA 92590 E-mait Ray@SoCa10EQAcom Carl T.Sedlack,Esq.Retired Abigail A.Smith,Esq. Abby@SoCa10EQA.com Kimberly Foy,Esq. Kim@SoCa10EQA.com Kendall Holbrook,Esq. Kendall@SoCa10EQA.com Telephone: (951)506-9925 Facsimile: (951)506-9725 June 17, 2016 Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Email: Matt.PeterskCityofTemecula.org VIA EMAIL RE: Altair Specific Plan DEIR Dear Mr. Peters: On behalf of concerned area residents and Endangered Habitats League, I hereby submit these comments regarding the Altair Specific Plan.(The "Project"). 22-A GENERAL COMMENTS The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)was adopted as a disclosure and transparency document. The theory is that by providing a document that adequately describes the environmental consequences of a project to decision makers and the public, the decision makers 22_B will make a rational decision based upon the true environmental consequences of the project and if they do not, the electorate can hold them accountable for their decisions. The core of this statutory structure is the adequacy of the EIR as an informational document. The Altair Specific Plan for the Project fails as an informational document. CEQA requires that a lead agency consider not only the changes in language from a general plan amendment,but also "the ultimate consequences of such changes to the physical environment." (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 398, 409.) Environmental review should focus on the project's secondary effects as well as its immediate, primary impacts. (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors of Monterey County (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 229, 250, City of Redlands, 96 Cal. App. 4th at 412; CEQA Guidelines, § 15146(b).) Indirect or 22-C secondary effects include those "which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance,but are still reasonably foreseeable"; "growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use,population density, or growth rate"; "and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15358(a)(2).) Comment Letter 22 June 17, 2016 Page 2 The Project has potentially significant impacts to/from air quality, biological resources, and 22-D greenhouse gases, among others. THE DOCUMENT FAILS AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT CEQA is designed to facilitate public review of environmental documents for a project. This document is difficult for the public to review since it generally only references mitigation 22-E measures by number without stating them specifically in the text of the document, forcing the reviewer to jump back and forth within the document seeking to determine if proposed mitigation is adequate and appropriate. PROJECT OBJECTIVES INCLUDE OBJECTIVES WITH NO RELEVANCE TO THE PROJECT ITSELF, APPARENTLY WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 22-F The proposed project includes as a"Project Objective"the provision of a"civic site"to accommodate up to 450,000 square feet of building area for educational, institutional or other business use. This site would be donated to the City. This objective bears no relationship to the project, perhaps other than as an inducement to the City to approve the plan, and appears, in reality, to be designed to foreclose other project alternatives. POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Air Quality The Air Quality analysis is fatally flawed because it analyzes impacts based upon an assumed construction schedule but with no requirement that the proposed construction schedule be 22-G adhered to. Any acceleration of the proposed ten-year construction schedule would result in significant environmental impacts not analyzed in the DEIR. The project must be conditioned to prohibit any acceleration of the construction schedule. There are contradictory portions of the DEIR. For instance, in the biological resource section there is a mitigation measure (MM-13I0-3)that prohibits idling of construction equipment for periods in excess of 45 minutes. This is inconsistent with the requirements in the Air Quality 22-H section and could result in confusion, or an assumption that such operation is authorized. MM- BIO-3 must be modified to conform with the requirements of the Air Quality section. Mitigation measure MM-aq-1e b) should be modified to be more specific in requiring provision 22-1 of preferential parking for alternatively fueled vehicles. Additionally, CEQA requires that where feasible mitigation exists which can substantially lessen the environmental impacts of a project, all feasible mitigation must be adopted. In this way 22-J CEQA goes beyond its informational role to require that projects substantively lessen their negative effects on the environment. Comment Letter 22 June 17, 2016 Page 3 The following additional mitigation should be adopted to reduce construction air quality emissions: 1. All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 4 emissions standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by GARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. 2. No diesel powered generators shall be used onsite at any time. 3. Implement activity management techniques including a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions; c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and d)phasing of construction activities.* 4. Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 AVR for construction employees 5. Require high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment.* 6. The developer shall require all contractors to turn off all construction equipment and delivery vehicles when not in use and/or idling in excess of 3 minutes.* 7. Restrict engine size of construction equipment to the minimum practical size.* 22-K 8. Use electric construction equipment where technically feasible.* 9. Require use of alternatively fueled construction equipment,using, e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel.* 10.Install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment.* 11.Require the use of Alternative Diesel Fuels on diesel equipment used. Alternative diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. 12.Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts.* 13.Demonstrate proper inspection and maintenance of construction equipment.* 14.Employ a construction site manager to verify that engines are properly maintained and keep a maintenance log.* 15.Establish a staging zone for trucks that are waiting to load or unload material at the work zone in a location where diesel emissions from the trucks will have minimum impact on abutters and the general public. 16.Require all diesel trucks used by construction contractors at the site, or for on- road hauling of construction material, to be post-2007 models or 2010 compliant vehicles. 17.Use a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan to ensure compliance with construction mitigation measures, incorporating the use of at least hourly meters on equipment; documentation of the serial number, horsepower, manufacturing Comment Letter 22 June 17, 2016 Page 4 age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment; and daily logging the operating hours of equipment. 18.During Project construction, the applicant will be required to solicit bids that include use of energy and fuel efficient fleets.* 19.During Project construction, the applicant will be required to solicit preference construction bids that use BACT,particularly those seeking to deploy zero- and/or near zero emission technologies.* 22-K 20.During Project construction, the applicant will be required to use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production to the extent feasible.* The following additional mitigation during the operational phases are also feasible and should be adopted to reduce the Project's air quality effects: 1. All heavy trucks accessing the site shall conform to 2010 air quality standards or better. Results, including backup data shall be reported to the Planning Department semi-annually.* 2. Install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment.* 3. Utilize electrical equipment for landscape maintenance. Prohibit gas powered equipment for landscape maintenance.* 4. Prohibit idling of trucks for periods exceeding three minutes.* 5. Plant shade trees in parking lots to provide minimum 50% cover to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles.* 6. Plant at least 50 percent low-ozone forming potential (Low-OFP)trees and shrubs, preferably native, drought-resistant species, to meet city/county landscaping requirements.* 7. Plant Low-OFP, native, drought-resistant, tree and shrub species, 20% in excess of that already required by city ordinance. Consider roadside, sidewalk, and 22-L driveway shading.* 8. Concrete, instead of asphalt, shall be used for parking areas. Concrete shall have an initial solar reflectance value of at least .30 as determined in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards E 1980 or E1918. 9. For the Civic Parcel, Orient 75 percent or more of buildings to face either north or south(within 30 degrees of N/S) and plant trees and shrubs that shed their leaves in winter nearer to these structures to maximize shade to the building during the summer and allow sunlight to strike the building during the winter months.* 10. Provide grass paving, tree shading, or reflective surface for unshaded parking lot areas, driveways, or fire lanes that reduce standard black asphalt paving by 10% or more.* 11. Project driveways and parking areas shall be concrete instead of asphalt. Concrete shall have an initial solar reflectance value of at least .30 as Comment Letter 22 June 17, 2016 Page 5 determined in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards E 1980 or E1918.* 12. In the Civic Parcel, Roof areas shall be constructed with materials with an initial installation Solar Reflective Index Value of at least 39 or greater than the values specified and set forth in CalGreen 2013 Table A5.106.11.2.2. 13. For the Civic Parcel, all hot water heaters installed by Developer shall be powered either through solar cells mounted on the roof of the building, solar 22-L water heating, or through other onsite renewable power.* 14. No diesel-powered generator of any type shall be used at any time on the Project site.* 15. The site shall be developed to meet,but not exceed, the number of parking stalls required by local zoning requirements. (*Would also reduce GHG emissions) Biological Resources The impacts to biological resources have been thoroughly commented upon by others. The Biological resource impacts are largely attributable to the Civic Site,which is of no benefit to the developer of the project. Any proposed mitigation must be located to mitigate the impact of this particular project on the critical wildlife linkages effected by the project. Purchase of distantn 22-M mitigation land or mitigation credits will do nothing to mitigate the impacts of this specific project on wildlife movement,particularly for mountain lions. Any mitigation for these impacts to corridor use must be located in the project vicinity where it can actually mitigate impacts of this project otherwise any mitigation is illusory. It appears that the EIR seeks to take credit for the shortening of the Western Bypass. There is 22-N nothing within the document to require that the Western Bypass be abandoned and any environmental documents supporting it be decertified. Project Alternatives The Alternatives analysis seems to be self-serving at best. Alternative 3 is rejected because it does not meet project objectives. Alternative 2 is selected as the environmentally superior alternative, seemingly without any real support. While alternative 3 is inconsistent with two 22-0 project objectives, the selected environmentally superior alternative is inconsistent with the same two project objectives plus two additional project objectives. It is clear that the environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 3, was not rejected because of being inconsistent with project objectives when the preferred alternative selected in fact was inconsistent with more project alternatives. CONCLUSION 22-P Because of the deficiencies identified, the EIR should be revised and re-circulated. Comment Letter 22 June 17, 2016 Page 6 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ( Af.e. 741.,i -- - ; ondm W. J nson JOHNSON & EDLACK Comment Letter 22 RAYMOND W. JOHNSON, Esq., AICP LEED GA 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-9925 (951) 506-9725 Fax (951) 775-1912 Cellular Johnson & Sedlack, an Environmental Law firm representing plaintiff environmental groups in environmental law litigation, primarily CEQA. City Planning: Current Planning • Two years principal planner, Lenexa, Kansas (consulting) • Two and one half years principal planner, Lee's Summit, Missouri • One year North Desert Regional Team, San Bernardino County • Thirty years subdivision design: residential, commercial and industrial • Thirty years as applicants representative in various jurisdictions in: Missouri, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas and California • Twelve years as applicants representative in the telecommunications field General Plan • Developed a policy oriented Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lenexa, Kansas. • Updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lee's Summit, Missouri. • Created innovative zoning ordinance for Lenexa, Kansas. • Developed Draft Hillside Development Standards, San Bernardino County, CA. • Developed Draft Grading Standards, San Bernardino County. • Developed Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis, San Bernardino County Environmental Analysis • Two years, Environmental Team, San Bernardino County o Review and supervision of preparation of EIR's and joint EIR/EIS's o Preparation of Negative Declarations o Environmental review of proposed projects • Eighteen years as an environmental consultant reviewing environmental documentation for plaintiffs in CEQA and NEPA litigation Comment Letter 22 Representation: • Represented various clients in litigation primarily in the fields of Environmental and Election law. Clients include: o Sierra Club o San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society o Sea 8a Sage Audubon Society o San Bernardino County Audubon Society o Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice o Endangered Habitats League o Rural Canyons Conservation Fund o California Native Plant Society o California Oak Foundation o Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Marcos o Union for a River Greenbelt Environment o Citizens to Enforce CEQA o Friends of Riverside's Hills o De Luz 2000 o Save Walker Basin o Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District Education: • B. A. Economics and Political Science, Kansas State University 1970 • Masters of Community and Regional Planning, Kansas State University, 1974 • Additional graduate studies in Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City • J.D. University of La Verne. 1997 Member, Law Review, Deans List, Class Valedictorian, Member Law Review, Published, Journal of Juvenile Law Professional Associations: o Member, American Planning Association o Member, American Institute of Certified Planners o Member, Association of Environmental Professionals o Member, U.S. Green Building Council, LEED GA Comment Letter 22 Johnson & Sedlack, Attorneys at Law 26785 Camino Seco 12/97- Present Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-9925 Principal in the environmental law firm of Johnson & Sedlack. Primary areas of practice are environmental and election law. Have provided representation to the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, AT&T Wireless, Endangered Habitats League, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, California Native Plant Society and numerous local environmental groups. Primary practice is writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning-Environmental Solutions 26785 Camino Seco 8/94- Present Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-9825 Served as applicant's representative for planning issues to the telecommunications industry. Secured government entitlements for cell sites. Provided applicant's representative services to private developers of residential projects. Provided design services for private residential development projects. Provided project management of all technical consultants on private developments including traffic, geotechnical, survey, engineering, environmental, hydrogeological, hydrologic, landscape architectural, golf course design and fire consultants. San Bernardino County Planning Department Environmental Team 6/91-8/94 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-4099 Responsible for coordination of production of EIR's and joint EIR/EIS's for numerous projects in the county. Prepared environmental documents for numerous projects within the county. Prepared environmental determinations and environmental review for projects within the county. San Bernardino County Planning Department General Plan Team 6/91-6/92 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-4099 Created draft grading ordinance, hillside development standards, water efficient landscaping ordinance, multi-family development standards, revised planned development section and fiscal impact analysis. Completed land use plans and general plan amendment for approximately 250 square miles. Prepared proposal for specific plan for the Oak Hills community. Comment Letter 22 San Bernardino County Planning Department North Desert Regional Planning Team 15505 Civic 6/90-6/91 Victorville, CA (619) 243-8245 Worked on regional team. Reviewed general plan amendments, tentative tracts, parcel maps and conditional use permits. Prepared CEQA documents for projects. Broadmoor Associates/Johnson Consulting 229 NW Blue Parkway Lee's Summit, MO 64063 (816) 525-6640 2/86-6/90 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Designed and developed an executive office park and an industrial park in Lee's Summit, Mo. Designed two additional industrial parks and residential subdivisions. Prepared study to determine target industries for the industrial parks. Prepared applications for tax increment financing district and grants under Economic Development Action Grant program. Prepared input/output analysis of proposed race track Provided conceptual design of 800 acre mixed use development. Shepherd Realty Co. Lee's Summit, MO 6/84-2-86 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Performed investment analysis on properties. Provided planning consulting in subdivision design and rezoning. Contemporary Concepts Inc. Lee's Summit, MO 9/78-5/84 Owner Designed and developed residential subdivision in Lee's Summit, Mo. Supervised all construction trades involved in the development process and the building of homes. Environmental Design Association Lee's Summit, Mo. Project Coordinator 6/77-9/78 Was responsible for site design and preliminary building design for retirement villages in Missouri, Texas and Florida. Was responsible for preparing feasibility studies of possible conversion projects. Was in charge of working with local governments on zoning issues and any problems that might arise with projects. Coordinated work of local architects on projects. Worked with marketing staff regarding design changes needed or contemplated. City of Lee's Summit, MO Comment Letter 22 220 SW Main Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Community Development Director 4/75-6/77 Supervised Community Development Dept. staff. Responsible for preparation of departmental budget and C.D.B.G. budget. Administered Community Development Block Grant program. Developed initial Downtown redevelopment plan with funding from block grant funds. Served as a member of the Lee's Summit Economic Development Committee and provided staff support to them. Prepared study of available industrial sites within the City of Lee's Summit. In charge of all planning and zoning matters for the city including comprehensive plan. Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 9200 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114 (816) 333-4800 5/73-4/75 Economist/Planner Responsible for conducting economic and planning studies for Public and private sector clients. Consulting City Planner for Lenexa, KS. Conducted environmental impact study on maintaining varying channel depth of the Columbia River including an input/output analysis. Environmental impact studies of dredging the Mississippi River. Worked on the Johnson County Industrial Airport industrial park master plan including a study on the demand for industrial land and the development of target industries based upon location analysis. Worked on various airport master plans. Developed policy oriented comprehensive plan for the City of Lenexa, KS. Developed innovative zoning ordinance heavily dependent upon performance standards for the City of Lenexa, KS. This page left intentionally blank 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 22: Johnson & Sedlack Comment 22-A: The commenter states that they are submitting comments on behalf of the concerned area residents and the Endangered Habitats League. Response 22-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Your participation in public review of this document is appreciated. Your comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Response 22-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Your participation in public review of this document is appreciated.Your comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Comment 22-B: The commenter states that CEQA was adopted to promote disclosure and transparency,and to provide decision makers with adequate information to make rational decisions based on the information provided in the EIR. Response 22-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 22-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 22-C: The commenter believes that the Draft EIR fails to be an adequate informational document. The commenter cites City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino(2002)and City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors of Monterey County(1986) and states that CEQA must analyze secondary or indirect effects including growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use,population density, or growth rate; and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Response 22-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter is referred to each section of Chapter 3,Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,of the Draft EIR,where indirect effects are analyzed for each impact area,as applicable. In addition,the commenter is referred to the Draft EIR Section 6.1, Growth Inducing Impacts,where growth-inducing effects are analyzed.Nevertheless,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 22-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter is referred to each section of Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR,where indirect effects are analyzed for each impact area, as applicable. In addition,the commenter is referred to the Draft EIR Section 6.1,where growth- inducing effects are analyzed.Nevertheless,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 22-D: The commenter states that the project has potentially significant impacts to/from air quality,biological resources, and greenhouse gases, among others. Altair Specific Plan 3-273 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 22-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter is referred to Section 3.2,Air Quality, of the Draft EIR,where impacts to air quality are analyzed; Section 3.3,where biological resource impacts are analyzed; and Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, where impacts from greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed.Nevertheless,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 22-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter is referred to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR,where impacts to air quality are analyzed; Section 3.3,where biological resource impacts are analyzed; and Section 3.6,where impacts from greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed.Nevertheless,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 22-E: The commenter states that the Draft EIR fails as an informational document because it is difficult for the public to review since it generally only references mitigation measures by number without stating them specifically in the text of the document, forcing the reviewer to jump back and forth within the document to determine if proposed mitigation is adequate and appropriate. Response 22-E (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter is referred to Table S-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the Draft EIR,which provides all of the impacts and mitigation measures that are included in the Draft EIR. This table is prepared in accordance for the reader's convenience. In addition,mitigation measures are also provided within the"Impact Assessment"section of each resource section in Draft EIR Chapter 3,where applicable. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects,does not specify how mitigation measures should be described in the EIR. See also Table 1-3 in the Final EIR. Response 22-E (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter is referred to Table S-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the Draft EIR,which provides all of the impacts and mitigation measures that are included in the Draft EIR. This table is prepared in accordance for the reader's convenience. In addition,mitigation measures are also provided within the"Impact Assessment"section of each resource section in Draft EIR Chapter 3,where applicable. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects, does not specify how mitigation measures should be described in the EIR. See also Table 1-3 in the Final EIR. Comment 22-F: The commenter states the proposed project includes as a"Project Objective"the provision of a"civic site"to accommodate up to 450,000 square feet of building area for educational,institutional,or other business use, and this site would be donated to the City. The commenter states this objective bears no relationship to the project,other than as an inducement to the City to approve the plan, and appears, in reality,to be designed to foreclose other project alternatives. Response 22-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter provides an opinion and does not state a concern regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project.Nevertheless,the Altair Specific Plan 3-274 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments proposed civic site is an important component of the proposed project that is intended to benefit the public and maximize compatibility of adjacent land uses,thus making the civic site one of the project's primary objectives. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 22-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter provides an opinion and does not state a concern regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Nevertheless,the proposed civic site/nature center is an important component of the proposed project that is intended to benefit the public and maximize compatibility of adjacent land uses, thus making the civic site/nature center one of the project's primary objectives. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 22-G: The commenter states that the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR is fatally flawed because it analyzes impacts based upon an assumed construction schedule but with no requirement that the proposed construction schedule be adhered to. The commenter also states that the project should be conditioned to prohibit acceleration of the construction schedule because any acceleration of it would result in significant impacts not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Response 22-G(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter is referred to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically,the commenter is referred to pages 3.2-10 through 3.2-11,which describe how all development projects with ground-disturbing activities are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed project include the following: Rule 401,Rule 402,Rule 403, and Rule 1133. Moreover,the commenter is referred to Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2,which reduces emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the project on sensitive receptors.Additionally, as stated on page 3.2-19 of the Draft EIR,the construction schedule for the project could potentially change to more than three phases to better accommodate development. However,this change in phasing would only involve sub-dividing the areas of development in a different manner than originally planned and would not alter the proposed duration of development(10 years), intensity of construction activities, or the overall amount of development in the project area. Thus, should the project eventually be developed in more than three phases,the construction-related emissions analyzed in this section would not change. Thus, the construction schedule prepared for the project assumes a conservative schedule for the proposed project and provides worst-case emissions scenarios for the proposed project phasing. The use of the screening criteria is a conservative analysis methodology that is commonly used in the SCAQMD. The screening criteria are designed to determine the emission levels in pounds per day that are permissible on a 1-,2-,or 5-acre site of construction or operation and would,therefore, not result in potential significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.As the size of the site increases so does the amount of pollutant that would be able to be emitted before a potential for impact would occur.Therefore,the use of the screening criteria for the LST analysis is an appropriate screening tool for projects that are greater than 5 acres because,if the emissions from the project activities are below the allowable emissions for a 5-acre site,then they would also be below the allowable emissions for a larger site as it would take more emissions from that larger site Altair Specific Plan 3-275 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments to result in potential impacts to sensitive receptors.Additionally,where the emissions exceed the allowable emissions for a 5-acre site,a refined analysis is then preformed,which takes into account the actual site size. Therefore,the methodology is appropriate as used as a screening tool. Response 22-G(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter is referred to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Specifically,the commenter is referred to pages 3.2-10 through 3.2-11,which describe how all development projects with ground-disturbing activities are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed project include the following: Rule 401,Rule 402, Rule 403,and Rule It 33.Moreover,the commenter is referred to Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2, which reduces emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the project on sensitive receptors.Additionally,as stated on page 3.2-19 of the Draft EIR,the construction schedule for the project could potentially change to more than three phases to better accommodate development. However,this change in phasing would only involve sub-dividing the areas of development in a different manner than originally planned and would not alter the proposed duration of development (10 years),intensity of construction activities,or the overall amount of development in the project area. Thus,should the project eventually be developed in more than three phases,the construction- related emissions analyzed in this section would not change. Thus,the construction schedule prepared for the project assumes a conservative schedule for the proposed project and provides worst-case emissions scenarios for the proposed project phasing. The use of the screening criteria is a conservative analysis methodology that is commonly used in the SCAQMD. The screening criteria are designed to determine the emission levels in pounds per day that are permissible on a 1-,2-,or 5-acre site of construction or operation and would,therefore, not result in potential significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.As the size of the site increases so does the amount of pollutant that would be able to be emitted before a potential for impact would occur.Therefore,the use of the screening criteria for the LST analysis is an appropriate screening tool for projects that are greater than 5 acres because,if the emissions from the project activities are below the allowable emissions for a 5-acre site,then they would also be below the allowable emissions for a larger site as it would take more emissions from that larger site to result in potential impacts to sensitive receptors.Additionally,where the emissions exceed the allowable emissions for a 5-acre site,a refined analysis is then preformed,which takes into account the actual site size. Therefore,the methodology is appropriate as used as a screening tool. Comment 22-H: The commenter states there are contradictory portions of the Draft EIR. For instance, in the biological resource section,there is a mitigation measure(MM-BIO-3)that prohibits idling of construction equipment for periods in excess of 45 minutes. This is inconsistent with the requirements in the Air Quality section and could result in confusion, or an assumption that such operation is authorized. Mitigation Measure MM-BI0-3 must be modified to conform to the requirements of the Air Quality section. Response 22-H(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The intent behind the last bulleted item in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 is a noise-reduction measure to reduce impacts to wildlife from project construction activities. This measure is not an Air Quality reduction measure.Although its implementation would reduce air quality emissions at the project site and would have a beneficial Altair Specific Plan 3-276 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments impact to local air quality,restricting construction equipment idling was not a mitigation measure for Air Quality impacts.Nevertheless,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 22-H(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The intent behind the last bulleted item in Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-3 is a noise-reduction measure to reduce impacts to wildlife from project construction activities. This measure is not an Air Quality reduction measure. Although it is implementation would reduce air quality emissions at the project site and would have a beneficial impact to local air quality,restricting construction equipment idling was not a mitigation measure for Air Quality impacts.Nevertheless,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 22-I: The commenter indicates that MM-AQ-Ie(b) should be revised to require preferential parking for alternatively fueled vehicles. Response 22-I(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Ie(b) states that the project shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as,but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking-cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. Refer to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Response 22-I(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Thank you for your comments. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Ie(b) states that the project shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as,but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking-cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. Refer to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Comment 22-J: The commenter states that CEQA requires that where feasible mitigation exists that can substantially lessen the environmental impacts of a project, all feasible mitigation must be adopted. In this way CEQA goes beyond its informational role to require that projects substantively lessen their negative effects on the environment. Response 22-J(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment does not provide a specific concern regarding an environmental impact or analysis in the Draft EIR.Nevertheless,the comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission. Response 22-J(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment does not provide a specific concern regarding an environmental impact or analysis in the Draft EIR.Nevertheless, the comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission. Comment 22-K: The commenter suggests adding twenty additional mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts during construction. Response 22-K(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As discussed in Section 3.2,regional construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less than significant; thus,no Altair Specific Plan 3-277 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments additional mitigation of regional pollutants from construction would be required. While a localized PM2.5 impact was identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 would be sufficient to reduce impacts associated with construction activities to less than significant. Therefore, additional mitigation measures are not warranted for construction- related air quality impacts. Response 22-K(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As discussed in Section 3.2 regional construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less than significant; thus,no additional mitigation of regional pollutants from construction would be required. While a localized PM2.5 impact was identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 would be sufficient to reduce impacts associated with construction activities to less than significant. Therefore, additional mitigation measures are not warranted for construction- related air quality impacts. Comment 22-L: The commenter suggests adding fifteen additional feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts during operation of the project. Response 22-L(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Some of the suggested mitigation measures are already incorporated as part of the Specific Plan, are regulatory requirements, or are not applicable to land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. The following is a specific response to each suggested measure,with similar measures grouped with a single response: 1. All heavy trucks accessing the site shall conform to 2010 air quality standards.This measure is not applicable to the proposed Specific Plan because there are no industrial or warehouse land uses proposed that would involve truck fleets. The only foreseeable truck traffic generated by the Specific Plan would be vendor delivery trucks to retail or office uses,which would be minimal.Additionally, it is not feasible to enforce escalated truck fleet requirements on independent truck operators that would not be operating out of the Specific Plan area. 2. Install catalytic convertors on gasoline powered equipment.Gasoline combustion emissions associated with the Specific Plan would primarily be from vehicle trips and such vehicles in California already have emission control requirements imposed. While a small percentage of ROG and NOx emissions(2 percent and 0.6 percent,respectively) would be generated by operation of gasoline-powered landscape equipment,Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Ic addresses these emissions by requiring a percentage of all landscape equipment to be electrically powered. 3. Utilize electrical equipment for landscape maintenance.As discussed above, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-lc addresses these emissions by requiring a percentage of all landscape equipment to be electrically powered. 4. Prohibit idling of trucks for periods exceeding three minutes.As discussed above in the response to suggested Measure 1,this measure is not applicable to the proposed Specific Plan because there are no industrial or warehouse land uses proposed that would involve truck fleets. The only foreseeable truck traffic generated by the Specific Plan would be vendor delivery trucks to retail or office uses,which would be minimal. It Altair Specific Plan 3-278 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments should be noted that California law prohibits vehicle or engine subject to the diesel regulation from idling for more than 5 consecutive minutes. This regulation took effect under California law on June 15, 2008 (California Code of Regulations,Title 13, Division 3,Article 1, Chapter 10, Section 2485(c)). 5. Plant shade trees in parking lots to provide 50 percent cover.As discussed on page 4- 5 of the Specific Plan,there would be no large off-street parking lots along the street networks. Page 4-30 of the Specific Plan provides that urban parkways with curb parking would have street trees every 24 feet. Consequently,the intent of the suggested measure would already be met by the Specific Plan. Development Standard 10.6.11 requires that a minimum of one tree per four parking spaces be provided and that trees shall be broad- canopy species and at least 15 gallons in size at installation. Consequently,while an exact percentage is uncertain,the suggested substantial tree cover for parking is addressed through the development standards of the Specific Plan. 6. Plant at least 50 percent low-ozone-forming-potential trees to meet landscaping requirements. The tree species with the highest ROG emission rates include most broadleaved species from genera Eucalyptus, Casuarina,Liquidambar,Robinia, Liriodendron,Populus, Quercus,Nyssa,Platanus, Salix, and many conifers(McPherson, 2010).1 Of these,Populus, Quercus,Platanus, and Salix are identified in Appendix A of the Specific Plan because they are Southern California native species with low to moderate water requirements. The low water requirements have beneficial effects that address significant GHG impacts identified in the Draft EIR and native species are preferable with regard to biological impacts. Consequently,based on the plant lists provided in Appendix A of the Specific Plan,the suggested 50 percent low-ozone- forming-potential trees are part of the proposed Specific Plan, and those that are allowed have potential benefits that address other environmental concerns. 7. Plant low-ozone-forming-potential trees and shrubs in excess of ordinance requirements.Please refer to the response to suggested Measure 6 above. 8. Concrete instead of asphalt parking areas.The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. The air quality benefits of concrete over asphalt would be construction-related resulting from ROG off-gassing during application of asphalt. However, construction-related impacts are less than significant;therefore,this measure would not apply to the proposed project for the purposes of mitigating air quality impacts. However,the solar reflective benefits could address significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for heat island reduction that includes use of paving materials with a three-year aged solar reflectance(SR)value of at least 0.28. Consequently,the suggested measure is already implemented through Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1. 1 McPherson et.al.2010,Tees are Good,but...,available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw 2010 mcpherson005.pdf Altair Specific Plan 3-279 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments 9. Orient building of the Civic parcel to face north and plant deciduous shade trees. The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. Appendix A of the Specific Plan identifies 16 types of shade trees specific to the civic/community uses. Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for solar orientation. Consequently,the suggested measure is already implemented through the Specific Plan and Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1. 10. Provide grass paving,tree shading,or reflective surfaces to reduce asphalt paving. The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions.Please refer to the response to suggested Measure 8 above. 11. Pave driveways and parking areas with concrete instead of asphalt.The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. Please refer to the response to suggested Measure 8 above. 12. Construct roofs on the Civic parcel with optimal solar reflective values. The suggested measure will be implemented as required by CALGreen standards that became effective in July 2014.Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for heat island reduction that includes high-reflectance and vegetative roofs. 13. Provide solar water heating for Civic parcel.Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Id provides for the project design to include onsite renewable energy, for example,the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for renewable energy production. 14. Prohibit diesel-powered generators.Back-up generators may be required by code for emergency building egress of buildings greater than 55 feet in height. Generator size and fuel type are dictated by the emergency requirements of the intended purpose. Consequently,the suggested measure may not be feasible and will ultimately be determined by the City Building and Safety Department and by the permitting requirements of the SCAQMD. 15. Prohibit parking in excess of zoning requirements.As stated in Development Standard 10.7.1,off-street parking and loading shall generally comply with City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.24, except for modifications that recognize that the Specific Plan is a pedestrian-oriented community where residents would walk to recreation facilities,restaurants, etc. A key principle of walkable and sustainable communities is the reduction of parking requirements in order to change the mindset from driving on a short trip to walking or cycling and to reduce the amount of space taken up by parking. These design features allow the community to be more compact and walkable. This Development Standard implements the suggested measure. Altair Specific Plan 3-280 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 22-L(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Some of the suggested mitigation measures are already incorporated as part of the Specific Plan, are regulatory requirements, or are not applicable to land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. The following is a specific response to each suggested measure,with similar measures grouped with a single response: 1. All heavy trucks accessing the site shall conform to 2010 air quality standards.This measure is not applicable to the proposed Specific Plan because there are no industrial or warehouse land uses proposed that would involve truck fleets. The only foreseeable truck traffic generated by the Specific Plan would be vendor delivery trucks to retail or office uses,which would be minimal.Additionally, it is not feasible to enforce escalated truck fleet requirements on independent truck operators that would not be operating out of the Specific Plan area. 2. Install catalytic convertors on gasoline-powered equipment.Gasoline combustion emissions associated with the Specific Plan would primarily be from vehicle trips and such vehicles in California already have emission control requirements imposed. While a small percentage of ROG and NOx emissions(2 percent and 0.6 percent,respectively) would be generated by operation of gasoline-powered landscape equipment,Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Ic addresses these emissions by requiring a percentage of all landscape equipment to be electrically powered. 3. Utilize electrical equipment for landscape maintenance.As discussed above, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-lc addresses these emissions by requiring a percentage of all landscape equipment to be electrically powered. 4. Prohibit idling of trucks for periods exceeding three minutes.As discussed above in the response to suggested Measure 1,this measure is not applicable to the proposed Specific Plan because there are no industrial or warehouse land uses proposed that would involve truck fleets. The only foreseeable truck traffic generated by the Specific Plan would be vendor delivery trucks to retail or office uses,which would be minimal. It should be noted that California law prohibits vehicle or engine subject to the diesel regulation from idling for more than 5 consecutive minutes. This regulation took effect under California law on June 15, 2008 (California Code of Regulations,Title 13, Division 3,Article 1, Chapter 10, Section 2485(c)). 5. Plant shade trees in parking lots to provide 50 percent cover.As discussed on page 4- 5 of the Specific Plan,there would be no large off-street parking lots along the street networks. Page 4-30 of the Specific Plan provides that urban parkways with curb parking would have street trees every 24 feet. Consequently,the intent of the suggested measure would already be met by the Specific Plan. Development Standard 10.6.11 requires that a minimum of one tree per four parking spaces be provided and that trees shall be broad- canopy species and at least 15 gallons in size at installation. Consequently,while an exact percentage is uncertain,the suggested substantial tree cover for parking is addressed through the development standards of the Specific Plan. 6. Plant at least 50 percent low-ozone-forming-potential trees to meet landscaping requirements. The tree species with the highest ROG emission rates include most broadleaved species from genera Eucalyptus,Casuarina,Liquidambar,Robinia, Altair Specific Plan 3-281 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Liriodendron,Populus, Quercus,Nyssa,Platanus, Salix, and many conifers(McPherson, 2010).2 Of these,Populus, Quercus,Platanus, and Salix are identified in Appendix A of the Specific Plan because they are Southern California native species with low to moderate water requirements. The low water requirements have beneficial effects that address significant GHG impacts identified in the Draft EIR and native species are preferable with regard to biological impacts. Consequently,based on the plant lists provided in Appendix A of the Specific Plan,the suggested 50 percent low-ozone- forming-potential trees are part of the proposed Specific Plan, and those that are allowed have potential benefits that address other environmental concerns. 7. Plant low-ozone-forming-potential trees and shrubs in excess of ordinance requirements.Please refer to the response to suggested Measure 6 above. 8. Concrete instead of asphalt parking areas.The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. The air quality benefits of concrete over asphalt would be construction-related resulting from ROG off-gassing during application of asphalt. However, construction-related impacts are less than significant;therefore,this measure would not apply to the proposed project for the purposes of mitigating air quality impacts. However,the solar reflective benefits could address significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for heat island reduction that includes use of paving materials with a three-year aged solar reflectance(SR)value of at least 0.28. Consequently,the suggested measure is already implemented through Mitigation Measure GHG-1. 9. Orient building of the Civic parcel to face north and plant deciduous shade trees. The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. Appendix A of the Specific Plan identifies 16 types of shade trees specific to the civic/community uses. Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for solar orientation. Consequently,the suggested measure is already implemented through the Specific Plan and Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. 2 McPherson et.al.2010,Tees are Good,but...,available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw 2010 mcpherson005.pdf Altair Specific Plan 3-282 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments 10. Provide grass paving,tree shading,or reflective surfaces to reduce asphalt paving. The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. Please refer to the response to suggested Measure 8 above. 11. Pave driveways and parking areas with concrete instead of asphalt.The suggested measure predominantly addresses GHG emissions. Please refer to the response to suggested Measure 8 above. 12. Construct roofs on the Civic parcel with optimal solar reflective values. The suggested measure will be implemented as required by CALGreen standards that became effective in July 2014.Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for heat island reduction that includes high-reflectance and vegetative roofs. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. 13. Provide solar water heating for Civic parcel.Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-Id provides for the project design to include onsite renewable energy, for example,the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Additionally,Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-ND provides a green infrastructure building credit for renewable energy production. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. 14. Prohibit diesel-powered generators.Back-up generators may be required by code for emergency building egress of buildings greater than 55 feet in height. Generator size and fuel type are dictated by the emergency requirements of the intended purpose. Consequently,the suggested measure may not be feasible and will ultimately be determined by the City Building and Safety Department and also the permitting requirements of the SCAQMD. Altair Specific Plan 3-283 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments 15. Prohibit parking in excess of zoning requirements.As stated in Development Standard 10.7.1,off-street parking and loading shall generally comply with City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.24, except for modifications that recognize that the Specific Plan is a pedestrian-oriented community where residents will walk to recreation facilities,restaurants, etc.A key principle of walkable and sustainable communities is the reduction of parking requirements in order to change the mindset from driving on a short trip to walking or cycling and to reduce the amount of space taken up by parking. These design features allow the community to be more compact and walkable. This Development Standard implements the suggested measure. Comment 22-M: The commenter states impacts to biological resources have been thoroughly commented upon by others. The commenter suggests the biological resource impacts are largely attributable to the Civic Site and states the site is of no benefit to the developer of the project. Any proposed mitigation must be located to mitigate the impact of this particular project on the critical wildlife linkages effected by the project. Purchase of distant mitigation land or mitigation credits will do nothing to mitigate the impacts of this specific project on wildlife movement, particularly for mountain lions. Response 22-M(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. Response 22-M(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR.All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 22-N: The commenter states that it appears that the EIR seeks to take credit for the shortening of the Western Bypass. The commenter also states there is nothing within the document to require that the Western Bypass be abandoned and any environmental documents supporting it be decertified. Response 22-N(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The Western Bypass Corridor is a transportation element that has been included in the City's General Plan for nearly 20 years. It links Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road. The Western Bypass design was developed with the City; the Western Bypass is contemplated to be realigned,preserving approximately 55 acres that would have otherwise been developed. To minimize hillside visual impacts,the Western Bypass was re-designed into a split-road design to create the feel of a"scenic parkway"as well as adding a safer, off-street Class I bike path that parallels the road. Moreover,the commenter does not provide a specific comment or concerning regarding the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR.Nevertheless,this comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission. Altair Specific Plan 3-284 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 22-N(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Western Bypass Corridor is a transportation element that has been included in the City's General Plan for nearly 20 years. It links Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road. The Western Bypass design was developed with the City; the Western Bypass is contemplated to be realigned,preserving approximately 55 acres that would have otherwise been developed. To minimize hillside visual impacts,the Western Bypass was re-designed into a split-road design to create the feel of a "scenic parkway"as well as adding a safer,off-street Class I bike path that parallels the road. Moreover,the commenter does not provide a specific comment or concerning regarding the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR.Nevertheless,this comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission. Comment 22-0: The commenter believes that Alternative 3 was not rejected due to being inconsistent with project objectives because Alternative 2 also does not meet the same objectives Alternative 3 was rejected for,in addition to two other project objectives,and yet was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The commenter also states that Alternative 2 was selected as the environmentally superior alternative in the Draft EIR without support for the finding. Response 22-0(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenter's statement regarding the alternatives selection criteria is confusing and unclear. The No Project/No Development Alternative(Alternative 1)would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However,the No Project/No Development Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)requires that,if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative,the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 2 was selected as the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce impacts to ten resource areas including air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions/climate change,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality, land use,population and housing,public services,transposition and traffic, and utilities and water supply, as shown in Table 5-3 of the Draft EIR. Impacts to each of these resources are described in the"Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative"portion of Section 5.3, Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record. Response 22-0(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenter's statement regarding the alternatives selection criteria is confusing and unclear. The No Project/No Development Alternative(Alternative 1)would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However,the No Project/No Development Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)requires that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative,the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 2 was selected as the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce impacts to ten resource areas including air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas Altair Specific Plan 3-285 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments emissions/climate change,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality, land use,population and housing,public services,transposition and traffic, and utilities and water supply, as shown in Table 5-3 of the Draft EIR. Impacts to each of these resources are described in the"Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative"portion of Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record. Comment 22-P: The commenter states that because of the identified deficiencies,the EIR should be revised and recirculated. Response 22-P(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission.As noted in Responses 22-A through 22-0,no deficiencies have been identified under CEQA;therefore,the EIR does not need to be recirculated. Response 22-P(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission. As noted in Responses 22-A through 22- 0,no deficiencies have been identified under CEQA;therefore,the EIR does not need to be recirculated. Altair Specific Plan 3-286 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 23 June 16,2016 Mr. Matt Peters Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Altair project and mountain lions Dear Mr. Peters, My name is Dr. John W. Laundr6 and I am a mountain lion ecologist that lives in Idyllwild, California. I have studied mountain lions for over 30 years and have come to appreciate their ecological value. I moved to Southern California two years ago and in my current position as Assistant Director of a University of California Natural Reserve in the San Jacinto Mountains, I have been keeping aware of the various issues impacting mountain lions in California. Admirably, California is the only state in the nation that protects this valuable ecological species from trophy hunting. However, even though not hunted,mountain lions in California continued to be impacted by the other major threat to maintaining viable populations,habitat lose and 23-A connectivity. In Southern California, mountain lions primarily survive in the various mountain ranges in the region,with the valleys being increasingly impacted by housing developments in growing towns and cities. As these developments expand,they make it harder for wildlife like the mountain lion to move among mountain ranges, increasing the ecological isolation of the mountain ranges from each other. In these cases,corridors of native vegetation become critical for mountain lions and all wildlife to move among the mountain ranges. In the Temecula area, one such corridor exists that links the highly isolated mountain lion populations in the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. Although there is ample native vegetation connecting these two areas,the main barrier to their movement is Interstate I-15. This reduces the possible areas of movement between them to only the underpass formed by Temecula Creek. Because this corridor leads to a golf course on the eastern side, this corridor is minimal at best. Unfortunately, the proposed Altair project 23_B further deteriorates this corridor by removing much of the native vegetation to the north of this underpass and would increase human use significantly for the rest of the area. Although the models used to assess the impacts of the project concluded the impacts would be minimal, those conclusions have been drawn into serious doubt by a variety of individuals and agencies. Speaking, not as a modeler but as a person who has studied mountain lion movements for many years, I must concur with these doubts. It is simplistic and deluding to think that the Altair project as it is proposed will not significantly impact and likely eliminate the essential corridor Comment Letter 23 provided by access from the north to Temecula Creek. Sealing off this only possible crossing of Interstate 1-15 would essentially isolate the mountain lions and many other wildlife species in the 23_B Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve. Thus as a mountain lion ecologist, I must register my strong objection to the project as it is currently designed. I have to add, however,that IF the Altair project included funding to build, not just plan, a wildlife crossing across 1-15 further to the south,this would alleviate the impacts this project would have on wildlife movement within the proposed project area. However, this wildlife 23-C crossing would have to be done before or in conjunction with the project as to not interfere with current movement patterns. 1 thank you for having the opportunity to express my views on the ecological impacts of the Altair project and I hope that my comments are helpful in trying to resolve the environmental issues raised by this proposed construction. Sinc ely, �W. Laundr6 Mountain Lion Ecologist 25371 Franklin Dr. Idyllwild, CA 92549 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 23: John Laundre Comment 23-A: The commenter introduces himself as a mountain lion ecologist and notes housing developments make it harder for wildlife like the mountain lion to move among mountain ranges, increasing the ecological isolation of the mountain ranges from each movement. Response 23-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8.Your participation in public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 23-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Your participation in public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Comment 23-B: The commenter states his objection to the project as currently designed,noting that the project would further deteriorate the corridor by removing much of the native vegetation to the north of this underpass and would increase human use significantly for the rest of the area. Response 23-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 23-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. In addition,the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more-intense civic/institutional use. The environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use have been evaluated/documented and compared against the impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use, and are included in Appendix A of this Final EIR. All impacts associated with the Specific Plan with Nature Center use are less than or equal to those associated with the Specific Plan with Civic use. Please refer to Appendix A for specific impact information. Comment 23-C: The commenter expresses that if the project included funding to build,not just plan, a wildlife crossing across I-15,this at I-15 would alleviate project impacts onto regional wildlife movement. Response 23-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Response 23 (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Altair Specific Plan 3-289 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 24 Matt Peters From: Larry Mcnall <larrymcnall@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 06,2016 11:01 AM To: Matt Peters Subject: Altair Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Matt; After reading about the Altair Plan, I find it entirely ridiculous that the City of Temecula would even consider a plan like this. The streets are in disarray, traffic is overwhelming, and they want to put in 1,750 additional residential units in a very small place! This project will bring more crime,more traffic, and many other problems to an already deteriorating infrastructure that is underfunded due to the decisions made by the city. 24-A The HUGE city Hall is an example of what politicians will do to feather their pockets. Hopefully,This project will not happen; But if it does,I hope I am not here to put up with the inconvenience of these poor decisions! Sincerely, Larry McNall 29243 Ridgeline Court Temecula, California 92590 i 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 24: Larry McNall Comment 24-A: The commenter expresses opposition to the project and states that constructing 1,750 additional units in the area would increase crime and traffic. Response 24-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. This comment does not state a specific concern about the adequacy of the Draft EIR and a response is thus not required pursuant to CEQA. Furthermore,the commenter raises general concerns that are disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Potential traffic impacts are disclosed and analyzed in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR and in Appendix I to the Draft EIR. All but two of the fourteen potential traffic impacts are less than significant after mitigation. As explained in Appendix B of the Final EIR,traffic impacts would be reduced, and one of the two significant traffic impacts eliminated,by the Nature Center use. Regarding crime,the project's impact on police protection was analyzed and found to be less than significant on pages 3.12-12 to 3.12-13 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore,page 3.9-23 of the Draft EIR states that the project would not inhibit the police department from meeting adequate response and service standards, and pages 3.9-26 and 3.12-12 to 3.12-13 of the Draft EIR explain that the project would be required to pay development impact fees to allow the police department to add additional staff to accommodate growth associated with the project and to maintain service ratios. Additional information on police protection can be found in Section 3.12,Public Services, of the Draft EIR, including on pages 3.12-2 to 3.12-3 and 3.12-10. Response 24-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. This comment does not state a specific concern about the adequacy of the Draft EIR and a response is thus not required pursuant to CEQA. Furthermore,the commenter raises general concerns that are disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Potential traffic impacts are disclosed and analyzed in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR and in Appendix I to the Draft EIR. All but two of the fourteen potential traffic impacts are less than significant after mitigation. As explained in Appendix B of the Final EIR,traffic impacts would be reduced, and one of the two significant traffic impacts eliminated,by the Nature Center use. Regarding crime,the project's impact on police protection was analyzed and found to be less than significant on pages 3.12-12 to 3.12-13 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore,page 3.9-23 of the Draft EIR states that the project would not inhibit the police department from meeting adequate response and service standards, and pages 3.9-26 and 3.12-12 to 3.12-13 of the Draft EIR explain that the project would be required to pay development impact fees to allow the police department to add additional staff to accommodate growth associated with the project and to maintain service ratios.Additional information on police protection can be found in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR, including on pages 3.12-2 to 3.12-3 and 3.12-10. Altair Specific Plan 3-291 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 25 Matt Peters From: Mark Mahan <mpmahan@ca.rr.com> Sent: Monday, May 16,2016 4:32 PM To: Matt Peters Subject: Altair Specific Plan Draft EIR-construction noise requirements Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Matt— We talked on the phone a few months ago regarding community sensitive construction equipment backup beeper requirements. I have reviewed portions of the Draft EIR for the Ambient Communities,Altair Specific Plan,and can't find any specific requirements addressing construction equipment beeper noise levels. The plan does reference back to the Temecula Municipal Code but the Temecula code doesn't address the use of community sensitive backup beepers. 25-A You had indicated that an update to the city code would be reviewed/discussed with your team. So I'm curious if any progress was made at your end. Here is the link showing how another city addressed the concern,reference page 21, http://www.nyc.eov/html/dep/pdf/noise constr rule.pdf Since this project will last 10 years,this is a good time to establish requirements. Please let me know if you have been able to make any progress on this issue. Thanks -Mark 310-367-4278 1 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 25: Mark Mahan Comment 25-A: The commenter states that he can't find any specific requirements addressing construction equipment beeper noise levels in the Draft EIR and that although the Draft EIR references the Temecula Municipal Code(TMC),the TMC does not specify noise requirements for backup beepers. The commenter also states that the City should implement noise requirements for backup beepers. Response 25-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Thank you for your comments.Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The proposed project will comply with all City of Temecula noise ordinance requirements. The commenter raises a concern about construction noise,which is disclosed and analyzed in Section 3.10,Noise and Vibration, of the Draft EIR. Although construction-equipment backup- beeper noise is not separately analyzed, as explained on pages 3.10-17 to 3.10-18 and 3.10-21 to 3.10-27 of the Draft EIR, construction noise levels were estimated by data published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) and analyzed in comparison to the construction noise standards in the TMC. Regarding the commenter's reference to"community sensitive backup beepers,"the TMC limits construction activities to certain times of day,which would reduce impacts from construction-equipment backup-beeper noise, and the Draft EIR's analysis includes consideration of sensitive receptors, as indicated, for example, on pages 3.10-22 and 3.10-26. In addition,mitigation measures for construction noise impacts would mitigate impacts from construction-equipment backup-beeper noise. For example,Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb requires, among other things,that construction truck traffic avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible and that the project applicant designate a construction- relations officer who will be responsible for addressing concerns regarding construction noise that are raised by surrounding residents and property owners. Response 25-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center): Your participation in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The proposed project will comply with all City of Temecula noise ordinance requirements. The commenter raises a concern about construction noise,which is disclosed and analyzed in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR. Although construction-equipment backup-beeper noise is not separately analyzed, as explained on pages 3.10-17 to 3.10-18 and 3.10-21 to 3.10-27 of the Draft EIR, construction noise levels were estimated by data published by USEPA and analyzed in comparison to the construction noise standards in the TMC. Regarding the commenter's reference to"community sensitive backup beepers,"the TMC limits construction activities to certain times of day,which will reduce impacts from construction-equipment backup-beeper noise, and the Draft EIR's analysis includes consideration of sensitive receptors, as indicated, for example,on pages 3.10-22 and 3.10-26. In addition,mitigation measures for construction noise impacts would mitigate impacts from construction-equipment backup-beeper noise. For example,Mitigation Altair Specific Plan 3-293 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Measure MM-NOI-Ib requires, among other things,that construction truck traffic avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible and that the project applicant designate a construction-relations officer who will be responsible for addressing concerns regarding construction noise that are raised by surrounding residents and property owners. Altair Specific Plan 3-294 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 26 INLAND EMPIRE TM BIKING ALLIANCE 11 June 2016 Matt Peters,Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 I am writing on behalf of the Inland Empire Biking Alliance in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Specific Plan.After reviewing the documentation in regards to that project, there are a couple comments and concerns that can hopefully be addressed. It's unfortunate to see that the project has on LOS as the guiding force behind conducting the analysis instead of taking the 26-A opportunity to take advantage VMT standards brought into play by SB 743 as that might have provided improved mitigation measures to actually address the issue of congestion to the area,which the very EIR document partly acknowledges is not being effectively addressed by building more and wider roads. Our first and biggest concern is with the planned Class I facility along the Western Bypass depicted in Figure 2-4: Pedestrian Bicycle Circulation. We are pleased to see that the Western Bypass is proposing that a Class I facility be included, but unfortunately, it appears that the plan is going for the barest of minimums.As indicated by the legend,the Class I bikeways are assumed to be 8 feet in width. However, it isn't clear if Class I facilities will be included on both sides of the Bypass. If the referenced facility will only be on one side (and thus also bidirectional) and also function as the sidewalk, a width of only 8 feet 26-B is woefully inadequate.We would strongly recommend that a Class I facility on either side of the Western Bypass be constructed to the preferred width referenced in Topic 1003.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual of 10 feet or even go a step further to 11-12 feet be used instead. As the Western Bypass will be constructed completely new, providing a Class I facility of the appropriate width during that construction means it is possible to build it right the first time without any costly additions. ku RAW Or Additionally, IEBA would like to encourage the City to provide adequate intersection treatments for providing access to the path from both the north and south ends where the Bypass interacts with existing highways without adjacent paths as well as any intersections along the Bypass.Though the planned facility is a Class I,the crossing points will be similar to those of a Class IV. We would encourage City staff to familiarize themselves with the latest publications on Class IV facilities by Caltrans,the FHWA, and NACTO to be able to effectively design crossing points that are safe and intuitive to use by 26-C all.At any intersection with an existing or planned traffic signal, bicycle-specific heads and phasing for the Class I path should be included.At any unsignalized intersections along the Bypass, it is imperative that the crossing points be properly designed.To achieve that,we would recommend that the following research-based measures' be used: 'Schemers, P., (2013).A safer road environment for cyclists.Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV. Retrieved online from:https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Proefschriften/Paul_Schepers.pdf. P.O. BOX 9266 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 909.800.4322 Comment Letter 26 Jft1AJ,, INLAND EMPIRE VTr BIDING ALLIANCE • Bend-out—if not already within the safe range,the Class I facility should be shifted away from the adjacent roadway on approach to an intersection to ensure that the crossing point is between 7 and 16 feet away to provide a space for turning motorists to yield to users on the Class I facility out of the flow on the Western Bypass. • Raised crossing—the point where the path crosses the road should include a vertical element 26-C that raises the roadway to the level of the path while allowing users of the Class I facility to continue with little-to-no elevation change. • Median refuge island—refuge islands are preferred at any point where users would need to cross a roadway with more than one lane of traffic per direction. We would also like to ensure that any construction impacts and offsite improvements do not degrade bicycling conditions at other sites around the city.This includes providing MUTCD R4-11 signage during construction whenever bike lanes are closed (with sharrows if the closure includes restriping) as well as 26-D ensuring that any signals installed or upgraded provide detection for bicycles with bike-specific phasing to ensure that bicyclists can clear the intersection. IEBA and all bicyclists in the region as well as future residents of Altair look forward to seeing the completion of this project and we believe that the inclusion of the measures provided in our letter here would make this a model of better planning and design for the region. V` Sincerely, Marven E. Norman, Policy Director P.O. BOX 9266 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org 909.800.4322 3.Response to Comments Response to Letter 26: Inland Empire Biking Alliance Comment 26-A: The commenter states that it's unfortunate to see that the project has level of service (LOS) as the guiding force behind conducting the analysis instead of taking the opportunity to take advantage vehicle miles traveled(VMT) standards brought into play by SB 743 as that might have provided improved mitigation measures to actually address the issue of congestion to the area,which the Draft EIR partly acknowledges would not be effectively addressed by building more and wider roads. Response 26-A(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The participation of the Inland Empire Biking Alliance in the public review of this document is appreciated. SB 743 regulations and guidance have not been adopted and,therefore,have not been implemented in the analysis of this EIR. However,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. As explained on pages 3.13-5 to 3.13-6 of the Draft EIR,the traffic analysis relies upon LOS analysis and a methodology based on empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board, among others,that is consistent with the requirements of the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. CEQA does not currently require that analysis of transportation impacts rely upon a VMT analysis. Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that would implement SB 743 by requiring a VMT analysis have not been approved. Although not required to use a VMT analysis,the project nevertheless furthers the goals of SB 743 by promoting a multimodal transportation system. SB 743 states that transportation analyses under CEQA should focus on"promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations."As stated, for example, on page 2-3 of the Draft EIR, one of the primary Project Objectives is to"[e]stablish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular,transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions."Draft EIR pages 2-18 and 3.13-3 to 3.13-4 describe the numerous bus routes operated by the Riverside Transit Agency that service the project area. On page 2-14,the Draft EIR explains that"[t]he project incorporates the concept of`complete streets,"'which includes both"[n]arrow travel lanes and roundabouts [that] calm traffic while improving traffic flow"as well as"[a] network of integrated and separate sidewalks,bikeways, and trails provid[ing] safe opportunities for walking, cycling, and jogging [that] serves to connect the project's villages and Old Town Temecula."Additional information on the project's vehicle traffic and its walkways,trails, and bikeways can be found in, for example, Sections 2.3.3 and 3.13 of the Draft EIR. Response 26-A(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The participation of the Inland Empire Biking Alliance in the public review of this document is appreciated. SB 743 regulations and guidance have not been adopted and,therefore,have not been implemented in the analysis of this EIR. However,this comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. As explained on pages 3.13-5 to 3.13-6 of the Draft EIR,the traffic analysis relies upon LOS analysis and a methodology based on Altair Specific Plan 3-297 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board, among others,that is consistent with the requirements of the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. CEQA does not currently require that analysis of transportation impacts rely upon a VMT analysis.Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines that would implement SB 743 by requiring a VMT analysis have not been approved. Although not required to use a VMT analysis,the project nevertheless furthers the goals of SB 743 by promoting a multimodal transportation system. SB 743 states that transportation analyses under CEQA should focus on"promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations."As stated, for example, on page 2-3 of the Draft EIR, one of the primary Project Objectives is to"[e]stablish an efficient,interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular,transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions."Draft EIR pages 2-18 and 3.13-3 to 3.13-4 describe the numerous bus routes operated by the Riverside Transit Agency that service the project area. On page 2-14,the Draft EIR explains that"[t]he project incorporates the concept of`complete streets,"'which includes both"[n]arrow travel lanes and roundabouts [that] calm traffic while improving traffic flow"as well as"[a] network of integrated and separate sidewalks,bikeways, and trails provid[ing] safe opportunities for walking, cycling, and jogging [that] serves to connect the project's villages and Old Town Temecula."Additional information on the project's vehicle traffic and its walkways,trails, and bikeways can be found in, for example, Sections 2.3.3 and 3.13 of the Draft EIR. Comment 26-B: The comment states that it is not clear if Class I facilities would be included on both sides of the Western Bypass. The commenter also states that if the referenced facility would only be on one side(and thus also bidirectional) and also function as the sidewalk, a width of only 8 feet would be woefully inadequate. The Inland Empire Biking Alliance strongly recommends that a Class I facility on either side of the Western Bypass be constructed to the preferred width referenced in Topic 1003.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual of 10 feet, or even go a step further and use a width of 11 to 12 feet instead. Response 26-B(Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. As stated on page 2-14 of the Draft EIR, Class I bikeways would have"a minimum width of eight feet,"and the bikeways system is"designed to be consistent with and promote the goals and objectives of the Temecula Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan."As stated on Draft EIR page 3.13-5,the City of Temecula Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan(Bikeways Master Plan)was being updated at the time of the Draft EIR, and the updates may result in changes to the existing and proposed bikeways. The Bikeways Master Plan was updated in September 2016 and uses the Caltrans standard for designated bikeways. According to pages 7 and 42 of Appendix A to the Bikeways Master Plan, a two-way,multiuse Class I path must include 8 feet of paving and 2 feet of grading on either side. This is consistent with Topic 1003.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual regarding a two-way bike path, and with the Class I bikeway proposed in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan 3-298 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 26-B(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. As stated on page 2-14 of the Draft EIR, Class I bikeways would have"a minimum width of eight feet,"and the bikeways system is"designed to be consistent with and promote the goals and objectives of the Temecula Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan."As stated on page 3.13-5 of the Draft EIR,the Bikeways Master Plan was being updated at the time of the Draft EIR, and the updates may result in changes to the existing and proposed bikeways. The Bikeways Master Plan was updated in September 2016 and uses the Caltrans standard for designated bikeways.According to pages 7 and 42 of Appendix A to the Bikeways Master Plan, a two-way,multiuse Class I path must include 8 feet of paving and 2 feet of grading on either side. This is consistent with Topic 1003.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual regarding a two- way bike path, and with the Class I bikeway proposed in the Draft EIR. Comment 26-C: The Inland Empire Biking Alliance states they would like to encourage the City to provide adequate intersection treatments for providing access to the path from both the north and south ends where the Bypass interacts with existing highways without adjacent paths as well as any intersections along the Bypass. The commenter also suggests safety design measures for crossing points and encourages the City to familiarize itself with the latest publications on Class IV facilities by Caltrans,FHWA, and NACTO to be able to effectively design crossing points that are safe and intuitive to use. Response 26-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. As stated in Section 3.13.3 of Appendix A to the Draft EIR,pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, increased hazards due to a design features such as dangerous intersections were determined to have a less-than-significant impact in the Initial Study,because all development would be required to be designed in accordance with City standards,including street design and compatibility of proposed uses. Response 26-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. As stated in Section 3.13.3 of Appendix A to the Draft EIR,pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, increased hazards due to a design features such as dangerous intersections were determined to have a less-than-significant impact in the Initial Study,because all development would be required to be designed in accordance with City standards,including street design and compatibility of proposed uses. Comment 26-D: The commenter states that they are concerned with construction impacts and offsite improvements degrading bicycling conditions at other sites around the City, and the commenter suggests providing MUTCD R4-11 signage during construction whenever bike lanes are closed, as well as ensuring that any signals installed or upgraded provide detection for bicycles with bike-specific phasing to ensure that bicyclists can clear the intersection. Altair Specific Plan 3-299 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 26-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Transportation and traffic,including bicycle facilities, are analyzed in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR. Construction impacts are disclosed and mitigated in Section 3.13. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14 states that, if a temporary lane or road closure during construction is necessary,the project applicant will provide necessary traffic-control activities and personnel,which may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures. Response 26-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Transportation and traffic, including bicycle facilities, are analyzed in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR. Construction impacts are disclosed and mitigated in Section 3.13. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14 states that, if a temporary lane or road closure during construction is necessary,the project applicant will provide necessary traffic-control activities and personnel,which may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures. Altair Specific Plan 3-300 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Comment Letter 27 FLSH&wn„R, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife SERVICE Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Inland Deserts Region ,+ 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Palm Springs,California 92262 Ontario,California 91764 760-322-2070 909-484-0167 FAX 760-322-4648 QO FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: F W S/CDF W-W RI V-15 B 0192-16 CPA0314 Mr. Matt Peters City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Project, Temecula, California The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter referred to jointly as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Altair Project(Project), received on May 2, 2016. The DEIR was prepared to identify the proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife 27-A resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a trustee agency under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of fish and wildlife resources including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program(NCCP). On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a section I0(a)(1)(B)permit for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Department also issued Natural Community Conservation Plan Approval and Take Authorization for the MSHCP as per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code. The MSHCP established a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of 27-B covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. The Wildlife Agencies are providing the following comments as they relate to the project's consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 270-acre project site is located in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula (City), Riverside County, west of Old Town, and is generally bound by Ridge Park Drive and 27-C Vincent Moraga Drive to the north, Pujol Street and Murrieta Creek to the east, and undeveloped land to the west and south. The proposed project includes the revised alignment Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 2 of the four-lane divided Western Bypass that will connect Temecula Parkway and Rancho California Road, development of up to 1,900 residential units, limited neighborhood-serving commercial, civic/institutional uses,parks, and open space. A portion of the currently- 27-C approved Western Bypass alignment would be eliminated from the City's circulation element. The project site is within MSHCP criteria cells which describe the assemblage and (cont.) confluence of Proposed Linkage 10, which provides an upland wildlife habitat connection between Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, and Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 along Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, respectively. As discussed in more detail below, we find the DEIR's presentation and analysis of MSCP Cell Criteria requirements, MSHCP implementation and the Project's impacts on MSHCP reserve assembly to be both incorrect and misleading to the public. The selective use of tools and information, also discussed below, to evaluate Project-related effects to wildlife movement is also of concern. There is also no discussion or analysis that explains how a given set of mitigation measures relates to the reduction of an identified impact, only the assertion that the significant impact is reduced. The inadequate and conclusory analysis has precluded meaningful public review of the Project's effects on MSHCP reserve configuration and the long-term viability of the planned linkages. Additionally, implementation of the MSHCP Criteria Refinement Process to mitigate the Project's impacts on MSHCP reserve assembly, (diminishment of the function of planned wildlife corridors) was neither 27-D contemplated nor addressed in the DEIR. The Criteria Refinement Process was included in the MSHCP specifically to address and mitigate instances where project proponents or MSHCP permittees choose or seek to adopt projects that do not adhere to the MSHCP Cell Criteria. We request that the DEIR be revised and recirculated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a). The revised DEIR should include a Criteria Cell analysis that is consistent with MSHCP implementation procedures, and a Criteria Refinement(unless the project footprint is substantially altered), use of peer-reviewed probabilistic models to discuss and evaluate Project effects on mountain lion movement, and discussion and analysis which supports the assertion of the reduction or elimination of potential impacts, and clear identification of any proposed mitigation measures which accomplish the asserted impact reductions or eliminations. Comments and Recommendations Following review of the DEIR, the Department and the Service have identified a number of concerns regarding the adequacy and completeness of the DEIR's biological analysis, identification of potentially significant impacts, and mitigation measures. Our primary concern is the proposed Project's impacts on the assembly of the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies offer the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on the MSHCP and 27-E biological resources. MSHCP Criteria Analysis The DEIR contains text from Section 3.3.1 of the MSHCP which describes the process for Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15130 1 92-15CPA0314) 3 project-specific application of the MSHCP reserve assembly procedures and the post-reserve assembly review of those procedures. Unfortunately, the analysis in the DEIR erroneously uses a single phrase, `...the achievement of the variable target acreages will be measured on a Core 27-E and Linkage or Area Plan and Area Plan sub-unit basis, not on an individual project or Cell/Cell (cont.) Group basis' to excuse the Project from adherence to the MSHCP Cell Criteria. This phrase is at the end of four paragraphs of text detailing a sequential review process and is intended to apply to the assessment of the MSHCP reserve after assembly of the 153,000 additional acres. The material presented in DEIR Appendix C3 takes the sub-unit acreage concept and applies it incorrectly to an analysis of the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. Each Area Plan and sub- unit in the MSHCP has an acreage goal/requirement in support of the 153,000-acre total required for MSHCP reserve assembly. The acreage requirement for each sub-unit was derived by summing the area described for conservation in each cell or cell group within the sub-unit. So conceptually, a sub-unit analysis could work even at a project-specific level. However, the area described for conservation in each cell or cell group varies, so that the Criteria for a given cell can describe no conservation(0 acres) or the entire area in the cell (160 acres). And the Conservation Criteria for each cell or cell group identify an acreage range that varies by 10 percent, e.g. conservation of"10 to 20 percent" or"65 to 75 percent" of the cell or cell group. So if one is going to conduct a sub-unit analysis for MSHCP project implementation, one needs to interpret the Criteria in all of the cells in the sub-unit in order to understand if conservation in the sub-unit is being achieved and/or if less-than-described conservation in one portion of the sub-unit has been offset by more-than-described conservation, or can be offset by maximum- described conservation in other portions of the sub-unit. The fundamental error in the discussion presented in Appendix C3 is that the Cell Criteria are disregarded. The discussion assumes that any undeveloped acre in a Criteria Cell within the sub-unit could come into conservation. So all undeveloped land in Criteria Cells was counted as potentially available for future conservation in 27-F the sub-unit regardless of whether or not the area was described for conservation. While we recognize that any undeveloped land anywhere could come into conservation, if we are talking about conservation in the MSHCP Plan Area under the terms of the MSHCP and its permits, expectations of and discussion of future conservation must be confined to the areas that are described for conservation in the Cell Criteria and other MSHCP policies and procedures, because the MSCHP permittees have no obligation to achieve conservation anywhere else. The discussion in Appendix C3 inaccurately equates the conservation value of areas described by the MSHCP Plan for conservation in support of MSHCP reserve assembly goals with undeveloped land in the Criteria Area that is not described for conservation by the MSHCP . The expectation that every project will implement the Cell Criteria is explicitly stated in Section 11.9 of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement(to which the City is a signatory). "Public and private projects within the Criteria Area are expected to be designed and implemented in accordance with the Criteria for each Area Plan and all other MSHCP requirements as set forth in the Plan and in Section 13.0 of this Agreement. In the event that refinements to the Criteria are appropriate to facilitate Reserve Assembly, the Criteria Refinement Process set forth in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP shall be utilized." Criteria is defined in Section 3.35 of the Implementing Agreement as "descriptions provided for individual Cells or Cell Groups within the Criteria Area to guide assembly of the Additional Reserve Lands." Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 4 We request that a project-specific analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals be developed and included in the revised and recirculated DEIR. If the Project as proposed is not 27-F consistent with MSHCP Cell Criteria, we request that the Criteria Refinement as described in (cont.) MSHCP section 6.5 be developed for the Project and presented in the revised and recirculated DEIR. MSHCP Implementation Consistent with MSHCP section 6.6.2.E,prior to the development of the DEIR the Project information was reviewed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies under the MSHCP Joint Project Review (JPR)process. The RCA found the Project to be inconsistent with the MSHCP (JPR 14-05-27-01, enclosed). The Wildlife Agencies concurred with the RCA's determination, and notified the City and the applicant that we consider the Project, as proposed, to be inconsistent with the MSHCP Criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function(FWS/CDFW-WRIV- 15B0192-15CPA0229, enclosed). We discussed the proposed Project and its conflicts with MSHCP reserve assembly at several meetings with the Project proponent,the City and the RCA at several meetings between March of 2015 and April of 2016. In all of those meetings we expressed strong reservations about the Project's design, and advised that a Criteria Refinement, as described in MSHCP Section 6.5, is needed to accomplish MSHCP implementation with the proposed Project footprint. We believe that the City and their applicant listened to our concerns and made efforts to address them. They 27-G were however,unwilling to modify the Project enough to protect the connectivity functions of Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Linkage 14, or to use normal MSHCP implementation procedures and apply the Cell Criteria to the Project and provide a Criteria Refinement if needed. As discussed above, the information provided in DEIR Appendix C3, while sound in concept, is flawed in execution, and is incorrect. The Draft DEIR presents a determination of a"less than significant" impact on page 3.3.64 after the discussion of MSHCP reserve assembly procedures and the Project's reliance on the flawed information presented in Appendix C3. The discussion provided in the DEIR above this determination does not identify an impact. Therefore, based on the title of the section in the DEIR, we take the determination to mean that the City has concluded that construction of the proposed the Project will not negatively affect MSHCP goals, objectives or reserve assembly. We find this conclusion to be unsupported, and reiterate our request for a project-specific analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals to be developed and included in the revised and recirculated DEIR. The City is an MSHCP permittee, and the information and analysis in the DEIR regarding reserve assembly are not consistent with the MSHCP's policies and procedures. Impacts to Mountain Lions and Wildlife Corridors 27-H Within California, mountain lions in the Peninsular Ranges (Santa Ana Mountains and eastern Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 5 Peninsular Ranges) are estimated to have extremely low genetic diversity which is attributed to low gene flow between the small Santa Ana Mountains population and the larger population in the Peninsular Ranges (Ernest et al. 2003). In addition, anthropogenic development, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation are contributing to the genetic decay in the Santa Ana Mountains lion population(Ernest et al. 2014). Male home ranges can be 200 square miles, with such large habitat requirements; lions are extremely sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation(Beier 1993). The effective population size (EPS, the number of individuals in a population who contribute offspring to the next generation) for lions in the Santa Ana Mountains is estimated at 5.1 lions, whereas the EPS of the eastern Peninsular Ranges population is estimated to be 24.3 27-H lions (Ernest et al. 2014). The estimated population size for lions in the Santa Ana Mountains is (cont.) 17-27 animals (Vickers et al. 2014). Maintaining the movement link between the Santa Ana Mountains lion population and the Peninsular Ranges is critical to the viability of the Santa Ana Mountains lion population(Ernest et al 2003, Ernest et al. 2014). Management and conservation efforts should protect connectivity and prevent further degradation of habitat that is already severely fragmented. One of the goals of the MSHCP is to maintain habitat connectivity between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges for the long-term population viability of the mountain lion. To support wildlife movement in the MSHCP Plan Area, the MSHCP's Proposed Linkage 10 (between MSHCP Core Reserves F, the Santa Rosa Plateau, and Core Reserve G, the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) is designed to provide habitat for movement of bobcats and mountain lions, as well as live-in habitat for these species, among others (MSHCP, Vol. 1, Section 3, p.3-105). The proposed Project reduces the width of Linkage 10 from the expected range of 1,200 to 2,700 feet within the Altair Project area to less than 500 feet at its narrowest point on the southern edge of the Project site (RCA JPR Review, 2015). The proposed configuration of the Civic Site and Village G in the narrowest part of the Linkage's southern portion would not only narrow the Linkage, but would also introduce increased human use, 27-1 noise, light, scents, and traffic. The DEIR identifies a zone of negative influence up to 1,970 feet adjacent to development that results in reduced mountain lion use of habitat(p.3.3 48, DEIR). The effects of the zone of negative influence are most acute within the first 490 feet. Nearly all mountain lion activity(i.e., breeding, hunting, moving)will be affected. The degree to which a behavior is affected depends on the age, sex and breeding status of the mountain lion (Section 6.2, HELIX 2015). Reproductive behaviors such as mating, birthing, and early rearing of kittens would be expected to be most negatively impacted or even possibly eliminated within the zone of negative influence. A collared female lion with kittens has exhibited a pattern of habitat use that includes Proposed Linkage 14 along Murrieta Creek. The use area appears to include Altair's South Parcel, proposed for the location of the Civic Site (Winston Vickers, personal communication/discussion during August 2015 site visit). Given the limited territory available and the biological need for females to rear their young outside of established male territories, the loss of this rearing habitat 27-J to development represents a significant loss for the population as a whole. The zone of influence covers the confluence of Murrieta and Temecula creeks with the Santa Margarita River and three MSHCP linkages (Linkage 10, Constrained Linkage 13, and Linkage 14). Increased human activity associated with the proposed Civic Site at this sensitive location would permanently Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) impair not only Proposed Linkage 10 as movement and live-in-habitat for mountain lions and 27-J other wildlife, but also be detrimental to facilitating the movement of mountain lions across (cont.) Interstate Highway 15 (I-15)to the Peninsular Range. Use of Inappropriate Habitat Suitability and Connectivity Model The DEIR includes analyses of habitat and movement corridors for mountain lions; however, those analyses are inappropriate for evaluation of site-specific impacts to habitat suitability and connectivity for mountain lions. The Corridor Designer tool employed for the Project has not been subjected to scientific peer review, and rests on assumptions that are unknown. In order to evaluate the output from the model, CDFW requested additional information on the model assumptions on two occasions; however, no additional information was provided(see attached emails). As its name implies, Corridor Designer appears to be a generalized planning tool. While the DEIR recognizes the existence of a zone of negative influence, the modeled corridors do not account for those influences. The proximity to parking areas,buildings, their heights, and the impact of noise and light cast beyond their footprints, are all factors that are essential for evaluation of development impacts. Similarly, the tool ignores the inevitable increase in human activity outside of the Project footprint, such as on the Plateau Escarpment and along Murrieta Creek, and the impact that increased human activity is likely to have on mountain lions. Figure 3.3-5 provides an illustration of how the Corridor Designer tool fails to account for a zone of negative influence, which includes factors critical to evaluation of the viability of wildlife movement corridors. The model illustrates a 5% Corridor(corresponding to Linkage 10) running northwest to southeast,parallel to and partially overlapping the length of the west side of 27-K the Altair Project. That corridor is depicted as retaining an identical quality with or without the Project, except that the width of that high-quality movement corridor is reduced by clipping with the Project footprint. Such a result can be produced only through an assumption that a corridor having zero buffer distance from a large development retains the same value as the existing movement corridor, buffered by hundreds of meters that remain undeveloped. It is not reasonable to assume that connectivity is unaffected by negative influences that extend beyond the footprint of the proposed development. Instead, it is reasonable to conclude that impacts within that zone of negative influence are likely to severely degrade or eliminate the functionality of an important movement corridor. Thus, Figure 3.3-5 is illustrative of the inappropriateness of the Corridor Designer tool for evaluation of site-specific impacts on mountain lions. That same critique, that the Corridor Designer tool fails to specify assumptions and incorporate essential habitat components, casts doubt on the utility of its results depicting functional corridors spanning low-density residential developments. Low-density residential developments have a documented history of human conflicts with mountain lions, some resulting in the death of the affected mountain lions. The Corridor Designer tool relies on the assumption that its methods and scale of analysis are appropriate for evaluation of the potential impacts of the development. By contrast, empirical data from GPS collars deployed on mountain lions forms the basis of studies that used Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 7 established peer-reviewed scientific methods of probabilistic modeling --not assumptions -- to evaluate movements and resource selection by mountain lions in the Santa Anna Mountains (Burdett et al. 2010, Zeller et al. 2014). Those peer-reviewed studies provide a solid scientific basis for evaluating movement and habitat selection by mountain lions relative to human development, yet they were not utilized in the DEIR. In addition to a failure to incorporate results from peer-reviewed scientific models, the DEIR fails to evaluate connectivity across I-15, which it tries to justify with the statement, "based on radio collar data, there may no longer be mountain lion movement underneath I-15 at this 27-K location." Such an assumption rests on fallacious reasoning that the absence of evidence from (cont.) radio collars is "evidence of absence". A failure to observe an event based on a sample of mountain lions collared in particular years does not support a conclusion that uncollared mountain lions do not cross under 1-15, or that mountain lions have not crossed before or after a radio collar was functioning on a given animal, or that maintaining the linkage for the long-term viability of the species is unimportant. An evaluation of the impact of the Altair development on the survival of the Santa Ana Mountains population as a whole should be incorporated into the analysis of the significance of the Project on the mountain lion population in the revised and recirculated DEIR. To do this, connectivity across I-15 and the impacts of the Altair development on that connectivity should also be assessed. The DEIR failed to address impacts to movement lion movement on a larger scale, especially impacts to movement of mountain lions from the Santa Ana mountains to the eastern Peninsular Ranges. An important and critical crossing under the I-15 is at the confluence of Constrained Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10 at the intersection of Murrieta Creek and Santa Margarita Creek. The location of the proposed Civic Site would be at the southern end of the Project(at the confluence of two MSHCP Linkages) where concentrated mountain lion use currently occurs, and would be extremely detrimental to the viability of MSHCP Linkages 10 and 14. In summary, the analysis provided is deficient in appropriately assessing the impacts of the 27-L Project because the wrong type of model was used, along with an insufficient data-set and unknown assumptions; the model did not address the impacts of the Project on mountain lion movement across I-15, and the analysis failed to evaluate on the impacts of the Altair project on the Santa Ana Mountains population as a whole. Therefore,because of the significant and long- term Project impacts on mountain lion population viability in the Santa Ana Mountains, the Wildlife Agencies request that the revised and recirculated DEIR include the appropriate modeling of the impact of the Project on the Santa Ana Mountains lion population both within Linkage 10 and also across I-15. Project Impacts and Outcomes for Linkaze 10 The Project correctly identifies (in Impact BIO-7)that the Project"could interfere with the movement of wildlife species, and with established migratory wildlife corridors. The project could have direct and indirect impacts to the movement of mountain lion and other wildlife in 27-M Proposed Linkage 10." Further, the DEIR correctly states that the MSHCP provides take coverage for mountain lions. However, MSHCP coverage only applies to projects that are Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 8 consistent with the MSHCP. The Altair project was found to be inconsistent with the MSHCP by both the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies,because it is inconsistent with MSHCP reserve assembly, has the potential to significantly diminish the function of MSHCP Proposed Linkage 10, negatively affecting the expected movement of lions from the Santa Ana Mountains to the eastern Peninsular Ranges, and would negatively affect the MSHCP Conservation Area as a 27-M whole. Given the failure of the DEIR to address the inconsistency with the MSHCP through the (cont.) Criteria Refinement Process and appropriate mitigation measures, the DEIR fails to demonstrate how the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the Project impacts to less than significant. Given that the Project is not consistent with the MSHCP and that the Project could interfere with wildlife movement corridors, the mitigation measures should be revised. The proposed measures are not sufficient; therefore, alternate measures are proposed below. The DEIR states that"the original description of the linkage being nearly a mile wide is still applicable if one includes the rural residential areas (which includes the escarpment and top of escarpment)that wildlife still use as a movement corridor" (p.3.3-22). The linkage design is intended to be through conserved areas away from human interaction and associated risks such as human depredation actions against lions,poisoning, illegal kills, and car strikes. By pushing the linkage upslope from the described conservation area to the rural residential area on the Plateau, the Project increases the risk of mortality to mountain lions. Lions in the Santa Ana Mountains have an annual survival rate of 56%, which is lower than hunted populations. California permits killing of mountain lions to protect livestock, pets, and people via depredation permits. Mortalities are attributed to vehicle hits, depredation permits, poisoning either intentionally or unintentionally(from the use of rodenticides), disease, fires, and illegal killings. 27-N The risks to mountain lions make urban and exurban(rural residential) areas a significant barrier to gene flow in mountain lion populations, especially in the Santa Ana Mountains (Ernest 2003, Vickers et al 2015). Territories near urban areas are relatively small and isolated, and the resultant inbreeding threatens the long-term viability of the Santa Ana Mountains lion population (Ernest et al 2003). Given the risk of inbreeding, its small population size, and the lion population's vulnerability to deadly interactions in rural residential areas, the DEIR statement that the mile-wide linkage is still applicable is misguided. Maintaining the linkage as described by the Cell Criteria in the MSHCP with conserved habitat -- rather than shifting it westward into an rural-residential area is critical to the function of the linkage and the long term viability of the population. The DEIR incorrectly asserts that four Proposed Constrained Linkages provide connection to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and will serve as effective substitutes for mountain lion movement if Linkage 10 becomes avoided due to the Altair project: "Proposed Constrained Linkage 9, Proposed Constrained Linkage 10, Proposed Constrained Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 also provide additional linkages west of the Project site from the Santa Rosa Plateau to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and San Diego County to the south, and 27-0 potentially to the Palomar Mountains to the east" (p.3.3 50, DEIR). The other linkages are proposed constrained linkages through rural residential (exurban)habitat to locations in San Diego County that are not secured for conservation. The reliance of mountain lion movement on constrained linkages through hazardous exurban environments if Proposed Linkage 10 is made unusable by the Project introduces an additional significant risk to the long-term viability of the Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 9 population. Further, the DEIR supposes that the connection to Palomar Mountains to the east can somehow be obtained without identifying any plan or offering commitment to accomplish this. This reliance on alternative constrained linkages does not address the potential loss of 27-0 mountain lion use of habitat near the desired I-15 undercrossing at Murrieta Creek to the (cost.) Peninsular Range. Mitigation Measures The proposed offsetting measures to reduce impacts to Linkage 10 include conserving approximately 83 acres of land onsite within Linkage 10, retaining Camino Estribo as a dirt road to slow any traffic, installing permanent fencing between Conserved Lands and the Western Bypass to reduce potential human/wildlife interaction, and revegetating graded slopes along the Western Bypass abutting existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas within Proposed Linkage 10 to maximize the wildlife corridor width and functionality. These measures are insufficient to address the significant identified Project impacts: • narrowing of the Linkage; • the functional transformation of a MSHCP Proposed Linkage with live-in habitat-- which is being used by mountain lions -- into a Constrained Linkage; • the loss of almost 190 acres of habitat; 27-P • the noise, lighting, human use, and traffic associated with the Civic Site; • the increased depredation risk and vehicle strike risk by forcing the lions into the exurban and urban environment; • and the loss of territory at the proposed Civic Site. The DEIR properly recognizes the Project's significant impacts in BIO-12, but it does not discuss or provide any justification for the determination that the identified mitigation—mostly project design features -will reduce those impacts, it merely concludes that the impacts are mitigated to less than significant. This inadequate and conclusory approach prevents any meaningful examination of the Project impacts on the long-term viability of the linkages. The Wildlife Agencies request that the City recirculate the DEIR with: 1) A model based on established peer-reviewed methods of probabilistic modeling movements and resource selection by mountain lions in the Santa Anna Mountains to assess the impact of the civic site not only on Linkage 10 but also on the linkage between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges. These models are currently available and would not place an undue burden on the project proponent to use. 27-Q 2) Revise the project by moving all of the project development to the inside of the Western Bypass. 3) An alternative that includes the project development within and to the east of the Western Bypass. 4) Mitigation measures identified above, and additional measures that appropriately address project impacts on wildlife movement and habitat,which include: Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 10 a. The MSHCP has fencing requirements and Urban Wildlife Guidelines that should be adhered to along the Western Bypass. b. Develop and implement public education programs to facilitate a better understanding by the public and the City on mountain lion interactions with humans. To reduce the number of depredation permits issued the program should identify a funding mechanism to help compensate for livestock loss from predation by mountain lions. This could include advice and support for building stronger structures that are mountain lion and bobcat proof. c. The fencing along the Western Bypass does not provide a barrier between humans and mountain lions at Village A, Village G, and the Civic Site. There are several trails that lead from the project site into Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The 27-Q Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is already under considerable public use (cont.) pressure and experiencing substantial habitat degradation as a result(Pablo Bryant, personal communication). The development will lead to increased local use of the adjacent conservation areas. Mitigation measures that provide fencing, signage and funding for enforcement that controls recreational access to the sensitive habitat in conservation areas is strongly requested. d. There are several places in the project site that are porous to wildlife movement into the developed area. This includes the Camino Estribo dirt road which provides a pathway into the developed areas. While the avoidance of the washes that enter the project site is applauded, these washes provide an avenue of movement into the developed areas. Measures should be developed that inhibit undesired wildlife movement along these pathways. San Diego Ambrosia(Ambrosia pumilla) The DEIR and its MSHCP Consistency Report appendix state that conservation is not required for the San Diego ambrosia(Ambrosia pumila)because the Project site is not located within an area requiring additional surveys for Narrow Endemic or Criteria Area plant species. However, we would like to point out that the population of San Diego ambrosia under discussion is in the area described for conservation within MSHCP Criteria Cell 7166. In other words, while the MSHCP does not require surveys for the plant on the Project site, it does require that the area which supports the population be conserved. Since the Project proposes development in an area that is described for conservation and as discussed above, as proposed, the Altair Project needs to 27-R implement the MSHCP Criteria Refinement Process. The Criteria Refinement Process requires that the alternative conservation strategy be biologically equivalent or superior to implementation of the existing Cell Criteria. In order to demonstrate that the proposed revisions are biologically equivalent or superior to the current Criteria, an Equivalency Analysis would be included in the Criteria Refinement demonstrating that A.pumila -- and any other MSHCP "covered species" affected by the Criteria Refinement--will be conserved at least as well under the alternative conservation strategy presented in the Criteria Refinement as it would be under the existing Criteria. The Wildlife Agencies are concerned about the DEIR's lack of detail regarding the proposed Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 11 transplanting of A.pumila. hi its December 15, 2014 letter to the City, the Department recommended that the DEIR discuss viable techniques for plant salvage and translocation if the on-site population of A.pumila could not be avoided by the Altair Project. Instead, the DEIR defers formulation of a translocation plan, stating that"the applicant will prepare a translocation plan for City review and approval prior to implementing the translocation effort." Other than specifying that"the translocation will occur on already conserved land within 10 miles of the project site,"the DEIR offers no success criteria, standards, or techniques to achieve the goals of the translocation effort. As written, the measure allows the details of the proposed mitigation to be formulated and approved with no public review. Furthermore, because the hypothetical translocation site is not identified, it is not clear whether a suitable site for translocation actually exists within the proposed 10-mile radius. The DEIR specifies carefully that the translocation effort is not a mitigation measures on the premeis that the A.pumila population is not in an MSHCP survey area. However, as discussed above because it is in the area described for conservation, we believe the translocation strategy is appropriately viewed as a mitigation measure to prevent the loss of a population that would not be affected by Project development, if the Cell Criteria were implemented as described. Please identify the translocation effort as a mitigation measure in the revised DEIR. We also request that the revised DEIR include a detailed translocation plan which includes the following information: 1. A map depicting the location of at least one suitable translocation site. 27-R (cont.) 2. A detailed description of the habitat present at the translocation site, and an analysis of the site's suitability for supporting translocated A.pumila, including,but not limited to, discussions of the soil type, slope, aspect,vegetation community, surrounding land uses, existing conservation mechanisms (property restrictions, etc., existing management) already protecting the site, potential threats to the transplants (e.g., invasive species, grazing, etc.), and a five-year temporary maintenance plan to establish the transplants onsite and improve the chances of their long-term survival before the Altair Project hands off permanent monitoring and maintenance responsibilities to the RCA. 3. If an existing population of A.pumila exists on the translocation site, an analysis of whether genetic mixing/outbreeding may pose a potential threat to the long-term viability of the existing population and/or the translocated population. Polyploidy is common in the Ambrosia genus (Payne et al. 1964), and some sources have suggested that A.pumila may exhibit intraspecific chromosome number variation. Introduction of populations which differ in chromosome number may result in partial or complete sterility of their progeny(Severns & Liston 2008). 4. Specific, measureable and quantifiable criteria by which the success or failure of the translocation efforts may be judged. 5. Contingency measures to be implemented if initial translocation efforts fail (e.g., identification of alternate sites, etc.). Please note that the reproductive biology of Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 12 A.pumila is relatively poorly understood, and it has been suggested that this species may produce viable seeds only rarely, or not at all (McLaughlin&Friar 2007). We also request that the translocation plan be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies (along with the 27-R City) for review and approval. Since it is unknown whether or not a suitable translocation site (cont.) exists within ten miles of the Altair site, the ten-mile limit should be deleted in order to give the Project sufficient flexibility in locating a suitable site to receive the translocated plants. Pond Turtle The Western Pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) is a planning species for Linkages 13 (Murrieta Creek)and 14 (portions of Temecula and Pechanga Creek). MSHCP species-specific conservation objectives 2 and 5 for the pond turtle specify maintaining occupancy within at least 75% of 8 listed Core Areas. Murrieta Creek and Temecula are two of the Core Areas for this species. These Core Areas include a 2-km buffer of upland habitat surrounding each waterway. Within the channel, slow moving flows with basking habitat are important elements. Upland habitat is important during overwintering and for nesting requirements of the western pond turtle. Pond turtles have been known to spend over half the year in terrestrial habitat and females may travel 100-200 meters to find suitable nesting habitat. The proposed Civic Site is within 36 27-S meters of Murrieta Creek. The proposed Civic Site, Village G, and the road to the Civic site all have the potential to remove suitable upland western pond turtle habitat but no assessment of habitat loss, use of the area by pond turtle, or analysis of potential project impacts on pond turtle were provided in the DEIR. The DEIR does not identify any project impacts such as loss of upland terrestrial habitat, potential change in the channel from project construction, increased predation and competition from non-natives, changes in stream temperature, and impacts from increased human access to the channel from the proposed adjacent development. Given the lack of information in the DEIR on the project impacts for the western pond turtle, the Wildlife Agencies request that an analysis of Project to western pond turtle and mitigation measures to adequately address the impacts be included in the recirculated DEIR. Burrowing The Wildlife Agencies request that Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 be revised to require immediate notification to CDFW and USFWS if one or more burrowing owls are found on-site, 27-T and to specify that no passive or active relocation shall occur without first obtaining approval from the Wildlife Agencies as well as the RCA. On-site Conservation Areas are not clearly identified in the DEIR The Wildlife Agencies were not able to discern the future ownership and management of the Project parcels proposed for zoning as "Open Space—Natural" from the text of the DEIR nor from the maps included(e.g., Figure 2-3). The City explained to us (telephonically) that the 27-U intent of DEIR mitigation measure BIO-6b is to transfer ownership (or a conservation easement) of those areas to the RCA. The "natural open space areas"that would remain on the current Altair property after project build-out amount to 82.77 acres of undisturbed Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 13 coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitat. Approximately 17 additional acres on the outward-facing(manufactured) slopes of the Western Bypass (post-construction) would also be offered to the RCA after the Project has successfully revegetated it with coastal 27-U sage scrub and chaparral vegetation. The Wildlife Agencies recommend that the City clarify the intent of this mitigation measure in the revised DEIR by providing additional details in (cont.) the text of DEIR Section 3.3, identifying the location of the intended Conservation Areas on a map, and revise the wording of measure BIO-6b used in Table S-2 (DEIR page 5-15). Fuel Modification Zones versus Conserved Wildlife Habitat Section 3.7 of the DEIR states that"The project site is near a high fire hazard area which could increase the threat of wildfire on human populations and property." DEIR mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 requires the applicant to "prepare and submit a Fuel Modification Plan (Fuel Mod Plan, or FMP)" for review and approval of the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and the City which will include the "establishment of a 100-foot wide fuel modification area located within the project boundary for land adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area." We presume that the Fuel Reduction Zones will end up being carved out of the residual 100 27-V acres of natural shrublands remaining onsite after project build-out and intended to be donated to the RCA (re: mitigation measure BIO-6b). The RCA will not accept ownership or a conservation easement over Fuel Reduction Zones. While the City's Community Planning Department might only be requiring a 100-foot deep Fuel Reduction Zones, the Wildlife Agencies have noticed that RCFD often requests wider Fuel Reduction Zones in and adjacent to natural vegetation, sometimes up to 300 feet wide. Regardless of the width that ends up being approved, the necessity of the Fuel Reduction Zones means that the 100 acres of preserved and restored wildlife habitat which measure BIO-6b says will be donated to the RCA will be significantly smaller than stated. We request that the Fuel Mod Plan be developed now in consultation with the Fire Department, and that the approved Fuel Reduction Zones be quantified(in acres), mapped, and any adjustments needed to BIO-6b be made and disclosed to the public in the revised DEIR. If the DEIR is adopted without these revisions, the DEIR will have lead the public to believe that the amount of wildlife habitat preservation and restoration on the Altair site will be greater than what is actually the case. Identification of Significant Impacts in the DEIR. Section 5.2 "Review of Significant Environmental impacts" fails to disclose the significant adverse impacts that the Project will have on assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Reserve in the MSHCP Plan's Proposed Linkage 10, the significant adverse impacts of the Project on mountain lion movement through Linkage 10, to and from MSHCP Proposed Constrained 27-W Linkage 13 (PCL-13, Murrieta Creek), to and from the I-15 underpass to the Peninsular Range region at the confluence of the creeks and the Santa Margarita River(PCL-14), between MSHCP Core Reserves F and G, and on the likelihood that mountain lions from the inbred Santa Ana Mountains population will continue to approach the confluence underpass via the Civic Site and its vicinity. The DEIR should be revised to include as "significant, after Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 14 mitigation"the Project's impacts to (1) sensitive species' likelihood to continue using the 27-W MSHCP Linkage 10 wildlife corridor, and(2) to aggregate mountain lion movement and gene (cont.) flow within(and into)the southern Santa Ana Mountains region. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The analysis in DEIR Section 6.2 "Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes" incorrectly concludes that the commitment of existing sensitive species' wildlife habitat on the Altair site for conversion to residential, commercial, institutional uses, roads, and site amenities is considered"Less than significant"when compared to other development in a local and regional context. This analysis is flawed because it fails to assess and disclose the significant and permanent harm that the Project will have on the MSHCP (the region's 27-X "existing HCP or regional conservation plan" as denoted in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist). Most of the Altair site is located within the area described for conservation and reserve assembly by the MSHCP (Linkages 10 and its associated Criteria Cells), and the permanent loss of conservation area on this scale is significant impact to MSHCP reserve Assembly, especially given the DEIR makes no attempt to analyze or offset this impact. The Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes subchapter should include an analysis of the permanent loss of described conservation lands from Linkage 10 and the long-term impacts on mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Peninsular Range east of Interstate 15. Project Alternatives DEIR Chapter 5 briefly described three alternatives to the Proposed Project configuration and contrasted them in summary Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. Alternative 1 was the No Project(No Development) alternative, which the DEIR correctly identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative 2 consists of developing the Altair area according the existing Westside Villages Specific Plan instead of adopting the Altair Specific Plan (the project currently proposed, as described in DEIR Chapter 2). Under this Alternative, net land development would drop from 181 acres in the Proposed Project to 134.7 acres in Alternative 2. Wildlife habitat lost would remain the same as in the Proposed Project (181 upland acres plus 1.2 riparian/riverine acres), but the habitat losses would be spatially redistributed: the 55-acre South Parcel/Civic 27-Y Site in the Proposed Project would continue to be occupied mountain lion habitat, but the desired additional 55 acres of development would be accommodated on both sides of a more westerly Western Bypass alignment which would narrow MSHCP wildlife corridor#10 even more than in the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 would relocate the Proposed Project's Civic Use area from the Altair property's South Parcel to the Proposed Project's Village C and maintain the more easterly alignment for the Western Bypass that is proposed in the Altair Specific Plan. Under Alternative 3, the 55-acre South Parcel would continue to be habitat for mountain lions, pond turtles, and other sensitive species, and the Project's total wildlife habitat impacts would decrease. The Project Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 15 would still have a significant deleterious effect on future mountain lion and mule deer use of MSHCP Linkage 10 compared to the "No Development" alternative, but would reduce its adverse impacts to MSHCP Constrained Linkages 13 and 14 (Murrieta Creek, and the Temecula Creek-Santa Margarita River wildlife corridor, respectively) and to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The DEIR says that"As a result, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the [actually proposed] Project." Alternative 3 would give up the elementary school and residences planned for Village C in order to accommodate the Civic Use Area in a less ecologically-damaging area(compared to the South Parcel). DEIR Section 5.3 states that"Alternative 3 would have similar land uses (except for elimination of the elementary school) compared to the project but under a reduced density scenario that would provide a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River) at the southern end of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors and conserved lands." The DEIR reported the following: • The Civic Use Area intended for the South Parcel would have a gross development area of"approximately 19 acres with a buildable area of 10 acres after site preparation." • Village C (apart from the elementary school site) will have a gross area of 21 acres. 27-Y • The elementary school site is conceived as having 7 gross acres with 5 buildable acres (cont.) after site preparation. Based on this information, it appears that the Civic Use Area in Alternative 3 would have an available gross development area of 28 acres, while, in contrast,the Proposed Project would only have 19 gross development acres available for the Civic Use Area. DEIR Section 5.4 correctly identified the No Project/No Development Alternative (Alternative 1) as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, and goes on to point out that the "CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c))require that, if the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives." The DEIR strangely identified Alternative 2 (which would implement the currently approved Westside Villages Specific Plan instead of the proposed Altair Specific Plan) as the Environmentally Superior Alternative (compared to the Altair Plan as Proposed in DEIR Chapter 2)because it would reduce or avoid significant adverse environmental effects compared to the Altair version Proposed for implementation in the DEIR. Section 5.4 then indicates that Alternative 2, despite allegedly being"environmentally superior"to the Proposed version of the Altair Project, is unacceptable because it would not provide the following Altair Project components: • "Diverse housing types and a wide range of housing densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes." Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 16 • "Water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features". • A public park,play field, and elementary school. • "A civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for benefit of the public." Analysis of the information contained in the DEIR shows that Alternative 3 (Altair project with the Civic Use Area relocated from the South Parcel to the elementary school site) is clearly"environmentally superior"to Alternative 2 (which would develop the Altair area through the already-approved Westside Villages Specific Plan, instead of the Altair Specific Plan). Alternative 3 would convert a smaller amount of wildlife habitat into development than Alternative 2 would. Alternative 3 would narrow the MSHCP's wildlife corridor#10 less than Alternative 2 would. In contrast to the development planned in Alternative 2, however, Alternative 3 (reconfigured Altair) would implement the most important development features of the Altair project: diverse housing types serving a wide variety of people, and a Civic Area providing space for a university, hospital, research campus, or a community events center. After comparing the sensitive species impacts of the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 (the Westside Villages Specific Plan), and Alternative 3 (Altair Project with a centrally located 27-Y Civic Site), Alternative 3 is clearly the Environmentally Superior Alternative among the three (cont.) current development alternatives, and it would accomplish the most important goals of the Altair Project—provide a diverse range of housing types and a Civic Use Area large enough to create a university, hospital, research park or events center adjacent to Temecula's Old Town District. Table 1. Selected Sensitive Species Impacts of Proposed Development in the Altair Area which would Remain Significant After all DEIR-proposed Mitigation is completed. Currently Proposed Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Project Altair Villages SP Altair Villages SP Westside (develops South Parcel (avoids South Parcel for Civic Site) Villages SP wildlife impacts; Civic Site centrally located) Sensitive Species Habitat Lost(quantity) 182.2 acres 182.2 acres 127.2 acres Eliminates mountain lion cub-rearing territory on yes No No the South Parcel? Would make mountain lions unlikely to continue yes No No using the Murrieta Creek wildlife corridor? Would discourage mountain lion use of the I-15 underpass in MSHCP Constrained Linkage#14? yes No No Would narrow MSHCP Linkage#10 along the 632 ft. 305 ft. 632 ft. Altair property to a minimum width of: Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 17 Alternatives not Considered I. Altair Project accompanied by the Conservation Area Criteria Refinement required by the City's MSHCP Permits; these permits currently provide the City and its developers with incidental take of listed species and sensitive natural communities via City compliance with all of the terms and conditions in the MSHCP and its permits. 2. Altair Project with all development pulled inside (east of)the Western Bypass (Civic Use Area centrally located in Village C; mountain lion habitat in South Parcel and Village G preserved(no development in South Parcel and Village G sites). a) The mountain lion cub-rearing territory in the South Parcel would continue to be 27-Z occupied and help maintain the mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains portion of the MSHCP. b) No impacts to mountain lion use of the I-15 underpass at the River-creek confluence inside MSHCP constrained wildlife corridor 14. c) Less pond turtle habitat converted to development. d) Reduced impacts from unauthorized recreation to the existing Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. e) Reduced impacts to MSHCP Linkage 10, and mountain lion use of it, compared to the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2 and 3. 3. Altair Project with Civic Use Area relocated to vacant land in Temecula's city center near Front Street or Interstate Highway 15. Altair's Village C and the Altair elementary school would be developed"as proposed"in DEIR Chapter 2. Species List The species list included with the DEIR incorrectly identifies several species as being covered by the MSHCP including: south coast saltscale(Atriplex pacifica), California ayenia(Ayenia compacta), Lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothus cyaneus),Robinson's pepper-grass(Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), San Bernardino ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), San Diego ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus similis), least bittern(Ixobrychus exilic),pallid bat(Antrozous pallidus), Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis),western mastiff bat(Eumops perotis californicus), and pocketed free-tailed bat(Nyctinomops femorosaccus). Please review the list of MSHCP covered species found in the MSHCP Volume 4, Section 2.3.4, and correct the errors. Additionally, the DEIR states that chaparral sand-verbena(Abronia villosa var. aurita), Gander's 27-AA ragwort(Packera ganderi), and Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis)have a low probability to occur on-site,because suitable habitat on-site is "limited or of poor quality" and the species were not observed on-site. Because focused surveys for plants and small mammals were not conducted,the lack of direct observations on-site cannot support the DEIR's current conclusion that the species are not present on the Altair site. We wish to inform the City that all three of these species have been observed within the vicinity of the project site, and all three occur in one or more habitat types that occur on-site (chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland). Please specify the information used to determine that the chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland on-site is Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 18 unsuitable or only marginally suitable for these species, or withdraw this presumptive conclusion 27-AA from the revised DEIR. (font.) Impacts to Special-Status Species Not Covered by the MSHCP Page 3.3-11of the DEIR states that"[t]he project area does not occur within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area(NEPSSA) or a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area(CASSA)per Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP; therefore,no focused plant surveys were required."However,the MSHCP does not cover all special-status species; it only provides coverage for those species included in the MSHCP's list of"covered species". CEQA's mandatory findings of significance (CEQA Guidelines section 15065) state that a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it would substantially reduce the numbers or range of a rare,threatened or endangered species. This includes species that meet the definition of"rare", "threatened", or"endangered"in CEQA Guidelines section 15380(b),regardless of whether they are formally listed as such under State or Federal law. These species are commonly referred to as "special-status species". 27-BB The DEIR lists a total of ten(10) special-status species that(a)have a moderate or greater potential to occur, or are known to occur,within the project area, and(b) are not covered by the MSHCP, including delicate clarkia(Clarkia delicata),paniculate tarplant(Deinandra paniculata),western dichondra(Dichondra occidentalis),mesa horkelia(Horkelia cuneata ssp.puberla), Ramona horkelia(Horkelia truncata), Robinson's pepper-grass(Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), chaparral rein orchid(Piperia cooperi),white rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens), and pallid bat(Antrozous pallidus). Because no focused plant,reptile, or bat surveys were conducted for these special-status species on the project site, it should be assumed that these species are present on-site until species-specific surveys demonstrate otherwise. The Wildlife Agencies request that the revised and recirculated DEIR include a thorough and detailed analysis of the potential project impacts to the above-mentioned species, as well as feasible and enforceable avoidance,minimization, and/or mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to them to a level that is less than significant. Impacts to Nesting and Mi rg atory Birds Please note that it is the Project Proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non-game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) of 1918, as amended(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) also afford protective measures as follows: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take,possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any 27-CC regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that is it unlawful to take,possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take,possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 19 MBTA. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 defines the avian breeding season at February 1 to September 15, and requires nesting bird surveys to be conducted within 7 days prior to clearing, grubbing, construction, or ground-disturbing activities performed outside of the avian breeding season as defined above. The Wildlife Agencies do not recommend relying on seasonal restrictions alone to avoid impacts to nesting birds, as nesting dates vary from year to year and some species may nest year-round. Instead, we recommend that a qualified ornithologist conduct nesting surveys prior to initiating vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities even outside of the peak nesting season. Preconstruction nest surveys should be conducted within three days prior to initiating project activities, as instances 27-CC of nesting may otherwise be missed. (cont.) The density of the shrub canopy in coastal sage scrub and chaparral makes it much more difficult to detect the nests of MBTA bird species in these two habitats than nests located in woodlands,urban and park trees, and ground nests. Therefore,we request that Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-1 be amended to require that the biologist assigned to perform the pre-construction nest surveys have documented prior experience independently locating bird nests in coastal sage scrub and chaparral, including the nests of coastal California gnatcatchers(Polioptila californica), Southern California rufous-crowned sparrows (Aimophila ruficeps),Bell's sparrows (Artemisiospiza Belli), and wrentits (Chamaea fasciata). Lake and Streambed Alteration The Jurisdictional Delineation(JD)prepared for the project states that the Department defines a "stream"as"a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life". This appears to refer to California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 1.72,which was adopted by the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) in relation to a specific sport fish issue that was before the Commission at its December 5, 1986 meeting. Please note that this definition is not the definition of a stream used by the Department, and has no application to the Department's Lake and Streambed Alteration Program or Section 1600 et seq. of the California FGC. Rather,FGC Section 1600 et seq. applies to activities causing substantial alteration to any river, stream, or lake, including episodic and ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. 27-DD Following review of the JD, it appears to have excluded a number of portions of the on-site streams which likely conduct subsurface flow, referring to them as "non jurisdictional swales". The Department requests that the JD be revised to include all streams with the potential to be altered by project activities, including areas of stream that do not have a visible Ordinary High Water Mark and/or that conduct subsurface flow. The JD should also depict the areas that will be subject to impact/alteration as a result of project activities. Please include the revised JD with the revised and recirculated DEIR. Please note that, although page 2-16 of the DEIR notes that a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA)has been prepared for the proposed Western Bypass bridge project,the SAA has now expired. Anew Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration will be required prior to constructing the bridge. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 20 Western Bypass The Western Bypass is a covered activity and is identified as a circulation element in Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that the project's redesign of the Western Bypass reduces the identified impacts in the northern portion of the roadway. The Consistency 27-EE Report states that reduction of the Western Bypass footprint will offset project road impacts. We request that the City work with the RCA on a minor amendment to the MSHCP that modifies Figure 7-1 to reflect the removal of the northern portion of the Western Bypass and documents the exchanged impact acreage. Once the minor amendment is complete,then the acreage reduction can be credited to the project. Riparian/Riverine DBESP As acknowledged by the Altair project's MSHCP Consistency Report,project preparation of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP) document is required for unavoidable impacts to riparian and riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP. The Consistency Report proposes that the Altair project's temporary and permanent impacts to riparian 27-FF (vegetated) streams will be mitigated at a ratio of 3 to 1,but that impacts to riverine resources will be mitigated at a ratio of only 1 to 1. The Consistency Report describes the function of riverine streams as providing water conveyance, flood attenuation, sediment transport and energy dissipation. Mitigation of permanent impacts at a 1 to 1 ratio results in a 50 percent loss of the natural resource in question. While we look forward to reviewing the project's DBESP,we are skeptical that such a strategy can be biologically equivalent or superior to avoidance of the riverine resources. Conclusion We would like to acknowledge that we are aware that the City has tried to assemble adequate compensatory mitigation measures to offset the unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed Project and has incorporated some helpful minimization measures. Unfortunately, more work remains to be done to develop a Project configuration and mitigation package which would more adequately avoid and/or mitigate the Project's impacts on the local and regional environment. The currently proposed Project configuration would result in irreversible significant permanent damage to the MSHCP and irreversible significant permanent impacts to the mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains. Apart from this, a number of significant new 27-GG Project impacts, substantially more severe effects of other impacts, additional feasible alternatives and mitigation considerably different than proposed in the DEIR which would clearly lessen significant project impacts on the biological resources in the area,have been identified in our analysis of the Draft EIR(as described, above, in this letter). We therefore restate our request that the City revise and recirculate the Draft Environmental Impact Report once the requested additional analyses have been prepared for disclosure to the public, the requested additional mitigation measures have been added to the Project, the Criteria Refinement Process required by the MSHCP has been completed, and all of these substantial modifications have been documented in the revised Draft EIR for review and comment by the citizens of California and interested public agencies. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 21 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIR, and request a meeting with the City,the RCA and the applicant prior to project approval. We look forward to continue working with the 27-GG City of Temecula and the applicant on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to schedule a meeting,please contact Karin Cleary-Rose of the Service (cont.) at 760-322-2070, extension 206, or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692. Sincerely, Kennon A. Corey Leslie MacNair Assistant Field Supervisor Inland Deserts Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Charles Landry, Regional Conservation Authority Enclosures [RCA] Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(Riverside County Government). 2015. Joint Project Review 14-05-27-01 for City of Temecula,PR13-0043, Altair Specific Plan. Riverside, California. April 1,2015. [Wildlife Agencies ] California Department of Fish and Wildlife,together with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Joint Project Review Letter from the Wildlife Agencies to the City of Temecula regarding MSHCP JPR 14-05-27-01 for the City of Temecula `s project#PR13-0043, the Altair Specific Plan. April 15,2015. Mr. Matt Peters (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-15B0192-15CPA0314) 22 Literature Cited Beier,P. 1993. Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars. Consery Biol 7: 94-108. Burdett, C. L., K. R. Crooks, D. M. Theobald, K. R. Wilson, E. E. Boydston, L. M. Lyren, R. N. Fisher, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, and W. M. Boyce. 2010. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere Lart4. Dickson, B. G. and P. Beier. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:1235-1245 Ernest, H B. et al. 2003. Genetic structure of mountain lion(Puma concolor)populations in California." Conservation Genetics 4(3):353-366. Ernest HB, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, M.1 R. Buchalski, W. M. Boyce. 2014. Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma(Puma concolor)population. PLoS ONE 9(10): e107985. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0107985. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2015. Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report. Prepared for Ambient Communities, October 19, 2015. Kerston, B. N. R. D., Spencer,J.M. Marzluff, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, C.E. Grue. 2011. Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications. 21(8):2866-2881. [RCA] Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(Riverside County Government). 2015. Joint Project Review Document Package Joint Project Review 14-05- 27-01 for City of Temecula, PR13-0043, Altair Specific Plan, analyzing the proposed Altair project's consistency with the terms and conditions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Riverside, California. April 1, 2015. Vickers T.W., Sanchez J.N., Johnson C.K., Morrison S.A., Botta R., Smith T. 2015. Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented,Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0131490 [Wildlife Agencies ] California Department of Fish and Wildlife,together with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Joint Project Review Findings (letter) of the Wildlife Agencies regarding the proposed Altair project's consistency with the terms and conditions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. CDFW Inland Deserts Regional Office in Ontario, California, and USFWS Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office in Palm Springs, California. April 15, 2015. Zeller, K.A., K. McGarigal, P. Beier, S.A. Cushman,T.W. Vickers, W.M. Boyce. 2014. Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology 29: 541-557. 3.Response to Comments Responses to Letter 27: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments 27-A through 27-C: These comments provide introductory information regarding the commenting agencies and general information concerning the MSHCP and the Project. Response to Comments 27-A through 27-C (Specific Plan with Civic Use): These comments do not identify any inadequacies in the Draft EIR,but are noted for the record. Response to Comments 27-A through 27-C (Specific Plan with Nature Center): These comments do not identify any inadequacies in the Draft EIR,but are noted for the record. Comment 27-D: The commenter provides a summary of the issues and comments raised later in the letter regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, analysis of impacts to wildlife linkages,modeling for mountain lion use movement. The commenter states that a Criteria Refinement is needed for the Project. Response to Comment 27-D (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to the following responses to address these s comments. Response to Comment 27-D (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to the following responses to address these s comments. Comments 27-E and 27-F: The commenters state generally that they have concerns regarding the DEIR's biological analysis, identification of potentially significant impacts, and mitigation measures. The commenters also state that their primary concern is impacts on the assembly of the MSHCP. The commenters claim that the DEIR's analysis of consistency with the MSHCP is incorrect because it states that adherence to MSHCP Cell Criteria is not necessary. Responses 27-E and 27-F(Specific Plan with Civic Use): Several commenters claimed that the DEIR improperly evaluated the Project's consistency with the MSHCP and that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the MSHCP. However,the DEIR property evaluated the Project's consistency with the MSHCP and the Project as proposed would ensure consistency with the MSHCP. Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.8,which respond to these comments and explain the analysis and approach taken in the DEIR for the assessment of the Project's consistency with the MSHCP and the requirements of the MSHCP with regard to adherence to specific Cell Criteria. The DEIR follows the Criteria Review Consistency Process that is outlined in the MSHCP and which, as the commenters acknowledge, states that individual projects should be examined through a"sequential approach"that begins"at the broad, landscape scale and proceed[s]through the individual Cell Criteria." (DEIR,p. 3.3-63;MSHCP,p.3-122; see also Common Response 3.2.3.) The MSHCP specifically provides: Altair Specific Plan 3-323 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments While achieving the precise percentage conservation criterion for each Cell or Cell Group would ultimately result in assembly of 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands as envisioned in the MSHCP, it should be noted that achievement of the variable target acreages will be measured on a Core and Linkage or Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit basis, not on an individual project or Cell/Cell Group basis. (MSHCP,pp. 3-122-123; DEIR,pp. 3.3-63-64;see also Common Response 3.2.3.) The commenters acknowledge that a"sub-unit analysis could work even at a project-specific level"so long as one interprets"the Criteria in all of the cells in the sub-unit in order to understand if conservation in the sub-unit is being achieved and/or if less-than-described conservation in one portion of the sub-unit has been offset by more-than-described conservation, or can be offset by maximum-described conservation in other portions of the sub-unit." The idea of flexibility with regard to acreage targets and the Conceptual Reserve Design("CRD") is repeated throughout the MSHCP. The CRD was developed because the"precise configuration for new Conservation within the Criteria Area has not been defined or mapped."(MSHCP,p. 3- 18.) The CRD is referred to as a"useful tool"and"not the only possible configuration to emerge from application of Criteria within the Criteria Area." (MSHCP,p. 3-18.) It is"intended to describe one way in which the MSHCP Conservation Area could be configured consistent with the MSHCP Criteria"but"does not represent the only possible reserve that could be assembled," and is designed to allow for"flexibility . . .in the Reserve Assembly Process." (MSHCP,p. 3- 26.) "Criteria statements for Cells and Cell Groups are intended to be considered as a whole to guide Reserve Assembly; individual Criteria statements are not intended to be used as a stand- alone guidance for Reserve Assembly." (MSHCP,p. 3-121.) The DEIR follows this sequential approach but does not, as the commenters claim,rely on this sequential approach as a means of avoiding analysis of the MSHCP Cell Criteria. Biological experts undertook a detailed analysis of the Project's consistency with the MSHCP at the Area Plan, Subunit, and Cell/Cell Group levels("2015 Consistency Report"). As explained in the DEIR it was determined that while the Project does not meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals in every Cell,the Project would not preclude achievement of reserve assembly target acreages in either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 due to the availability of other undeveloped and rural residential lands for conservation. (DEIR,p. 3.3-64.) In particular,the analysis concluded that the midpoint acreage targets for Subunit 1 could still be exceeded by as much as 163 acres(15 percent) and for Subunit 6 could be exceeded by as much as 712 acres(34 percent)with available conservation in both subunits following implementation of the Project as proposed(DEIR,Appx. C p. 43), and that the Project would meet overall conservation goals for Proposed Linkage 10. (Id.,p. 45.) The 2015 Consistency Report included a cell-by-cell analysis that describes the exact amount of acreage that will be conserved within each Cell under the proposed Project, evaluates the criteria within each Cell regarding relevant Linkages and vegetation communities, and analyzes the Project's consistency with the criteria. (DEIR,Appx. C,pp. 17-23;43-45.) A separate Acreage Consistency Analysis was also prepared in Appendix C3 of the DEIR. A consolidated two-page summary of the Cell Criteria analysis is provided below. Altair Specific Plan 3-324 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments SUMMARY OF CELL CRITERIA ANALYSIS PROVIDED IN DRAFT EIR Cell Characteristics (All Cells 160 acres) Project Impacts and Acres Conserved Overall Cell Cell Criteria Cell Criteria Current Linkage Vegetation Communities Cell Location of Project Project Conservation Target (% Target RCA Acres Project Impacts Conserves (Existing + and (Acres) Conserved On Within Cell (On-Site (Acres) Project)' Direction Acreage Site Only) 7077 35-45% N 56-72 6.4 10 Chaparral and grassland 0.7 E in Cell - 0.7 4.4% Group 7161 35-45% N 56-72 45.1 10 Chaparral and grassland 7.4 E in Cell - 7.4 32.8% Group 7078 15-25% NE 24-40 0 PC 13 Riparian scrub, woodland, and forest 3.9 S 2.9 1.04 >1% habitat along Murrieta Creek 7164 70-80%SW 112- 128 40.4 10 Chaparral and Grassland 92.3 N, E and 66.65 25.7 41.3% Central 7166 35-45% SW 56-72 0 PC 13 and Riparian Scrub,Woodland, Forest, 27.6 SW 27.66 0.0 0% 10 Grassland Habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral habitat in other portions of the Cell 7258 30-40% NE 48-64 21.6 10 Chaparral and coastal sage scrub 5.3 NE 2.2 3.1 15.4% 7264 70-80%W E 112- 128 14.2 PC 13 and Riparian scrub, woodland,forest, 68.3 NW,Central, 59.1 9.2 14.6% 10 grassland, and coastal sage scrub S and SE habitat along Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral,grassland and coastal sage scrub 7355 40-50% NE 64-80 0 10 Chaparral, woodland,forest, and 34.3 NE and E 17.2 17.1 10.7% coastal sag a scrub habitat 7356 50-60%W SE 80-96 0 10 and PC Chaparral and coastal sage scrub 31.0 Wand SW 11.0 20.07 12.5% 14 habitat and on riparian scrub, enrlecula odland, and forest habitat along Creek PROJECT TOTALS 2 186.6 84.28 3 These figures do not include potential conservation that could,and likely will,occur within the cells. The figure represents only a calculation of the conserved acreage to be provided by the proposed Project added to the existing conserved lands within the cells. 4 Previously 0.2 acres in MSHCP Consistency Report dated 10/19/15 in the DEIR. Increased by 0.8 acres to 1.0 acres when Tentative Tract Map was finalized thereafter. 5 Previously 63.8 acres in MSHCP Consistency Report in the DEIR. Increased by 2.8 acres to 66.6 acres to account for non-native slopes with no biological value. 6 Previously 24.1 acres in MSHCP Consistency Report in the DEIR. Increased by 3.5 acres to 27.6 acres to account for non-native slopes with no biological value. 7 Does not include 2.6 acres that will be conserved under the Nature Center Use but developed with the University or Hospital Use. 8 Does not equal 84.6 acres as identified in the Tentative Tract Map because of rounding. Altair Specific Plan 3-325 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Cells 7077 and 7161—These two Cells are part of Cell Group K. The MSHCP target acreage is located in the northern portions of the Cells. The Project site is located in the southern portion of Cell 7077, and in the Northeastern portion of Cell 7161. The acreage currently conserved within these Cells is as a result of land purchased by the City and contributed to the RCA. The MSHCP approved alignment of the Western Bypass impacts both Cells,however,the Project's proposed re-alignment avoids these impacts resulting in conservation of all acreage within these Cells on the Project Site. The acreage conserved on the Project will contribute directly to Linkage 10. (See Appx. C,p. 43.) Cell 7078-The MSHCP target acreage for this Cell is located in the northeastern portion of the Cell(Murrieta Creek). The Project site is located only in the southwest corner of the Cell and thus provides a very small(1.0 acre) additional conserved acreage beyond what was in the MSHCP Cell Criteria which contributes to Linkage 10. (See Appx. C,p. 43.) Cell 7164—The location of conserved areas on site is consistent with the conservation goals for this cell,which focus on the preservation of chaparral habitat in the southwestern portion of the Cell. Conserved areas on the Project site would connect to Cell Group K' to the west as well as Cell No. 7258 to the south,which all contribute to Linkage 10. All the remainder of Cell 7164 west of the proposed Project boundary has already been conserved(40.4 acres)when the City acquired and contributed this land to the RCA, and when combined with Project conserved acres, a total of 66.1 acres(41.3%)will be conserved within the Cell to contribute toward Linkage 10. Although conservation acreage targets for this cell are not met with this project design, a significant portion of these impacts are related to the already graded pads for the Ridge Park Office Complex project in the north-central portion of the cell, and the Western Bypass. The already graded pads provide no conservation value and the Western Bypass is an approved project under the MSHCP and would be built with or without the Altair project.Under the original alignment,the area east of the Western Bypass would not have long-term conservation value. If the MSHCP approved alignment for the Western Bypass were to be retained,virtually all of the 25.7 acres of proposed conservation on the Project Site would be eliminated. (See Appx. C,p.44.) Cell 7166-The Project would result in the southwest corner of this cell being developed. Approximately 6.3 acres on the Project site in this Cell and Cell No. 7164 consists of existing slopes that are considered impacts in the Table above. The MSHCP provides that Cell 7166 would contribute to Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). The Project acreage within this Cell is separated from Murrieta Creek by existing development. The Project site includes 27.6 acres within the southwest corner of the Cell, a majority of which is being developed. With the impacts from existing development and the Project,the acreage targets for this cell would not be met. Preserving this acreage would not provide significant benefit to the Reserve Assembly or Linkage 10 because the area would be physically separated from the preserve to the west by the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity,under either the existing or proposed alignment. Similarly,First Street(also an MSHCP Covered Activity)will be extended through a portion of this cell, further compromising its viability for conservation. Thus,conservation of this area would create an isolated area without long-term conservation value. The Western Bypass, as noted previously,will be built with or without the Altair project. Altair Specific Plan 3-326 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments The proposed re-alignment of the Western Bypass and consolidation of development east of the Western Bypass within Cell 7166 allows for an increase in width in Linkage 10 in the adjacent cells, Cells 7164 and 7258. (See Appx. C,p. 44 and Figure 14.) Cell 7258-Existing conservation has already occurred in the north-central portion of this Cell when the City acquired and contributed this land to the RCA. Conservation acreage targets within this Cell are benefited by the proposed re-alignment of the Western Bypass to the east. In addition,the Project is facilitating the sale of 8.97 acres, a portion of which is within this Cell,to the RCA for conservation,which is not represented in the table above. Conservation acreage goals, as well as overall conservation goals, are met for this cell by project design,which preserves areas west of the Western Bypass in the northeast portion of the cell that will contribute to Reserve Assembly within Linkage 10. (See Appx. C,p. 44.) Cell 7264-This Cell focuses conservation east(Murrieta Creek) and west of existing development. Approximately 22.8 acres of the impacts in this Cell are the result of the Western Bypass(a Covered Activity). Conservation acreage targets are benefited by alignment of the Western Bypass as far east as feasible on the Project site next to the existing development. In addition,the Project is facilitating the sale of 8.97 acres, a portion of which is within this Cell,to the RCA for conservation,which is not represented in the table above. Although conservation acreage targets for this Cell are not met with the project design,preserving the narrow and isolated area west of the existing development and east of the Western Bypass would not provide significant benefit because it would be separated from the preserve by the Western Bypass,which would be built with or without the Altair project. The location of conserved areas on the Project site are consistent with the conservation goals and objectives for this Cell that contribute to Reserve Assembly within Linkage 10. (See Appx. C,p. 44 and Figure 14.) Cell 7355—A portion of the impacts in this Cell are as a result of Camino Estribo(an existing road)and the proposed Western Bypass,which both are Covered Activities. Although conservation acreage targets fall short of the targeted acreage for this Cell, conservation goals are met by project design,which would preserve coastal sage scrub and oak woodland habitats in the northeast portion of the Cell and connect to coastal sage scrub habitat in Cell No. 7264 to the north and Cell No. 7356 to the east. The 17.1 acres conserved in this Cell by the Project would contribute directly to Reserve Assembly within Linkage 10. (See Appx. C,p. 45 and Figures 8 and 14.) Cell 7356-The target acreage for conservation within this Cell is located in the western and southeastern portion of the Cell. The Project site sits within the western portion of the site. The 20 acres conserved in this Cell by the Project would contribute directly to Linkage 10 where it connects to Constrained Linkage 13 south of the Project and the Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway interchange expansion project currently under construction. The Project does not impact Proposed Constrained Linkage 14,which lies in the very south-central and southeastern portion of the Cell, east of Interstate 15. Conservation acreage targets are not met within this Cell,however with the Nature Center use the Project is restoring nearly all of the graded areas with native vegetation which once established, significantly less development impacts in this portion of the Cell. As a whole, conservation goals are met for this cell by project design,which Altair Specific Plan 3-327 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments would preserve coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian habitats in the western portion of the cell and connect to coastal sage scrub habitat in Cell No. 7355 to the west,and conserve acreage on the Project site occurring in the southwestern portions of the Cell. (See Appx. C,p. 44.)(See Appx. C,p. 45 and Figures 8 and 14.) The commenters claim that the DEIR's analysis"assumes that any undeveloped acre in a Criteria Cell within the sub-unit could come into conservation"and that"all undeveloped land in Criteria Cells was counted as potentially available for future conservation in the sub-unit regardless of whether or not the area was described for conservation." The commenters state that"future conservation must be confined to the areas that are described for conservation in the Cell Criteria and other MSHCP policies and procedures,because the MSHCP permittees have no obligation to achieve conservation anywhere else." The acreages amounts proposed for conservation and described in the DEIR and further detailed in Appendix C, are based on areas within the Criteria Cells only. A large majority of the acreage with the potential to be conserved in the analysis in Appendix C is part of, or immediately abuts, the Conceptual Reserve Design areas utilized by the USFWS in analyzing the MSHCP and would provide long term conservation value and help achieve the goals of the MSHCP in the relevant Subunits. Potential conservation areas outside of the portion of the cell that is targeted for conservation,would still have conservation value because of their connectivity with the proposed preserve and the existing native vegetation within the preserve, as well as the fact that the habitat types that are found within these potential conservation areas are habitats targeted for conservation by the MSHCP. The commenters claim that if the proposed Project cannot meet the individual acreage requirements for each Criteria Cell a Criteria Refinement may be necessary. As provided in Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4,because the Project achieves consistency with the MSHCP a Criteria Refinement is not needed. The MSHCP specifically provides that "achievement of the variable target acreages will be measured on a Core and Linkage or Area Plan Subunit basis,not on an individual project or Cell/Cell Group basis." (MSHCP,pp. 3-122 to 3-123; see also DEIR,pp. 3.3-63 to 3.3-64; Common Response 3.2.3.) Thus, a proposed project may not specifically meet the acreage requirements within a given Cell,but will still achieve the overall goals and acreage targets for the Plan Area and Subunit level. Responses 27-E and 27-F(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop to propose a Nature Center on the South Parcel in lieu of the previously proposed more intense civic/institutional use. The project's biologist subsequently prepared a supplement to the 2015 Consistency Report, dated June 19,2017, evaluating the Nature Center use's consistency with the MSHCP(Final EIR,Appx.A). Under this alternative use,the project footprint outside of the Civic Site is essentially unchanged. The Nature Center use would reduce impacts to Independent Cell No. 7355 from 9.3 acres to 8.9 acres,leaving 13.5 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10. It would also reduce impacts to Independent Cell No. 7356 from 11.0 acres to 10.7, leaving 20.3 acres for contributing to the Altair Specific Plan 3-328 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. In addition, as further described in Appx A,the Nature Center use does not propose nighttime activities and would have no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the South Parcel other than lighting needed for security. The Nature Center use will also be a low-intensity use with noise limited to low levels of traffic driving to and from the Nature Center, as such the MSHCP Conservation Area would not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. As with the Civic Site,the conservation acreage for the Nature Center use also falls short of the targeted acreage for the individual cells. However, as explained above,biological issues and considerations are met for these cells by project design. Thus,the project with the Nature Center use is likewise designed and mitigated consistent with the adopted MSHCP. Commenter is also referred to Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.8 and response 27-E and 27- F (Specific Plan with Civic Use)above. Comment 27-G: The commenters state that prior to the development of the DEIR the Project was reviewed by the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies under the MSHCP Joint Project Review (JPR)process. The commenters refer to the previous opinions of the RCA and Wildlife Agencies with regard to the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, as expressed during the JPR process. The commenters then summarize the previous statements made in Comments 27-E and 27-F and reiterate the request for a project-specific analysis of the MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals. Response 27-G: (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Please refer to response to Comments 27-E and 27-F above and Common Response 3.2.7. Response 27-G: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to response to Comments 27-E and 27-F above and Common Response 3.2.7. Comment 27-H: The commenters provide information concerning the Mountain Lion that is duplicative of information presented in the DEIR. Response 27-H: (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The commenters do not identify a deficiency in the DEIR. The comment is noted for the record. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Response 27-H: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The commenters do not identify a deficiency in the DEIR. The comment is noted for the record. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8. Comments 27-I and 27-J: The commenters raise concerns regarding the Project's impacts on Proposed Linkage 10. The commenters state that the proposed Project reduces the width of Linkage 10 from the expected range of 1,200-2,700 feet to less than 500 feet at its narrowest point on the southern edge of the Project site. The commenters restate portions of Section 3.3 of the DEIR regarding the zone of negative influence on mountain lion. The commenters claim that the loss of rearing habitat on the South Parcel represents a significant loss for the population of mountain lion as a whole, and claim that increased human activity associated with the proposed Civic Site at this sensitive location would permanently impair not only Proposed Linkage 10 as Altair Specific Plan 3-329 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments movement and live-in habitat for mountain lions and other wildlife,but also be detrimental to facilitating the movement of mountain lions across Interstate Highway 15 to the Peninsular Range. Responses 27-I and 27-J: (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Proposed Linkage 10 consists of an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Existing Core G(Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) in the south. Private lands compose the entirety of the Linkage,which consists of upland habitat complementary to the riparian Linkage provided by Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). Several comments on the DEIR have raised concerns regarding the Project's potential impacts on Linkage 10 and the viability of the Linkage for use by mountain lion. Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8 address these comments. The reduction in width of Linkage 10 is largely attributable to the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity in the MSHCP. The proposed Project improves the width of the Linkage by modifying the alignment of the Western Bypass, and eliminating the northern portion of the Western Bypass under the previously approved alignment. Responses 27-I and 27-J: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): See Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8, and Appendix A to the FEIR(South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis). The Final EIR includes an alternative use for the South Parcel for consideration by the City Council, the Nature Center use. This alternative use would modify the proposed use of the South Parcel. A description of the Nature Center can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Final EIR, and Appendix A. Overall,the Nature Center use would provide more than a 95 percent reduction in maximum building size and a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height compared to the South Parcel civic (university/hospital)use. The Nature Center use adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and revegetated areas when compared to the civic use. The Nature Center use also precludes night time uses,which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek.As explained in Chapters 1 and 2, and Appendix A,the Nature Center use would be designed and mitigated to have a less-than-significant impact on mountain lion movement and population health and would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions when compared with the civic/institutional use. Comment 27-K: The commenters make several claims regarding the Corridor Designer tool employed for the Project,which was used to analyze habitat and movement corridors for mountain lion. The commenters claim that the tool has not been peer reviewed,rests on assumptions that are unknown, is a generalized planning tool, and does not properly account for the zone of negative influence or increased human activity outside the Project footprint. The commenters also state that the DEIR should have incorporated results from peer-reviewed scientific models,that the DEIR should have evaluated connectivity across 1-15. Response 27-K: (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Several comments on the Draft EIR raised concerns regarding the Corridor Designer tool used to evaluate impacts to linkages and mountain lion. As a result, Common Response 3.2.8 specifically addresses concerns regarding the modeling tool. As provided in Common Response 3.2.8,the Draft EIR provided a comprehensive analysis of the potential for both direct and indirect impacts the project may have Altair Specific Plan 3-330 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments on the mountain lion,both project specific as well as within the larger context of the MSHCP Plan Area. These impacts were analyzed using a variety of tools including multiple visits to the site as well as key offsite linkage areas, extensive review of mountain lion literature, discussions with mountain lion experts, and to a lesser extent through the preparation of a corridor model. (See e.g. DEIR,p. 3.3-52.) The Corridor Designer modeling was but one tool among several used to evaluate impacts on Linkages and the mountain lion. The Draft EIR concludes that, as designed and mitigated,the project will have less-than-significant impacts on the mountain lion. In both the Project and Project with No Civic Site Model,the model suggests that construction of the project would result in the reduction of Linkage 10 wildlife corridor width. The model does not necessarily determine whether a corridor or linkage is viable or not; it determines where the best locations for a linkage or corridor are based on the parameters in the model. The modeling also indicates that the permeability of the linkage remains essentially the same with and without the Project for the area outside of the Project footprint,which is consistent with the point that the linkage will continue to be a linkage for mountain lion movement, despite the reduction in corridor width as a result of project implementation. The commenters state that"the corridor is depicted as retaining an identical quality with or without the project." This is not correct. Figure 3.3-5 shows a reduction in the 5%slice and the 10% slice with the project but also shows continued permeability. Regarding the commenters' request that other models be used for the Project analysis,models prepared by Zeller and others are not available for project evaluation. The commenters' assertion that the Draft EIR did not review peer-reviewed studies is incorrect. As cited in the DEIR, and specifically in Appendix C to the Draft EIR, several peer-reviewed studies were reviewed as part of the impacts analysis. The article cited by the commenters,Burdett et al. 2010,was referenced specifically in Appendix C on pages 26, 36, and 56. Connectivity across I-15 was adequately evaluated, as addressed in Common Response 3.2.8. In addition,the project applicant is providing significant project conservation features to facilitate a long-term solution for wildlife movement across I-15. (See FEIR,pp. 2-7; 3-5.) Response 27-K: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): See Responses 27-1 and 27-J above, see also Common Responses 3.2.8, and Appendix A to the FEIR(South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis). Comment 27-L: The commenters state that the DEIR failed to address impacts to movement of mountain lions on a larger scale, in particular from the Santa Ana mountains to the eastern Peninsular Ranges. The commenters note that the Civic Site would be at the southern end of the Project at the confluence of two MSHCP Linkages where concentrated mountain lion use currently occurs and that the Civic Site would be extremely detrimental to Linkages 10 and 14. The commenters also summarize previous comments made in Comment 27-K. Response 27-L: (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): Several comments on the Draft EIR raised concerns regarding impacts to Mountain Lion and Linkages 10 and 14. As a result, Common Response 3.2.8 specifically addresses concerns regarding all three of these issues. In Altair Specific Plan 3-331 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments addition, Common Response 3.2.1 addresses comments, such as this one,regarding the South Parcels impacts on Linkage 10. Response 27-L: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): See Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8,Response to Comments 27-I and 27-J, and Appendix A to the FEIR(South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis). Comment 27-M: The commenters restate earlier comments that the Project was found by the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies to be inconsistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly, and that the Project will significantly diminish the function of Proposed Linkage 10,negatively affect the expected movement of mountain lions from the Santa Ana Mountains to the eastern Peninsular Ranges, and will negatively affect the MSHCP Conservation as a whole. The commenters claim that the DEIR fails to demonstrate how the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the Project impacts to less than significant and that additional mitigation is necessary. Response 27-M: (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): This comment is duplicative of earlier comments in Comment Letter 27, as well as other comments submitted on the Draft EIR concerning the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, analysis of impacts to wildlife corridors including Linkage 10, and analysis of impacts to mountain lion. Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8 respond to the commenters' concerns. See also Response 27-E and 27-F and Response 27-I and 27-J provided above. Response 27-M(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): See Common Responses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8,Response 27-E and 27-F,Response 27-1 and 27-J, and Appendix A to the FEIR(South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis). Comment 27-N: The commenters express concerns regarding Proposed Linkage 10, and quote language from the Draft EIR that"the original description of the linkage being nearly a mile wide is still applicable if one includes the rural residential areas (which includes the escarpment and top of escarpment)that wildlife still use as a movement corridor." (DEIR,p. 3.3-22.) The commenters state that the Project is pushing the linkage upslope and that in turn increases the risk of mortality to mountain lions. The commenters claim that the DEIR statement that the mile-wide linkage is still applicable is misguided and that the Linkage should not be shifted westward into a rural-residential area. Response 27-N(Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): With or without the proposed Project, construction of the Western Bypass will result in movement of Linkage 10 upslope. The proposed Project's realignment of the Western Bypass results in moving the impacts downslope to the east, and elimination of the northern portion of the original Western Bypass configuration, significantly approves the area needed for the Linkage. The Western Bypass in its original configuration was determined to be consistent with the goals for Linkage 10 under the original MSHCP approvals, including for the mountain lion. Project design features of the Western Bypass that would reduce or avoid impacts as compared to the current approved alignment include(1)terminating the northern section at Vincent Moraga Road/Rancho California Road,thereby eliminating 7,70O linear feet of the northern portion of the Altair Specific Plan 3-332 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments current approved alignment and avoiding eight drainage crossings; (2)designing a split roadway to minimize grading impacts; and(3)pulling the alignment further east to increase the width of the wildlife corridor. These project design features would avoid 55 acres of impacts to sage scrub, chaparral,and other habitats within Proposed Linkage 10,based on the City's previous grading study for the Western Bypass. In addition, overall impacts to wildlife movement along this stretch of Proposed Linkage 10 would be reduced over the current approved route due to a wider corridor. (Draft EIR,p. 3.3-49.) See also Common Response 3.2.5 regarding MSHCP consistency for the Western Bypass. See Common Response 3.2.8 regarding impacts to Linkage 10. Response 27-N(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The proposed Nature Center use would increase the corridor width by 150 feet the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 as a result of the shortened length of the graded pad. In addition,with the lower intensity use of the Nature Center use and the elimination of nighttime activities,this use would enhance movement by Mountain Lion and other wildlife over the Civic Center use. See also Common Response 3.2.5 regarding MSHCP consistency for the Western Bypass. See Common Response 3.2.8 regarding impacts to Linkage 10. Comment 27-0: The comment states that the four Proposed Constrained Linkages(Linkages 9, 10, 11, and 12)will not provide substitute connections to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve for mountain lion if Linkage 10 becomes avoided due to the Altair project, and that those other linkages are constrained linkages through rural residential habitats that are not secured for conservation. Thus,the comment urges,reliance on these four constrained linkages will pose significant risk to long-term viability of the mountain lion population if Proposed Linkage 10 is made unusable by the Project. As a consequence, according to the comment,the potential loss of mountain lion use of habitat near the desired I-15 undercrossing at Murrieta Creek has not been addressed. Response 27-0(Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): The comment does not accurately summarize the analysis and conclusions set forth in the EIR. Constrained linkage 10 will not be rendered unusable by the proposed Project. The four constrained linkages are therefore not intended to substitute for mountain lion movement if Linkage 10 becomes constrained;rather,the four constrained linkages provide avenues for movement in addition to Constrained Linkage 10. Together,the four constrained linkages provide some level of redundancy,which will help ensure connectivity and viability of the mountain lion populations. Additional information responsive to this comment can be found at Common Response 3.2.8. Response 27-0(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment does not accurately summarize the analysis and conclusions set forth in the EIR. Constrained linkage 10 will not be rendered unusable by the proposed Project. The four constrained linkages are therefore not intended to substitute for mountain lion movement if Linkage 10 becomes constrained;rather,the four constrained linkages provide avenues for movement in addition to Constrained Linkage 10. Together,the four constrained linkages provide some level of redundancy,which will help ensure Altair Specific Plan 3-333 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments connectivity and viability of the mountain lion populations. Additional information responsive to this comment can be found at Common Response 3.2.8. Comment 27-P: The comment states that the mitigation imposed in the EIR to reduce impacts on Linkage 10(e.g., onsite conservation, fencing,vehicle calming measures, and revegetation of slops along the Western Bypass)are insufficient to address the significant impacts of the Project on this linkage(e.g.,narrowing of the Linkage,transforming live-in habitat, loss of habitat, and noise and light). The comment also asserts that the Draft EIR does not provide any justification that the identified `mitigation' (design features)will reduce those impacts. Response 27-P (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): The comment misconstrues the analysis and findings in the Draft EIR,which acknowledges impacts to Linkage 20 but concludes that it will continue to function. Because Linkage 10 will continue to function,the mitigation measures set forth in MM-B10-3,MM-BIO-6b, MM-NOI-la,MM-NOI-lb, and MM-N0l-3, among others,will help reduce the Project's impacts on Linkage 10(and mountain lion population)to less than significant. That analysis does not rely on the design features as mitigation as the comment suggests.No additional justification is needed for those voluntary measures (which are above and beyond the extensive mitigation and monitoring plan already included). Response 27-P (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment misconstrues the analysis and findings in the Draft EIR,which acknowledges impacts to Linkage 20 but concludes that it will continue to function. Because Linkage 10 will continue to function,the mitigation measures set forth in MM-B10-3,MM-BIO-6b,MM-NOI-la,MM-NOI-lb, and MM-N0l-3, among others,will help reduce the Project's impacts on Linkage 10 (and mountain lion population)to less than significant. That analysis does not rely on the design features as mitigation as the comment suggests.No additional justification is needed for those voluntary measures (which are above and beyond the extensive mitigation and monitoring plan already included). Comment 27-Q: The comment requests that the City recirculate the Draft EIR to include new, peer-reviewed modeling of linkages,moving all development to inside of the Western Bypass, an alternative that moves all development within and to the east of the Western Bypass,additional mitigation for impacts on wildlife movement and habitat(e.g., fencing, education, livestock compensation funds, signage,recreation enforcement funds, and barriers to undesired wildlife movement in washes). Response 27-Q(Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Responses 27-K and 27-GG,which address modeling and recirculation. The Draft EIR includes Alternative 3,which reduces impacts associated with the Southern Parcel and Linkage 10 by relocating the proposed educational/institutional use from the South Parcel and eliminating the proposed elementary school. Further, some of the proposed mitigation identified is already including in the Draft EIR(see, e.g.,MM-B10-7,requiring fencing consistent with MSHCP guidelines). Because this Final EIR does not present any significant new information with regard to the Project's potential impacts on wildlife movement or habitat connected to the Southern Parcel and Linkage 10,no recirculation is required. Altair Specific Plan 3-334 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 27-Q(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 and Responses 27-K and 27-GG,which address modeling and recirculation. The Draft EIR includes Alternative 3,which reduces impacts associated with the Southern Parcel and Linkage 10 by relocating the proposed educational/institutional use from the South Parcel and eliminating the proposed elementary school. Further, some of the proposed mitigation identified is already including in the Draft EIR(see, e.g.,MM-BI0-7,requiring fencing consistent with MSHCP guidelines). Because this Final EIR does not present any significant new information with regard to the Project's potential impacts on wildlife movement or habitat connected to the Southern Parcel and Linkage 10,no recirculation is required. Comment 27-R:The commenters raise concerns regarding the presence and treatment of San Diego ambrosia on the Project Site. The commenters acknowledge that the Project site is not located within an area requiring additional surveys for the plant species but state that the population of San Diego ambrosia under discussion is in the area described for conservation within MSHCP Criteria Cell 7166. The commenters note that the Project proposes development in the portion of 7166 proposed for conservation, and claims that as a result the Altair Project needs to implement the Criteria Refinement Process, and also claim that an Equivalency Analysis would also need to be performed as part of that process. The commenters also express concern regarding the proposed voluntary translocation of the San Diego ambrosia, claim that the translocation is a mitigation measure, and request additional information and requirements be included as part of the translocation plan and that the plan be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies (along with the City) for review and approval. The commenters also request that the ten-mile limit for translocation sites be deleted. Response 27-R(Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): The DEIR identifies the population of San Diego ambrosia on the Project site, stating approximately 300 individuals were found during a previous survey. (DEIR,p. 3.3-36.) The species is listed as endangered under the federal ESA, is a CNPS list 1B.1 species, and a Narrow Endemic Plant Species under the MSHCP. (DEIR,p. 3.3-12.) San Diego ambrosia is covered under the MSHCP and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. The MSHCP serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B)of the federal ESA, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan(NCCP)under the NCCP Act. The MSHCP allows the participating jurisdictions to authorize"Take"of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. Coverage under the MSHCP is afforded because the 3 known populations are being conserved and approximately 21,800 acres of potential habitat will be conserved. The MSHCP allows for take of in excess of 50,000 acres of potential habitat. Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP provides that(1) a determination be made if the site is in a NEPSSA survey area; (2)only where the site is in a NEPSSA survey area must a survey for the plant species performed; and(3)conservation of the plant species is only required when the species is within a NEPSSA survey area and the species is observed. As described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and the MSHCP Consistency Report(Appendix C of the Draft EIR),the San Diego ambrosia lies outside of the NEPSSA or CAPSSA survey area of the MSHCP. San Diego Ambrosia is not listed in the Southwest Area Plan, Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 as a planning species. Therefore,no surveys are required and no mitigation is required.Nor does Altair Specific Plan 3-335 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments the Project require a Criteria Refinement, as previously discussed in Common Response 3.2.4. The applicant has voluntarily proposed, as a Project Conservation Feature,to translocate all San Diego ambrosia found on the site. (See DEIR, Section 2.3.6,Project Description.) This voluntary feature is not a mitigation measure, as no mitigation is required for impacts to the San Diego Ambrosia. Response 27-R(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The analysis provided above with regard to ambrosia remains the same whether or not the Project proceeds with the Civic Center Use or the Nature Center use. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Comment 27-5: The commenters express concern regarding Project impacts on the Western Pond turtle, a planning species for Linkages 13 and 14. The commenters state that the proposed Civic Site,Village G, and the road to the Civic site all have the potential to remove suitable upland western pond turtle habitat and states that additional analysis of Project impacts to the Western Pond turtle and mitigation measures are needed. Response 27-5(Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): The DEIR acknowledges that the WPT uses areas nearby upland habitat bordering aquatic areas. It explains that the WPT uses "[a]djacent upland areas . . . for overwintering and estivation sites. Temecula Creek at the confluence of Murrieta Creek appears to be a key area, along with the Santa Ana River, Santa Rosa Plateau, and San Jacinto River(Dudek 2003). Where the Civic Site abuts Murrieta Creek, the western edge of the creek has steep side slopes that limit access to the upland areas for pond turtle,while the area to the east of the creek consists of gently sloping terrain that provides better access to upland areas. The terrain west of the creek and south of the Civic Site flattens out for a portion of the creek channel making the proposed conservation area in the southern portion of the site more accessible to pond turtles."(Appx. C,p. 38.) The DEIR also provides that the WPT is a"thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,marshes,rivers, streams & irrigation ditches,usually with aquatic vegetation,below 1800 in elevation"and they "[n]eed basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields)upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying." (Appx. C1-11.) While generally the western pond turtle is known to use upland areas,the specific site conditions at the Project Site precludes usage of upland areas on the South Parcel,the road to the South Parcel, and Village G by the species. The presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel,the road to the South Parcel, and Village G likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Thus,no impacts to WPT are anticipated on the South Parcel,the road to the South Parcel, and Village G under either alternative. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR,pp. 2-8 and 2-9.) Response 27-5(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As provided above,the presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the Civic Center or Nature Center uses. Altair Specific Plan 3-336 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Comment 27-T: The commenters request that Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-2 be revised to require that the commenters be notified immediately if any burrowing owls are found onsite and to specify that the commenters' as well as RCA's approval is required before any passive or active relocation occurs. Response 27-T(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As stated on pages S-12 and 3.3-38 of the Draft EIR, and page 1-12 of the Final EIR,Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-2 states that passive or active relocation may occur when burrowing owls are present outside of the nesting season if approved by RCA and that"[s]elected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development."Page A-14 of Appendix A to the Final EIR further states that"Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and avoiding take of active nests through passive or active relocation coordinated with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)."In addition,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 will be revised to clarify that the commenters will be immediately notified if any burrowing owls are found onsite and that the commenters' and RCA's approval will be required before any passive or active relocation occurs. Response 27-T(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As stated on pages S-12 and 3.3-38 of the Draft EIR, and page 1-12 of the Final EIR,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 states that passive or active relocation may occur when burrowing owls are present outside of the nesting season if approved by RCA and that"[s]elected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development."Page A-14 of Appendix A to the Final EIR further states that"Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and avoiding take of active nests through passive or active relocation coordinated with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)."In addition,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 will be revised to clarify that the commenters will be immediately notified if any burrowing owls are found onsite and that the commenters' and RCA's approval will be required before any passive or active relocation occurs. Comment 27-U—The commenters state that they were not able to discern the future ownership and management of the Project parcels proposed for zoning as"Open Space—Natural"from the text of the DEIR nor from the maps included. The commenters ask that the City clarify the intent of Mitigation Measure BIO-6b by providing additional details identifying the location of the intended Conservation Areas on a map, and revise the wording of measure BIO-6b. Response 27-U: (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): Mitigation Measure BIO-6b, as provided in both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, states that"At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project(Conserved Lands)and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said Altair Specific Plan 3-337 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments parcels to the RCA." Thus,the measure is clear with regard to transfer and ownership of conserved lands. Below is a map identifying the location of the intended Conserved Areas. Altair Specific Plan 3-338 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 0 pPNCNO CPLIFORNV`ROPD G 3 A -_ � 1 VILLAGE A' 1 VILLAGE 'B' ♦ 5 \ OPEN \ a SPACE a e C TRACT MAP ' \ A_ N.AP, D NO.36959.1 �� B /5' 3 �y Nn V GE' "� a S 15 15 A O� ♦`\ N 19 � R\ PARK F c oq a fa LLAGE' E 9 5 SO n e �q 4 1 20 23 �? 'Ca0 11 10 22 E /1 a \ TRACT MAP 25 A 4 73\ N0.36959-?r a 1 �f v / `♦ VI GE 4 15 \ D 2 \ / A 5 ♦ s B \� ILLAG 5 \ ♦♦ 1s E fz 9 g 7 \ o / \ ♦ 13\ T CT AP ♦\ 17 c O.3 59 \ �r \ 9\ T \ p \ D 7 9 \ B J \9 ESQ \ VILLA 1 E ytiey' c NAP 41 \\ ♦ CIVIC SITE \ \ OFsf \ 1 q, f0 TRACT MAP \ OPEN ` `'`♦Conservation Area NO.36959 SPACE Phase Boundary Altair Specific Plan.140106 SOURCE:Altair Specific Plan Open Space Conservation Areas 3.Response to Comments Response 27-U: (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): Mitigation Measure Bio-6b remains the same for the Nature Center use. Comment 27-V: The commenters quote portions of Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 regarding the preparation of a Fuel Modification Plan(FMP)to reduce impacts attributable to the threat of wildfire. The commenters ask whether the Fuel Reduction Zones in the IMP,which will include a 100-foot wide buffer area,will be carved out of the conserved acreage that is intended to be donated to the RCA. The commenters also state that a wider Fuel Reduction Zone buffer can be required in some instances,up to 300 feet wide. Response 27-V: (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): The acreage proposed to be transferred to the RCA toward the MSHCP Reserve Assembly does not include the area needed for the 100- foot buffer. Therefore,the area to be transferred to the RCA is not, as the commenters suggest, reduced by areas needed for Fuel Reduction Zones. Further,the current 100-foot buffer is sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant. Response 27-V: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As with the Civic Center use,the 100- foot buffer is not included within the acreage that will be transferred to the RCA for the MSHCP Reserve Assembly. Comment 27-T: The commenters request that Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-2 be revised to require that the commenters be notified immediately if any burrowing owls are found onsite and to specify that approval is required before any passive or active relocation occurs. Response 27-T(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As stated on pages S-12 and 3.3-38 of the Draft EIR, and page 1-12 of the Final EIR,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 states that passive or active relocation may occur when burrowing owls are present outside of the nesting season if approved by RCA and that"[s]elected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development."Page A-14 of Appendix A to the Final EIR further states that"Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and avoiding take of active nests through passive or active relocation coordinated with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)."In addition,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 will be revised to clarify that the commenters will be immediately notified if any burrowing owls are found onsite and that the commenters' and RCA's approval will be required before any passive or active relocation occurs. Response 27-T(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As stated on pages S-12 and 3.3-38 of the Draft EIR, and page 1-12 of the Final EIR,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 states that passive or active relocation may occur when burrowing owls are present outside of the nesting season if approved by RCA and that"[s]elected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development."Page A-14 of Appendix A to the Final EIR further states that"Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and avoiding take of active nests through passive or active relocation coordinated with the Western Riverside County Regional Altair Specific Plan 3-340 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Conservation Authority(RCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)."In addition,Mitigation Measure MM-1310-2 will be revised to clarify that the commenters will be immediately notified if any burrowing owls are found onsite and that the commenters' and RCA's approval will be required before any passive or active relocation occurs. Comment 27-W: The commenters state that Draft EIR Section 5.2, "Review of Significant Environmental Impacts,"does not disclose the significant impacts the Project will have on assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Reserve in the MSHCP's Proposed Linkage 10, on mountain-lion movement through Linkage 10, and on the likelihood that mountain lions from the inbred Santa Ana Mountains population will continue to approach the confluence underpass by way of the Civic Site and its vicinity. The commenters state that the Draft EIR should be revised to include the following impacts as significant after mitigation: sensitive species' likelihood to continue using Linkage 10; and aggregate mountain-lion movement and gene flow within into the southern Santa Ana Mountains region. Response 27-W(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The comment refers to Draft EIR Section 5.2 and the section in the DEIR entitled"Review of Significant Environmental Impacts,"both of which are in the Draft EIR's Alternatives Analysis. The substance of the comment,however, does not address the alternatives analysis; it states that certain impacts to Linkage 10 have not been disclosed and should be considered significant after mitigation. The potential impacts raised in the comment are disclosed and analyzed in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. Specifically,Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP is discussed throughout Draft EIR Section 3.3 as well as in Draft EIR Section 3.9, at page 3.9-9,where potential impacts were found less than significant after mitigation. In addition, on pages 3.3-49 to 3.3-53 of the DEIR and pages 2-9 to 2-10 of the Final EIR,potential impacts to mountain-lion movement through Linkage 10, and mountain-lion use of the 1-15 underpass to maintain genetic diversity on both sides of the freeway, are disclosed, analyzed, and determined to be less than significant after mitigation. Furthermore,page 3.3-49 of the DEIR states that,based on radio- collar information,there may no longer be mountain-lion movement at the 1-15 underpass. Because the comment appears to be based upon a misreading of the Draft EIR, and the comment does not state any other specific inadequacies with the analysis or mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR, it is not necessary to revise the Draft EIR to conclude that the referenced impacts are significant after mitigation. Additional information responsive to this comment can be found, for example, in the FEIR's Common Response 3.2.8,Mountain Lion/Linkage Impacts, and specifically in the subsection entitled"Comments Concerning Linkage 10 Impacts"on pages 3-15 to 3-17 of the Final EIR. Response 27-W(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The comment refers to Draft EIR Section 5.2 and the section in the DEIR entitled"Review of Significant Environmental Impacts," both of which are in the Draft EIR's Alternatives Analysis. The substance of the comment, however, does not address the alternatives analysis; it states that certain impacts to Linkage 10 have not been disclosed and should be considered significant after mitigation. The potential impacts raised in the comment are disclosed and analyzed in Draft EIR Section 3.3,Biological Resources, and Section 3.9,Land Use and Planning. Specifically,Reserve Assembly of the Altair Specific Plan 3-341 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments MSHCP is discussed throughout Draft EIR Section 3.3 as well as in Draft EIR Section 3.9, at page 3.9-9,where potential impacts were found less than significant after mitigation. In addition, on pages 3.3-49 to 3.3-53 of the DEIR and pages 2-9 to 2-10 of the Final EIR,potential impacts to mountain-lion movement through Linkage 10, and mountain-lion use of the 1-15 underpass to maintain genetic diversity on both sides of the freeway, are disclosed, analyzed, and determined to be less than significant after mitigation. Furthermore,page 3.3-49 of the DEIR states that, based on radio-collar information,there may no longer be mountain-lion movement at the 1-15 underpass. Because the comment appears to be based upon a misreading of the Draft EIR, and the comment does not state any other specific inadequacies with the analysis or mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR, it is not necessary to revise the Draft EIR to conclude that the referenced impacts are significant after mitigation. Additional information responsive to this comment can be found in the FEIR's Common Response 3.2.8,Mountain Lion/Linkage Impacts, and specifically in the subsection entitled"Comments Concerning Linkage 10 Impacts"on pages 3-15 to 3-17 of the Final EIR. In response to comments from the wildlife agencies and others,the City and the Project applicant proposed the Nature Center use, a more restrictive set of land uses for the South Parcel. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A to the Final EIR,the Nature Center use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any"new"or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the Draft EIR and, as stated on page A-18 of the Final EIR,the Nature Center use would generally reduce impacts to corridor widths compared to the Civic/Institutional use described in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as stated on pages A-15 and A-18 to A-19 of the Final EIR,impacts to mountain-lion habitat and movement on Linkage 10 associated with the Nature Center use would be less severe than impacts associated with the Civic/Institutional use due to increased open space, lower intensity uses, elimination of nighttime lighting,and reduction of noise impacts. Comment 27-X: The commenters state that Draft EIR Section 6.2, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes,incorrectly concludes that the commitment of existing sensitive species' habitat to development is less than significant. The commenters state that the analysis is flawed because it does not disclose and assess the harm to the MSHCP,which the commenters identify as"the region's `existing HCP or regional conservation plan' as denoted in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist,"and that permanent loss of conservation area on this scale is a significant impact to MSHCP Reserve Assembly. The commenters state that the Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes subsection should analyze the permanent loss of the described conservation lands from Linkage 10 and the long-term impacts on mountain-lion movement between areas on either side of 1-15. Response 27-X(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The Draft EIR discloses and analyzes the impacts to Linkage 10 and consistency with the MSHCP in Draft EIR Section 3.3,Biological Resources, and Section 3.9,Land Use and Planning.After mitigation,potential impacts to Linkage 10 and the MSHCP Reserve Assembly were found less than significant. Additional details relevant to this analysis can be found in Response 27-W. In Draft EIR Section 6.2,pursuant to CEQA section 21100(b)(2)(B)and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(c),irreversible environmental changes are evaluated, and the commitment of land to development is determined to be Altair Specific Plan 3-342 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments insignificant in comparison to development in a local and regional context and the surrounding urban build environment. The comment,however, essentially asserts that changes to "habitat" should be considered an irreversible environmental change. The authority cited by the comment does not support the assertion. Contrary to the representation in the comment,the Appendix G Checklist does not reference an"existing HCP or regional conservation plan"or suggest that compliance with such plans should be analyzed as a significant irreversible environmental change. In fact, in the Appendix G Checklist, inconsistency with a conservation plan is evaluated as an impact to Biological Resources and Land Use and Planning. The Draft EIR is consistent with the Appendix G Checklist. In any event,the proposed Project will help preserve the overall reserve assemblage and important linkages for mountain lion and other wildlife. Response 27-X(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Draft EIR discloses and analyzes the impacts to Linkage 10 and consistency with the MSHCP in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. After mitigation,potential impacts to Linkage 10 and the MSHCP Reserve Assembly were found less than significant.Additional details relevant to this analysis can be found in Response 27-W. In Draft EIR Section 6.2, pursuant to CEQA section 21100(b)(2)(B) and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(c), irreversible environmental changes are evaluated, and the commitment of land to development is determined to be insignificant in comparison to development in a local and regional context and the surrounding urban build environment. The comment,however, essentially asserts that changes to "habitat" should be considered an irreversible environmental change. The authority cited by the comment does not support the assertion. Contrary to the representation in the comment,the Appendix G Checklist does not reference an"existing HCP or regional conservation plan"or suggest that compliance with such plans should be analyzed as a significant irreversible environmental change. In fact, in the Appendix G Checklist, inconsistency with a conservation plan is evaluated as an impact to Biological Resources and Land Use and Planning. The Draft EIR is consistent with the Appendix G Checklist. In any event,the proposed Project will help preserve the overall reserve assemblage and important linkages for mountain lion and other wildlife. Comment 27-Y: The commenters state that the Civic Use Area would have only 19 gross development acres under the proposed Project but 28 gross development acres under Alternative 3. The commenters further state that Alternative 3, and not Alternative 2, is the environmentally superior alternative among the three development alternatives, and that Alternative 3 "would accomplish the most important goals of the Altair Project." Response 27-Y(Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): Page 5-17 of the DEIR states that the potential impacts of the alternatives and the proposed Project are summarized and compared in Table 5-3 and that,based on Table 5-3,Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative among the development alternatives. Table 5-3 of the DEIR indicates that, in comparison to the proposed Project, 10 of 14 potential project impacts are reduced under Alternative 2,whereas only 5 of 14 potential project impacts are reduced under Alternative 3. The commenters focus on potential project impacts to biological resources,which is the only potential project impact that is reduced under Alternative 3 without also being reduced under Alternative 2. Despite the difference in this single potential project impact, as correctly stated in the DEIR, Table 5-3 Altair Specific Plan 3-343 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments indicates that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative among the development alternatives. Alternative 3 also fails to meet two project objectives.As stated in Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR (page 5-7),Alternative 3 fails to meet the following the two project objectives • "Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project,plazas,trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600- 730 students,which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town's amenities"; and • "Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public,and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15." In Table 5-2 (as well as on, for example,pages 5-2 to 5-3)the DEIR lists 10 Project Objectives, and the commenters do not explain why they assert that providing a diverse range of housing types and"a Civic Use Area large enough to create a university,hospital,research park or events center adjacent to Temecula's Old Town District"are"the most important goals of the Altair project. Furthermore, as stated in Table5-2,Alternative 3 would not meet the project objective of providing a civic site of adequate size. The commenters also do not indicate what significance they attribute to their calculation of the available gross development area. The calculation is incorrect to the extent that it is intended to indicate that the civic site would occupy a larger area under Alternative 3. As indicated in the DEIR,the opposite is true. As stated in the description of Alternative 3 on page 5-6 of the DEIR, the proposed civic use would be relocated"to the area of the proposed elementary school site" and the elementary school would be eliminated from the Project. Accordingly,the civic use would occupy only the Elementary School Site under Alternative 3; it would not occupy the Elementary School Site and Village C, as suggested by the commenters' calculation. As stated on page 2-9 of the DEIR,the civic use in the proposed Project will be located on the South Parcel,which is approximately 55 gross acres with a development area of approximately 19 acres and a buildable area of approximately 10 acres after site preparation. In contrast, as stated on page 2-10 of the DEIR,the Elementary School Site is approximately 7 gross acres with a buildable area of approximately 5 acres after site preparation. Under Alternative 3,the civic use would therefore be relocated to a site with a buildable area approximately half the size, and gross acreage of approximately one-eighth the size, of that in the proposed Project. Response 27-Y(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Page 5-17 of the DEIR states that the potential impacts of the alternatives and the proposed Project are summarized and compared in Table 5-3 and that,based on Table 5-3,Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative among the development alternatives. Table 5-3 of the DEIR indicates that, in comparison to the proposed Project, 10 of 14 potential project impacts are reduced under Alternative 2,whereas only 5 of 14 potential project impacts are reduced under Alternative 3. The commenters focus on potential project impacts to biological resources,which is the only potential project impact that is Altair Specific Plan 3-344 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments reduced under Alternative 3 without also being reduced under Alternative 2. Despite the difference in this single potential project impact, as correctly stated in the DEIR, Table 5-3 indicates that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative among the development alternatives. Alternative 3 also fails to meet two project objectives.As stated in Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR (page 5-7),Alternative 3 fails to meet the following the two project objectives • "Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project,plazas,trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600- 730 students,which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town's amenities"; and • "Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15." In Table 5-2 (as well as on, for example,pages 5-2 to 5-3)the DEIR lists 10 Project Objectives, and the commenters do not explain why they assert that providing a diverse range of housing types and"a Civic Use Area large enough to create a university,hospital,research park or events center adjacent to Temecula's Old Town District"are"the most important goals of the Altair project. Furthermore, as stated in Table5-2,Alternative 3 would not meet the project objective of providing a civic site of adequate size. The commenters also do not indicate what significance they attribute to their calculation of the available gross development area. The calculation is incorrect to the extent that it is intended to indicate that the civic site would occupy a larger area under Alternative 3. As indicated in the DEIR,the opposite is true. As stated in the description of Alternative 3 on page 5-6 of the DEIR, the proposed civic use would be relocated"to the area of the proposed elementary school site" and the elementary school would be eliminated from the Project. Accordingly,the civic use would occupy only the Elementary School Site under Alternative 3; it would not occupy the Elementary School Site and Village C, as suggested by the commenters' calculation. As stated on page 2-9 of the DEIR,the civic use in the proposed Project will be located on the South Parcel,which is approximately 55 gross acres with a development area of approximately 19 acres and a buildable area of approximately 10 acres after site preparation. In contrast, as stated on page 2-10 of the DEIR,the Elementary School Site is approximately 7 gross acres with a buildable area of approximately 5 acres after site preparation. Under Alternative 3,the civic use would therefore be relocated to a site with a buildable area approximately half the size, and gross acreage of approximately one-eighth the size, of that in the proposed Project. Comment 27-Z: The commenters list three alternatives that are not considered in the Draft EIR: the Project accompanied by the Conservation Area Criteria Refinement in the MSHCP; the Project with the Civic Use centrally located in Village C and no development in the South Parcel and Village G sites; and the Project with the Civic Use relocated to vacant land in Temecula's city center. Altair Specific Plan 3-345 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 27-Z(Specific Plan with Civic Use): In Chapter 5,the Draft EIR considers three alternatives to the proposed Project: a No Project/No Development alternative, as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(1); an alternative that would develop the Project site according to the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan,which would result in significantly fewer residential units and elimination of the civic use and elementary school; and an alternative that would relocate the proposed civic use from the South Parcel to the site of the elementary school in Village C and eliminate the elementary school. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, "[a]n EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The three alternatives analyzed by the Draft EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives that, other than the No Project/No Development alternative, would feasibly attain most of the Project Objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a number of the significant effects of the Project. The comment does not state or provide any analysis to the contrary, and does not indicate whether the additional three proposed alternatives would Project Objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a number of the significant effects of the Project. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 further provides that"[a]n EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation." The comment does not state or provide any analysis suggesting that the alternatives considered in the Draft EIR are not a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation, and the Draft EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative. Response 27-Z(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): In Chapter 5,the Draft EIR considers three alternatives to the proposed Project: a No Project/No Development alternative, as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(1); an alternative that would develop the Project site according to the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan,which would result in significantly fewer residential units and elimination of the civic use and elementary school; and an alternative that would relocate the proposed civic use from the South Parcel to the site of the elementary school in Village C and eliminate the elementary school. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, "[a]n EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The three alternatives analyzed by the Draft EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives that, other than the No Project/No Development alternative, would feasibly attain most of the Project Objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a number of the significant effects of the Project. The comment does not state or provide any analysis to the contrary, and does not indicate whether the additional three proposed alternatives would Project Objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a number of the significant effects of the Project. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 further provides that"[a]n EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation." The comment does not state or provide any analysis suggesting that the alternatives considered in the Draft EIR are not a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation, and the Draft EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative. In addition, in response to comments from the wildlife agencies and others,the City and the Project applicant proposed the Nature Center use, a more restrictive set of land uses for the South Parcel under the proposed Project. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A to the Final EIR,the Altair Specific Plan 3-346 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Nature Center use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any"new"or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the Draft EIR. To the extent that the comment proposes the three additional alternatives to reduce impacts, and particularly impacts to the South Parcel,the Final EIR speaks to these concerns through the Nature Center use proposed in Appendix A of the Final EIR. Comment 27-AA: The species list included with the DEIR incorrectly identifies several species as being covered by the MSHCP,which the comment asks be corrected in the EIR. The comment also notes that because focused surveys for plants and small mammals were not conducted,the lack of observation of three species is not conclusive of presence/absence: chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita), Gander's ragwort(Packera ganderi), and Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis). The comment further asserts that these species have been observed within the vicinity, and calls on the EIR preparer to specify information used to conclude that the site is unsuitable or to withdraw this conclusion from the EIR. Response 27-AA(Specific Plan with Civic Use): As to the reference to coverage in the MSHCP for certain species,the clarification is noted and incorporated in Draft EIR Table 3.3-3 and Appendix C 1. While some of the identified species have suitable habitat present onsite, others did not. Of the balance,habitat quality was limited or poor. None of the identified species was found during biological surveys conducted onsite. While the comment notes that focused surveys are necessary to prove presence/absence for chaparral sand-verbena(Abronia villosa var. aurita), Gander's ragwort(Packera ganderi), and Dulzura pocket mouse(Chaetodipus californicus femoralis),much of the site was subject to prior grading and disturbance. Further, surveys and vegetation mapping were conducted, and these species were determined to have a low likelihood of occurrence based on the low quality of habitat actually observed. The lack of observation of these species was thus expected and simply verified the conclusions of the expert biologists that conducted the site surveys. As to the reference to coverage in the MSHCP for certain species, the clarification is noted and incorporated in Draft EIR Table 3.3-3. Response 27-AA(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): As to the reference to coverage in the MSHCP for certain species,the clarification is noted and incorporated in Draft EIR Table 3.3-3 and Appendix C 1. While some of the identified species have suitable habitat present onsite, others did not. Of the balance,habitat quality was limited or poor. None of the identified species was found during biological surveys conducted onsite. While the comment notes that focused surveys are necessary to prove presence/absence for chaparral sand-verbena(Abronia villosa var. aurita),Gander's ragwort(Packera ganderi),and Dulzura pocket mouse(Chaetodipus californicus femoralis),much of the site was subject to prior grading and disturbance. Further, surveys and vegetation mapping were conducted, and these species were determined to have a low likelihood of occurrence based on the low quality of habitat actually observed. The lack of observation of these species was thus expected and simply verified the conclusions of the expert biologists that conducted the site surveys. As to the reference to coverage in the MSHCP for certain species,the clarification is noted and incorporated in Draft EIR Table 3.3-3. Comment 27-BB: Page 3.3-11of the DEIR states that"[t]he project area does not occur within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area(NEPSSA)or a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area(CASSA)per Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP;therefore,no focused plant surveys Altair Specific Plan 3-347 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments were required."However,the MSHCP does not cover all special-status species; it only provides coverage for those species included in the MSHCP's list of"covered species". CEQA's mandatory findings of significance(CEQA Guidelines section 15065) state that a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it would substantially reduce the numbers or range of a rare,threatened or endangered species. This includes species that meet the definition of "rare", "threatened",or"endangered"in CEQA Guidelines section 15380(b),regardless of whether they are formally listed as such under State or Federal law. These species are commonly referred to as"special-status species". The DEIR lists a total of ten(10) special-status species that(a)have a moderate or greater potential to occur, or are known to occur,within the project area, and(b)are not covered by the MSHCP,including delicate clarkia(Clarkia delicata),paniculate tarplant(Deinandra paniculata), western dichondra(Dichondra occidentalis),mesa horkelia(Horkelia cuneata ssp.puberla), Ramona horkelia(Horkelia truncata),Robinson's pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), chaparral rein orchid(Piperia cooperi),white rabbit tobacco(Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), ashy spike-moss(Selaginella cinerascens), and pallid bat(Antrozous pallidus). Because no focused plant,reptile, or bat surveys were conducted for these special-status species on the project site, it should be assumed that these species are present on-site until species- specific surveys demonstrate otherwise. The Wildlife Agencies request that the revised and recirculated DEIR include a thorough and detailed analysis of the potential project impacts to the above-mentioned species, as well as feasible and enforceable avoidance,minimization, and/or mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to them to a level that is less than significant. Response 27-BB (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Focused surveys for these species were not performed based on guidelines set forth by the MSHCP. Of the plant species listed, seven are either outside of the known range of the species, do not have any CNDDB records within close proximity of the site (occur within 10 miles), and/or lack appropriate habitat conditions (i.e. soil) and as such are not expected on the Project site. Species falling within this category are: Delicate clarkia(Clarkia delicata),western dichondra(Dichondra occidentalai),mesa horkelia(Horkelia cuneate ssp.puberla),Ramona horkelia(Horkelia truncata), Robinson's pepper-grass(Lepidium virginicum var. robonsonii), chaparral rein orchid(Pepiria cooperi), and ashy spike-moss (selaginella cinerascens). The remaining two plant species,paniculate tarplant(deinandra paniculate)and white rabbit tobacco(Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), are,based on CNDDB records,known to occur within potentially 10 miles of the Project site. These species are not listed as threatened or endangered under federal or state law. The Project site contains some suitable habitat for these species,however, any impacts are not considered significant given the large area of potentially suitable habitat that will be conserved within the onsite open space preserve. Similarly,while identified as a species of special concern,the pallid bat is not listed as threatened or endangered under federal or state law, and potential impacts are not considered significant given that about 95%percent of potential onsite habitat for pallid bat(coast live oak woodland)will similarly be conserved within the onsite open space preserve. And while not explicitly covered by the MSHCP,these species are all anticipated to benefit from landscape-scale conservation of habitats that is being achieved through implementation of the MSHCP. Altair Specific Plan 3-348 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Response 27-BB (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Focused surveys for these species were not performed based on guidelines set forth by the MSHCP. Of the plant species listed, seven are either outside of the known range of the species, do not have any CNDDB records within close proximity of the site (occur within 10 miles), and/or lack appropriate habitat conditions (i.e. soil) and as such are not expected on the Project site. Species falling within this category are: Delicate clarkia(Clarkia delicata),western dichondra(Dichondra occidentalai),mesa horkelia(Horkelia cuneate ssp.puberla),Ramona horkelia(Horkelia truncata),Robinson's pepper-grass(Lepidium virginicum var. robonsonii), chaparral rein orchid(Pepiria cooperi), and ashy spike-moss (selaginella cinerascens). The remaining two plant species,paniculate tarplant(deinandra particulate)and white rabbit tobacco(Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), are,based on CNDDB records,known to occur within potentially 10 miles of the Project site. These species are not listed as threatened or endangered under federal or state law. The Project site contains some suitable habitat for these species,however, any impacts are not considered significant given the large area of potentially suitable habitat that will be conserved within the onsite open space preserve. Similarly,while identified as a species of special concern,the pallid bat is not listed as threatened or endangered under federal or state law, and potential impacts are not considered significant given that about 95%percent of potential onsite habitat for pallid bat(coast live oak woodland)will similarly be conserved within the onsite open space preserve. And while not explicitly covered by the MSHCP,these species are all anticipated to benefit from landscape-scale conservation of habitats that is being achieved through implementation of the MSHCP. Comment 27-CC: The commenters make three main comments related to impacts to nesting and migratory birds. First,the commenters state that the Project proponents must comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey, and specifically discuss the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended(16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.), and Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Second,the commenters recommend that Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 require preconstruction surveys outside of peak nesting season and state that preconstruction surveys should be conducted no more than three days prior to initiating Project activities. Third,the commenters request that Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 be amended to require that preconstruction nest surveys be conducted by a biologist with documented prior experience independently locating bird nests, including the nests of four specified species, in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Response 27-CC (Specific Plan with Civic Use): The Project will comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Under the statutes discussed by the commenters, modification of habitat alone does not constitute a take. On pages 3.3-36 to 3.3-37,the Draft EIR discloses and analyzes potential impacts to birds, including nesting birds and birds of prey,that may result from construction activities;mitigates those potential impacts through the measures described in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1; and determines that impacts will be less than significant. Second,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 is consistent with common survey protocols and mitigation measures in requiring preconstruction surveys on a seasonal, as opposed to a year- round,basis and in requiring that such surveys occur no more than seven days prior to clearing, grubbing, construction, or ground-disturbing activities. As stated on page 3.3-36,Mitigation Altair Specific Plan 3-349 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Measure MM-BIO-1 already requires that the preconstruction surveys be conducted by a party with sufficient expertise,namely,"a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys." Response 27-CC (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The Project will comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Under the statutes discussed by the commenters,modification of habitat alone does not constitute a take. On pages 3.3-36 to 3.3-37, the Draft EIR discloses and analyzes potential impacts to birds,including nesting birds and birds of prey,that may result from construction activities;mitigates those potential impacts through the measures described in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1; and determines that impacts will be less than significant. Second,Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 is consistent with common survey protocols and mitigation measures in requiring preconstruction surveys on a seasonal, as opposed to a year-round,basis and in requiring that such surveys occur no more than seven days prior to clearing, grubbing, construction, or ground-disturbing activities. As stated on page 3.3-36, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 already requires that the preconstruction surveys be conducted by a party with sufficient expertise,namely, "a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys." Comment 27-DD: The comment states that it appears the Jurisdictional Delineation(JD) prepared for the project(DEIR,App. M)refers to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1.72, for its definition of"stream,"which is not the definition of a stream used by CDFW under its Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The comment notes that the JD appears to have excluded portions of on-site streams which do not necessarily follow the Section 1.72 definition, including areas identified as non jurisdictional swales. CDFW asks that a revised delineation be included that encompasses areas that do not have a visible ordinary high water mark or that conduct subsurface flow. The comment notes as well that the Streambed Alteration Agreement referenced in the DEIR at page 2-16 has expired and that a new Notification will be required prior to construction of the Western Bypass bridge. Response 27-DD (Specific Plan with Civic Use): Utilizing common methods for delineating the boundaries of streams,wetlands, and other waters,the Jurisdictional Delineation Report(DEIR, App. M)mapped those areas exhibiting the characteristics of streams based on both the regulatory definition of"stream"and more recent CDFW guidance on dryland watersheds. The mapped areas, in turn, included those areas exhibiting riparian vegetation and surface flow(even periodic or intermittent flow), as well as woodland, southern willow scrub, and herbaceous wetland areas. Thus,the area delineated in the JD as jurisdictional under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code extends beyond the limits of a stream strictly defined under existing State regulations (Title 14, Section 1.72).9 Further,while CDFW might not rely on Section 1.72 to 9 The definition of"stream"promulgated in Section 1.72 of the Fish and Game Code is consistent with the common law definition of stream,which has been described as"a watercourse having a source and terminus,banks and channel,through which waters flow, at least periodically,"and which is"usually formed by surface waters gathering together in one channel and flowing therein." ( Altair Specific Plan 3-350 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments define the boundaries of streams regulated under Section 1602,neither the Fish and Game Code nor any other State regulation provides an alternative definition. In the absence of any competing regulation or statute,the delineation conducted for the EIR is a reasonable determination of the physical and biological features associated with the region's streams and other state waters and wetlands regulated under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. The comment further clarifies that a new Notification will be required prior to bridge construction,which is noted and acknowledged by this reference. Response 27-DD (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The response to this comment is unchanged whether the Project proceeds with the Civic Center use or the Nature Center use. Comment 27-EE—The commenters acknowledge that the project's redesign of the Western Bypass reduces the identified impacts in the northern portion of the roadway and that the Consistency Report(DEIR Appendix C) states that reduction of the Western Bypass footprint will offset project road impacts. The commenters request that the City work with the RCA on a minor amendment to the MSHCP that modifies Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP to reflect the removal of the northern portion of the Western Bypass and documents the exchanged impact acreage. Response 27-EE (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): The city will work with the RCA on a minor amendment to the MSHCP to amend Figure 7-1 to show the currently proposed alignment of the Western Bypass, once the Specific Plan is acted upon. Response 27-EE (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The city will work with the RCA on a minor amendment to the MSHCP to amend Figure 7-1 to show the currently proposed alignment of the Western Bypass, once the Specific Plan is acted upon. Comment 27-FF—The commenters state that the Project's MSHCP Consistency Report provides that a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation(DBESP)document is required for unavoidable impacts to riparian and riverine resources. The commenter states a concern with the mitigation ratio of 1 to 1 provided in the Consistency Report(DEIR,Appendix C)for temporary and permanent impacts to riverine resources, stating that the ratio will result in a 50 percent loss of the natural resource. Response 27-FF: (Specific Plan with Civic Center Use): Several commenters have raised issues concerning the Project's DBESP and impacts to riverine and riparian resources on the Project site. As a result, Common Response 3.2.6 was prepared to address the issues raised in Comment 27-DD. As provided in Common Response 3.2.6,consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, the project proposes to mitigate for these impacts at a 3:1 ratio for Riparian resources and at a 1:1 ratio for Riverine resources. These mitigation ratios are minimum requirements, subject to review and approval by the reviewing agencies. The mitigation will be determined through discussions with the City and resource agencies. Minimization and mitigation measures would result in equivalent or superior preservation of the functions and values of Riparian/Riverine resources impacted by the proposed project. As provided in the Draft EIR,the impacts to 1.21 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat will require that a DBESP be prepared, as required under the MSHCP (refer to DRAFT EIR,p. 3.3-41). The DBESP is processed by the RCA and includes consultation Altair Specific Plan 3-351 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments with the wildlife agencies. The DBESP will discuss details of the impacts and proposed mitigation in order to demonstrate that the mitigation is at least equivalent to the habitat proposed to be impacted. Based on this,the project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine policy of the MSHCP. Response 27-FF: (Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): Riparian/Riverine impacts within the South Parcel are the same for both the Civic Site Use and the Nature Center use and total 0.35 acre. Both uses avoid 1.103 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat within the South Parcel(refer to Final EIR,Appx. A). Please see Common Response 3.2.6. Comment 27-GG: In concluding,the comment states generally that the proposed project configuration would result in irreversible damage to the MSHCP and permanent impacts to the mountain lion population of the Santa Monica Mountains, and that there are new significant impacts, substantially more severe effects, and additional feasible alternatives and mitigation considerably different that would lessen project impacts on biological resources. The comment requests that the DEIR be recirculated after additional analysis and mitigation is provided and the criteria refinement process has been completed. Response 27-GG(Specific Plan with Civic Use): The linkage to the Santa Monica Mountains population of mountain lions is constrained under existing conditions. The proposed project configuration and contributions to the MSHCP will help ensure long-term viability of the MSHCP and adequate conservation on the sub-unit basis as well as limit impingement on Linkages 10 and 14. The South Parcel—which only forms a relatively small portion of Linkage 10—is not a significant area used by mountain lion to connect with the Santa Monica Mountains population. While commenters might disagree with the analysis and conclusions of the DEIR, that does not amount to significant new information. Indeed, as directed by the California Supreme Court in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918 (2017), the EIR here discloses the extent of impacts and provides considerable mitigation for biological resources and includes considerable analysis of MSHCP consistency. Where warranted,changes have been incorporated in the biological resources chapter and additional analysis has been conducted of MSHCP consistency, including the analysis set forth in Common Response 3.2.2, 3.2.8 and Section 2.0 of the Final EIR. This information,however, does not qualify for recirculation, as there are no new significant impacts or more severe unmitigated impacts;rather, the City has added information to the EIR to clarify and amplify its earlier conclusions and analysis. Please also see Responses 27-A through 27-FF and Common Responses 3.2.1 through 3.2.8 Response 27-GG(Specific Plan with Nature Center Use): The linkage to the Santa Monica Mountains population of mountain lions is constrained under existing conditions. The proposed project configuration and contributions to the MSHCP will help ensure long-term viability of the MSHCP and adequate conservation on the sub-unit basis as well as limit impingement on Linkages 10 and 14. The South Parcel—which only forms a relatively small portion of Linkage 10—is not a significant area used by mountain lion to connect with the Santa Monica Mountains population. While commenters might disagree with the analysis and conclusions of the DEIR, that does not amount to significant new information. Indeed, as directed by the California Altair Specific Plan 3-352 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 3.Response to Comments Supreme Court in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918 (2017), the EIR here discloses the extent of impacts and provides considerable mitigation for biological resources and includes considerable analysis of MSHCP consistency. Where warranted, changes have been incorporated in the biological resources chapter and additional analysis has been conducted of MSHCP consistency, including the analysis set forth in Common Response3.2.2, 3.2.8 and Section 2.0 of the Final EIR. This information,however, does not qualify for recirculation, as there are no new significant impacts or more severe unmitigated impacts;rather, the City has added information to the EIR to clarify and amplify its earlier conclusions and analysis. Further, in direct response to comments from wildlife agencies and the public,the City has added consideration of the Nature Center use,which would considerably limit the list of allowing public uses for that parcel and reduce the density and intensity of uses. The Nature Center use would increase the width of the remaining linkage for mountain lions. Please also see Responses 27-A through 27-FF and Common Responses 3.2.1 through 3.2.8, and FEIR,Appendix A(Nature Center Use Analysis). Altair Specific Plan 3-353 ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 APPENDIX A South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis Altair Specific Plan ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 APPENDIX A South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 1 . Introduction and Use Description The Altair Specific Plan proposes the development of approximately 270 acres located west of and adjacent to Old Town Temecula,within the City of Temecula(City), California. The 270- acre project site consists of two portions: 215 acres comprising the primary Specific Plan area that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the north and Temecula Parkway on the south, and a non-contiguous 55-acre site to the south of Future Western Bypass that is currently proposed to be designated for a civic or institutional use in the Specific Plan(referred to as the South Parcel or the Civic Site in the Draft EIR and associated Appendices). The Draft EIR circulated in May 2016 for this project analyzed a community college with up to 5,000 students and 400 employees, and included impacts and mitigation measures,which were documented based upon this worst-case land use. Many of the comments received on the DEIR expressed concerns about the proposed uses on the South Parcel portion of the Specific Plan. On February 14,2017, in response to these comments provided on the Draft EIR by public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals,the City Council held a public hearing to provide direction to City staff for the development and inclusion of an alternative land use on the Altair Specific Plan South Parcel that would reduce impacts as compared to the proposed land use options contained within the Specific Plan. City staff,working with the Altair project applicant, developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the South Parcel portion of the Specific Plan. The project applicant has agreed to the proposed change in land use on the South Parcel and the City, as lead agency,has prepared this additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already evaluated in full in the Draft EIR. This analysis concludes that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), a proposed Nature Center use alternative for the Civic Site would not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Specifically,this use alternative and supplemental impact analysis does not amount to "significant new information"and does not warrant recirculation because the Nature Center use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any"new"or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the Draft EIR. 1.1 South Parcel Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations The South Parcel is currently designated as Hillside Residential(HR)within the City of Temecula's General Plan(City of Temecula 2005). The General Plan designated HR uses to have Altair Specific Plan A-1 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis very low density housing in areas best suited for hillside open space or with severe development constraints,where the allowable density for this land use is<0.1 dwelling unit per acre. The South Parcel is not identified as being within the SP-8—Westside/Villages at Old Town area shown on Figure LU-4 in the General Plan, as portions of the Specific Plan area are. The South Parcel is designated as Hillside Residential Zoning District(HR)within the City of Temecula's Zoning Code(City of Temecula 2017). The HR zoning designation provides for the development of very low density residential uses and includes properties that have severe constraints for development, such as hillside areas with slopes over 25 percent. The minimum lot size in the HR district is 10 net acres (City of Temecula 2017). 1.2 Proposed Use for the South Parcel in Draft EIR Under the original Draft EIR,which was circulated for public review in May 2016,the majority of the South Parcel would be conserved as natural or manufactured open space,resulting in a development area of approximately 19 acres and a buildable footprint of approximately 9 acres after initial site preparation(manufactured slopes,retaining walls,landscape buffers,etc.). See Figure 2-2,Land Use Plan,and Figure 2-3,Proposed Zoning,of the Draft EIR. The proposed zoning for this parcel under the proposed project is Specific Plan—Institutional(SP-I)and Specific Plan—Natural Open Space(SP-NO).Under the proposed project,the South Parcel could be developed as an educational facility that would accommodate up to 5,000 students,or an office/research and development campus.In addition to,or in lieu of,an educational/research facility,other institutional uses may include,but are not limited to, a convention center,hospital, and/or cultural center.Regardless of the use(s),the site would allow a maximum of 450,000 building square feet,with buildings up to five stories in height.Project features incorporated into project design,to buffer wildlife activity in the conserved areas of the site,include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high berm on the southern side of the building area,and the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the building area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow driving speeds.At the southerly end of the site,the project would improve an existing unimproved utility maintenance road described as`B"Street South and"C" Street to a Local Road(60-foot right-of-way)standard. These improvements would provide access to Village G and the South Parcel.Portions of`B" Street S. and"C"Street would cross over offsite MWD property.Those offsite portions would be improved to MWD standards and require permanent easements from the District. 1.3 Proposed Use for the South Parcel in Final EIR As an option to the Civic/Institutional use on the South Parcel,the Nature Center use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet and a two-story maximum building height. The Nature Center pad elevation would be about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project,this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and passive recreation. The components of the Nature Center use for the South Parcel are discussed in greater detail below and are shown in Figure 1,Nature Center Site Plan, and Table 1-1,Nature Center/South Parcel. Altair Specific Plan A-2 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 I I C Street i j Western j Bypass \�� Natural it Open Space B Street./. \ �. \ South \ Primary I Secondary Fire . �\ Access � Access Only 1 � 1 Parking i I Trail From Offsite To Trail Network I Buildable Pad '-7 .' (5%-10%grade) Trail From Offsite Nature Center \` To Nature Center I I (5%-8%grade) Camino Reve it O engetated ce Estribo . \ i Trail From Nature Center . \ i To Trail Network (8%-10%grade) \ +° Trail From Nature Center To Trail Network (5% grade) Natural \ ♦ Open Space \ I Future Trails rvictinn Trails To Be Determined�J / 1 � I 1 _ Buildable Pad I 1 / ♦ / Revegetated Open Space Natural Open Space ■ M Camino Estribo I (existing unimproved road) 1 11 ♦ / 1 0 400 \ / i \ \ J Feet Altair Speci is Plan.140106 SOURCE:Ambient,2017 Figure 1 Nature Center Site Plan A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 1-1 NATURE CENTER/SOUTH PARCEL Component Area(acres) Natural Open Space Area Undisturbed Open Space 33.84 Camino Estribo(unimproved) 1.40 Trails 2.00 Subtotal—Natural Open Space Area 37.24 Disturbed Area Fill Area(not including Nature Center Pad/Streets/Trails) 11.11 Nature Center Pad(including parking lot) 3.70 Trails 1.21 B&C Street 0.70 Drainage Improvements 0.85 Subtotal—Disturbed Area 17.68 Total 54.92 NOTES: Fill Area:850 cubic yards(cy)cut/512,700 cy fill Fill area would be revegetated 1. Nature Center Parcel:16.17(includes disturbed area+1.68 acres of Natural Open Space Area) 2. Open Space Parcel:38.75 3. Nature Center Building:12,000 square feet(sf)footprint/20,000 maximum—2-story 4. Nature Center Parking:120 spaces 5. Final Natural Open Space Trails to be sited in consultation with Pechanga 6. 10 percent maximum trail grade SOURCE:Ambient,2017 Nature Center Building and Parking Lots The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings up to a maximum building area of 20,000 square feet and a maximum building height of two-stories. The Nature Center land use would provide a public benefit to the City by offering educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture,the natural environment, and sustainability of the region, as well as provide recreational trails and facilities within the preserved area of the site. The trail would the trail will be self-contained to the Civic Site via out and back, or loop trail to and from the Nature Center. If more than one building is proposed,the buildings would be designed to be cohesive through orientation and architecture. The Nature Center buildings would also be designed similar to Nature Centers in the region, including compatible materials and colors and would incorporate integrated indoor and outdoor spaces to connect the site to the surrounding natural setting. Further,the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. One parking lot would be constructed to provide 120 parking spaces for employees and visitors to the Nature Center in accordance with the City of Temecula's Parking Standards. The buildings,parking lots, and hardscape areas would have stormwater treatment features designed to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Trails and landscaping would be designed Altair Specific Plan A-4 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis to minimize erosion and vegetation/habitat impacts. Operation of the Nature Center would be limited from daytime hours, and would have minimal nighttime lighting. The expected monthly average number of visitors is 7,213. Special events could be held at the Nature Center that could draw larger than average crowds. Open Space The Nature Center land use would preserve approximately 37.24 acres as natural open space, which is the same as provided under the Civic Site use. The preservation of a significant portion of the Civic Site as natural open space would aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of wildlife movement between the Cleveland National Forest and the Palomar Mountains. The project site would create approximately 1.15 miles of new trails. Currently,the project site contains 0.80 mile of existing trails. Therefore, at build-out,the Nature Center land use would include a total of 1.95 miles of trails. Table 1-1 provides the details of the Nature Center Planning Area. Grading Plan The area of disturbance for the Nature Center planning area(including fill area,Nature Center pad,parking lot,trails,B&C Street, and drainage improvements)would be 17.68 acres as described above in Table 1-1. A total of approximately 850 cubic yards(cy)of soil would be excavated and 512,200 cy of fill would be used onsite from other areas of the project site. Access and Circulation The South Parcel is bounded by Camino Estribo and open space to the west, "C" Street and a stormwater easement(open space)to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east and south. Vehicular access to the South Parcel would be provided via the existing road referred to as`B" Street South from the proposed Western Bypass. 1.4 Land Use Change Comparison Table 1-2,Land Use Change Comparison,provides a comparison of the Civic/Institutional use analyzed within the Draft EIR and the Nature Center Alternative analyzed within this document. As summarized in Table 1-2, implementation of the Nature Center land use would result in a 95 percent or greater reduction of the maximum allowable building size and a 60 percent reduction in the maximum building height. In addition,the Nature Center land use would limit the amount of permitted uses on the site to just this land use. Altair Specific Plan A-rJ ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 1-2 LAND USE CHANGE COMPARISON Allotted Civic/Institutional Use Nature Center Use Use Change Comparison Uses (Draft EIR) (Final EIR) (Civic Use to Nature Center) 450,000 SF building(s) 20,000 sf building(s) 95 percent reduction in maximum Most- building square footage Intense 5-story building heights 2-story building heights Use 5,000 students N/A—students 60 percent reduction in maximum building height University Nature Center/Exhibits Permitted Uses: Hospital and Medical Office Trails/Bicycle Paths Park& Nature Center/Exhibits Hotel Recreational Facilities Trails/Bicycle Paths Parking Lot Trails/Bicycle Paths Conference Rooms Park&Recreational Facilities Nature Center/Exhibits Library Park&Recreational Facilities Museum and Galleries Conditionally Permitted If Consistent Conference Facilities Restaurant with Nature Center Use: Permitted Library Offices Conference Rooms Uses Parking Lot Library Museum and Galleries Religious Institutions Museum and Galleries Restaurant Restaurant Offices Offices Community Garden Athletic Fields and Game Courts Parking Lot or Structure Altair Specific Plan A-6 ESA /D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2. South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis The following analysis has been prepared to evaluate the proposed South Parcel Nature Center Use and document associated impacts in comparison to (1)the South Parcel Civic Use and(2)the overall Specific Plan with the South Parcel Nature Center. The same environmental factors evaluated in the Draft EIR are evaluated herein. 2.1 Aesthetics The Nature Center use would reduce the building footprint on the South Parcel compared to the Civic/Institutional use. The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings to a maximum of 20,000 building square feet and a two-story maximum,which is less than the Civic/Institutional use by 430,000 building square feet and three stories in height. The Nature Center use would preserve a significant amount of natural open space.As with the Civic/Institutional use,views of the project area are available from points along I-15; however, the proposed Nature Center use would be minimally visible from 1-15.Views of the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau from I-15 would not be substantially affected by the proposed Nature Center use. As with the Civic/Institutional use,the proposed Nature Center use would adhere to the design guidelines and development standards of the project and the proposed structures would meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual interest. Lastly, as with the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center use would introduce a new source of light and glare to the Civic Site from building,parking, and security lighting. However,the Nature Center would have substantially less lighting than the Civic/Institutional use due to a smaller building area/development footprint. In addition,the Nature Center would not operate throughout the evening and,therefore,would not require as much lighting during the evening. Moreover,the Nature Center use would have less lighting and glare from cars because fewer people would travel to and from the site compared to the Civic/Institutional use. Because the Nature Center use would further reduce potential impacts associated with scenic vistas, scenic resources,visual character, and light and glare,the aesthetic impacts of the Specific Plan will remain less than significant with this alternative land use. 2.2 Air Quality Similar to the Civic/Institutional uses, air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed South Parcel Nature Center use would result from operations at the site and from traffic volumes. Construction activities would also generate air pollutant emissions at the South Parcel and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The net increase in emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been estimated using the same methodology as used to calculate emissions for the Civic/Institutional use within the Draft EIR(Appendix Al). With respect to odors and localized impacts from toxic air contaminants(TACs),because the construction and majority of operation are similar, and the replacement of the institutional land use with a Nature Center land use would not introduce any new odor sources associated with nuisance complaints or TACs sources that are not permitted,the Nature Center use would have a reduced potential to result in localized odor or TAC impacts. Altair Specific Plan A-7 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2.2.1 Construction The project would replace the Civic/Institutional use from Phase 3 of the overall development with a Nature Center use,but would not change any of the Phase 1 or Phase 2 development. With the Nature Center,the same amount of residential and commercial land uses would be developed, however instead of Civic/Institutional uses,the Nature Center use would result in the construction of a 20,000-square-foot Nature Center building, and include outdoor and recreational land uses. The timing and acreage to be temporarily disturbed would be similar under the Civic/Institutional use,with the only change being the square footage of building space to be developed and the development of outdoor spaces,which would be reduced. During construction of Phase 3,the difference between the Civic/Institutional use and the Nature Center use would be the reduction of architectural coating applied due to the reduction in building square footage developed. Therefore,the difference between emissions from the Civic/Institutional analysis and the Nature Center analysis would be seen during 2025 when the architectural coating phase occurs. Table 2.2-1,Regional Construction Emissions, shows the results of the revised modeling.As shown,the architectural coating phase under the Nature Center use results in significantly less reactive organic gases(ROG) emissions than the architectural coating phase from the Civic/Institutional uses. With respect to localized emissions,the Nature Center use results in a slight decrease in CO emissions in 2025 (Phase 3 development);however, as shown in Table 2.2-1,there is negligible change with respect to overall NOx,PM,o, or PM2.5 emissions. Because emissions from all other phases are the same, consistent with the Civic/Institutional analysis,the Nature Center development would require implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 as was required by the Civic/Institutional analysis. Table 2.2-2,Proposed Project Localized Daily Construction Emissions, shows the localized emissions for the Nature Center use compared to the Civic/Institutional use.As shown in Table 2.2-2,the Nature Center analysis, as with the Civic/Institutional analysis,would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2. Altair Specific Plan A-8 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.2-1 REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions(lbs./day) Construction Year ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.1 Maximum Phase 1 45.39 98.88 118.91 0.11 9.83 6.44 Maximum Phase 2 69.23 54.27 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.71 Civiclinstitutional&Nature Center Phase 3(2022 through 2024)a 2022" 5.03 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16 2023 4.70 30.81 60.55 0.16 9.31 3.41 2024 3.47 19.72 44.75 0.14 8.55 2.82 2025 Nature Center 2025 26.76 20.01 48.18 0.17 9.48 3.06 Civic/institutional2025 69.61 20.11 49.30 0.16 9.90 3.17 Change (42.84) (0.09) (1.12) 0.01 (0.42) (0.11) Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significance of Nature Center No No No No No No Significance of Civic/Institutional Use No No No No No No NOTE:Construction emissions would be slightly different during the summer and winter seasons.Maximum daily emissions of ROG and NOx would generally be higher during the winter while emissions of CO and S02 would generally be higher in the summer.The maximum emissions for each pollutant over the course of the summer and winter seasons are shown in this table. ROG=reactive organic gases;NOx=nitrogen dioxide;CO=carbon dioxide;S02=sulfur dioxide;PM10=coarse particulate matter of 10 microns or less;PM2.5=fine particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less. a Note that site preparation and grading for each development phase is at the beginning of that development phase,with the predominant grading activities associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 development where soil is exported to Phase 3.Grading activities are not associated with development in 2025. ' The Altair Specific Plan Draft EIR reported the maximum daily emissions for 2022 and does not distinguish between Phase 2 and Phase 3 emissions that occur within that year.With respect to ROG emissions,those emissions would occur during Phase 2 and therefore ROG reported here differs from the ROG emissions reported for 2022 in Table 3.2-6 of the Draft EIR. SOURCE:ESA CalEEMod Modeling 2017,ESA 2015 Altair Specific Plan A-9 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.2-2 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions(lbs./day) Construction Year NOx CO PM1ea PM2.5a Max Phase 1 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48 Mitigated Phase 1 5.73 Max Phase 2 55.93 49.20 8.98 5.70 Civic/Institutional&Nature Center Phase 3(2022 through 2024) 2022 40.46 47.13 8.42 5.16 2023 26.28 42.20 1.37 1.18 2024 15.32 27.56 0.79 0.63 2025 Nature Center 2025 15.47 27.04 0.75 0.60 Civic/Institutional 2025 15.47 29.02 0.75 0.61 Change 0.00 (1.98) (0.00) (0.00) Localized Significance Threshold' 302.5 1,532.5 10 6 Significance of Nature Center No No No Yes Significance of Civic/Institutional Use No No Np Yes a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403-Fugitive Dust. n LST values are extrapolated from the SCAQMD LST Threshold Tables for SRA 26 and is based on the construction-related disturbance of 3.5 acres per day.The 3.5 acreage was determined based on the equipment used during site preparation activities, which generated the highest PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. SOURCE:ESA CalEEMod Modeling 2017,ESA 2015 2.2.2 Operation The Nature Center use would reduce operational emissions from area sources,natural gas, as well as mobile sources due to the change in use.As shown in in Table 2.2-3,Unmitigated Operational Emissions,the overall daily operational emissions would be reduced from the Civic/Institutional use.However,as with the Civic/Institutional use,the overall project with Nature Center use would still exceed the overall project regional significance thresholds for ROG and NOx. Whereas the Civic/Institutional use would exceed thresholds for CO,the unmitigated Nature Center use would not. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-5 would reduce impacts from all criteria pollutants;however,implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-5 would not reduce emissions of ROG and NOx to below regulatory thresholds.As shown in Table 2.2-4,Mitigated Operational Emissions,mitigated impacts from the Nature Center use would be less than that of the Civic/Institutional use;however,it would still remain a significant and unavoidable impact for NOx and ROG. Altair Specific Plan A-10 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.2-3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions(lbs./day) Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOZ PM10 PM2.5 Total Phase 1 Emissions 23.21 32.99 149.13 0.31 21.89 6.83 Total Phase 2 Emissions 35.90 44.17 216.32 0.55 37.66 11.47 Nature Center Phase 3 Area Sources 16.22 0.56 48.30 0.00 0.97 0.96 Energy Sources 0.18 1.57 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 Mobile Sources 12.03 28.64 126.76 0.49 33.59 9.42 Total Phase 3 Emissions 28.43 30.77 175.74 0.50 34.68 10.51 Total Net Operational Emissions 87.55 107.93 541.19 1.36 94.23 28.81 Total Nature Center Scenario 87.55 107.93 541.19 1.36 94.23 28.81 Total Civic/Institutional Scenario 114.09 141.65 683.24 1.88 128.34 38.56 Change (26.54) (33.72) (142.05) (0.52) (34.11) (9.74) Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significance of Nature Center Yes Yes No No No No Significance of Civic/Institutional Use Yes Yes Yes No NO No SOURCE:ESA CaIEEMod Modeling 2017,ESA 2015 With respect to localized emissions,the Nature Center use would be the same as the Civic/Institutional uses for Phases 1 and 2. As shown in Table 2.2-5,Localized Operational Emissions,the localized emissions for the Nature Center would be less than that of the Civic/Institutional uses for Phase 3 for all pollutants except PM2.5,which shows a slight increase due to proposed grading operations. With respect to localized CO impacts,the same 25 intersections were analyzed for the Nature Center use(Fehr&Peers 2017)as were for the Civic/Institutional use(Fehr&Peers 2015). The Existing,Existing plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative plus Project peak hour conditions were evaluated. Under both the Nature Center and Civic/Institutional uses,the same intersections were shown to have the maximum impacts. For the Existing with and without Project scenario, the maximum peak hour traffic volumes are the same for both the Nature Center and Civic/Institutional Uses as shown in Table 2.2-6,Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes. Under the Cumulative without Project scenario,both the Nature Center and Civic/Institutional uses would have identical impacts on the analyzed intersections. Under the Cumulative with Project scenario, the Nature Center use would have less impact on the maximally impacted intersections than the Civic/Institutional use. Altair Specific Plan A-11 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.2-4 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions(Ibs./day) Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Total Phase 1 Emissions 22.29 32.98 148.08 0.31 21.29 6.23 Total Phase 2 Emissions 34.45 44.16 214.94 0.55 36.85 10.68 Nature Center Phase 3 Area Sources 15.05 0.54 47.09 0.00 0.26 0.26 Energy Sources 0.18 1.57 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 Mobile Sources 12.03 28.64 126.76 0.49 33.59 9.42 Total Phase 3 Emissions 27.26 30.75 174.53 0.50 33.97 9.81 Total Net Operational Emissions 83.99 107.89 537.54 1.36 92.11 26.71 Total Nature Center 83.99 107.89 537.54 1.36 92.11 26.71 Total Civic Site 109.38 141.61 679.03 1.87 126.17 36.41 Change (25.39) (33.72) (141.49) (0.51) (34.06) (9.70) Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significance of Nature Center Yes Yes No No No No Significance of Civic/Institutional Use Yes Yes Yes No NO No SOURCE:ESA CalEEMod Modeling 2017,ESA 2015 TABLE 2.2-5 LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions(Ibs./day) Development Phases NO, CO PM11 PM2.5 Phase 1 7.39 76.00 1.35 0.63 Phase 2 27.01 60.87 1.77 0.99 Nature Center Phase 3 8.33 92.82 2.72 1.58 Nature Center Phase 3 8.33 92.82 2.72 1.58 Civic/Institutional Phase 3 14.41 102.21 3.70 1.11 Change (6.08) (9.39) (0.98) 0.47 Regional Thresholds 371 1,965 4 2 Significance of Nature Center No No No No Significance of Civic/Institutional Use No No No No SOURCE:ESA CalEEMod Modeling 2017,ESA 2015 Altair Specific Plan A-12 ESA /D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.2-6 PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Without Project With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM Existing Nature Center Scenario Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd 5,195 6,972 5,345 7,122 Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5,023 7,028 5,095 7,063 Civic/Institutional Scenario Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd 5,195 6,972 5,345 7,122 Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5,023 7,028 5,095 7,063 Cumulative Nature Center Scenario Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd 6,070 7,810 6,214 7,960 Temecula Pkwy/Pechanga PKWY 6,530 7,610 6,735 7,824 Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5,870 7,830 5,942 7,905 Civic/Institutional Scenario Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd 6,070 7,810 6,300 8,032 Temecula Pkwy/Pechanga Pkwy 6,530 7,610 6,876 7,945 Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5,870 7,830 5,958 7,941 Change from Civic/Institutional Scenario Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd (0) (0) (86) (72) Temecula Pkwy/Pechanga Pkwy (0) (0) (141) (121) Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd (0) (0) (16) (36) Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 Significance of Nature Center No No No No Significance of Civic/Institutional Use No No No No SOURCE:Fehr&Peers,2017,ESA 2015 2.3 Biological Resources The regulatory framework and environmental setting for biological resources applicable to the Nature Center remain the same as described in Section 3.3,Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. The Nature Center would reduce the amount of grading on the 55-acre South Parcel by approximately 0.7 acre relative to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. This reduction in ground disturbance would generally reduce direct impacts on biological resources, albeit to a limited extent. In addition,the Nature Center would result in a 95 percent reduction in maximum building square footage, a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height, and the addition of 8.9 acres of natural open space and vegetated areas compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not allow for higher intensity uses (e.g.,university, hospital and medical office, and hotel uses)on the South Parcel that were assumed and evaluated Altair Specific Plan A-13 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis in the Draft EIR. Thus,the Nature Center would generally reduce the intensity of indirect impacts on biological resources resulting from development of the South Parcel compared to the Civic/Institutional use. For further analysis, see the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Assessment for the Nature Center Use for Western Bypass and Altair Project(HELIX 2017) (Appendix A2)and Supplement to Altair Project Multiple Species Consultation Report(HELIX 2017) (Appendix B). 2.3.1 Floral and Faunal Special-Status Plants Two special-status plants were observed during the various biological surveys: San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant.Neither of these species were documented on the South Parcel. Given the proposed location of the Nature Center on the South Parcel,there would be no change in direct and indirect impacts to these species compared to those described for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use, development of the Nature Center Impacts would be less than significant. Migratory Birds and Special-Status Wildlife Special-status wildlife and migratory birds were documented within and near the project site, including Cooper's hawk,northern harrier,white-tailed kite, California gnatcatcher, and California horned lark. Direct and indirect construction impacts to migratory birds and special- status wildlife would remain similar to those described for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR. However,because the Nature Center would reduce the amount of grading by approximately 0.7 acre,there would be a minor reduction in the amount of suitable habitat(including nesting habitat)impacted compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR.Nonetheless, similar to the Civic/Institutional use, impacts to special-status avian wildlife and migratory birds resulting from construction of the Nature Center on the South Parcel would be considered significant. Mitigation Measure MM-1310-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring identification and avoidance of active nests if clearing and grubbing activities must occur during the avian breeding season. Burrowing Owl No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused surveys for the species,and the species has low potential to occur due to limited amount of suitable habitat,limited number of burrows,and lack of connectivity to off-site habitat.However, suitable habitat occurs within the upland vegetation communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. Given that the Nature Center would reduce the amount of grading by approximately 0.7 acre,there would be a minor reduction in the amount of suitable burrowing owl habitat impacted compared to the Civic/Institutional use.Nonetheless,impacts to burrowing owl resulting from construction of the Nature Center on the South Parcel would be considered significant.Mitigation Measure MM-1310-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and avoiding take of active nests through passive or active relocation coordinated with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA),California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Altair Specific Plan A-14 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis Mountain Lion Mountain lions have been recorded by UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California MLP near the west, south,and east project boundaries within Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River(refer to Figure 3.3-4,Linkages near the Project Site,of the Draft EIR). The nearest recorded sighting to the east of the project was near the eastern boundary of the South Parcel. Similar to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR for the Civic/Institutional use, direct impacts on mountain lions during construction of the Nature Center are not anticipated.Nighttime construction would not be required for the Nature Center on the South Parcel; thus,the Nature Center would not increase the impacts on mountain lion associated with nighttime construction.) Additionally,implementation of the Western Bypass could increase the potential for direct mortality of mountain lions during operation. Design of the Western Bypass would not differ between the Nature Center and Civic/Institutional uses, and the Nature Center would not add or remove roads that may pose a mortality risk to mountain lions. Therefore,the potential for direct mortality of mountain lion during operation of the project would be similar regardless of the use selected for the South Parcel. Also,as with the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center use may result in indirect impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife associated with increased urban/wildland interface, such as lighting,noise,and barriers to movement.These indirect impacts would be considered potentially significant,but reduced as compared to the civic use due to limited nighttime lighting.The project would be subject to the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines(UWIG).Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1,MM-13I0-3,MM-13I0-6b,MM-13I0-7a,MM-13I0-7b,MM-13I0-7c, MM-NOI-la,and MM-NOI-lb would also be required,and would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring conservation of land for the continued preservation and function of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,as well as requiring compliance with the UWIG. See discussion under Section 2.3.2,Wildlife Corridors,page A-17,for additional information on impacts to the movement of mountain lions and other wildlife associated with the Nature Center.Further,unlike the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center use precludes nighttime uses and provides greater open space,which together substantially lessen the potential direct and indirect impacts on mountain lion and other wildlife habitat and movement. Riparian and Riverine Communities Riparian and riverine habitat, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and by the CDFW, are present on the South Parcel. The Nature Center use would avoid impacts to approximately 1.10 acres (76 percent)of the riparian/riverine habitats on the South Parcel, including the largest stand of coast live oak woodland on the parcel. The Nature Center would permanently impact 0.21 acre of riparian/riverine habitat on the South Parcel, including 0.03 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.18 acre of coast live oak woodland,and 0.14 acre of streambed. The Nature Center use would result in a 0.7-acre reduction in ground disturbance,which is achieved through reduction in 1 The Draft EIR states temporary nighttime construction may be required near the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho California Road(due to traffic on Rancho California Road).This intersection is located at the north end of the project site and,therefore,is not applicable to construction of the Nature Center on the South Parcel. Altair Specific Plan A-15 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. The Nature Center would permanently impact the same amount of riparian/riverine habitat as the Civic/Institutional use. Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a and MM-13I0-4b would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring compensatory mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for riparian(vegetated)resources and 1:1 for riverine resources(i.e.,unvegetated streambed)using an approached approved by the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB), CDFW, and RCA, such as offsite habitat restoration, purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program, or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands Jurisdictional resources protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)would be impacted by implementation of the Nature Center. Impacts to federal jurisdictional resources with implementation of the Nature Center use would be identical to those described in the Draft EIR for the Civic/Institutional use. Impacts to federal jurisdictional resources resulting from implementation of the Nature Center would be significant. Mitigation Measures MM-13I0-4a and MM-1310-4b as included in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring compensatory mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for riparian(vegetated)resources and 1:1 for riverine resources (i.e.,unvegetated streambed)using an approached approved by the USACE,RWQCB, CDFW, and RCA, such as offsite habitat restoration,purchase of credits from an in lieu fee program, or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat The South Parcel supports vegetation communities that may support both common and sensitive species, including riparian woodland, southern willow scrub, coast live oak woodland,Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland. Disturbed habitat,which have less value to plant and wildlife species,is also present on the South Parcel. Permanent impacts to vegetation communities associated with construction of the Nature Center total approximately 19.63 acres (Table 2.3-1,Permanent Impacts to Vegetation Communities—Nature Center). Total impacts presented in Table 2.3-1 include up to 1 mile of additional trails. For the purposes of this analysis,these trails would be constructed within Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat and would be designed in accordance with MSHCP guidelines(refer to "Guidelines for the Siting and Design of Trails and Facilities"on page 7-74 of the MSHCP). The Nature Center use would reduce permanent impacts to vegetation communities by approximately 0.7 acre relative to the Civic/Institutional use. This is achieved through a reduction in impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. Approximately 2.0 acres of impacts from the Nature Center would result from construction of 10-foot-wide trails,including approximately 0.8 acre of which occurs primarily within existing dirt trails/access roads (i.e., disturbed habitat). Additionally,approximately 8.2 acres of impacts to vegetation communities are associated with grading of manufactured slopes,which would be revegetated with native sage scrub vegetation following construction. Altair Specific Plan A-16 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.3-1 PERMANENT IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES—NATURE CENTER Vegetation Community Impacts(acres) Riparian/Riverine Habitats Southern willow scrub 0.03 Coast live oak woodland(riparian/riverine) 0.18 Subtotal 0.21* Upland Habitats Coast live oak woodland(upland) 0.04 Diegan coastal sage scrub 17.21 Non-native grassland 1.00 Disturbed habitat 1.17 Subtotal 19.42 Total 19.63 Does not include streambed numbers that are included in upland impacts. * Includes 1.21 acres of impacts associated with up to 1 mile of future trails that have not yet been planned. SOURCE:Helix,2017. Indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitat associated with construction of the Nature Center include fugitive dust, increased noise levels due to heavy equipment operations, alterations to existing topographical and hydrological connections, increased erosion and sediment transport, and the establishment of non-native and invasive weeds. Operational indirect impacts include disturbances associated with increased human presence. These indirect impacts are identical to those described in the Draft EIR for the Civic/Institutional use. The intensity of operational indirect impacts associated with the Nature Center would be less than would be expected for the Civic/Institutional use given the Nature Center would not allow for the high-intensity uses allowed by the Civic/Institutional use (e.g.,university,hospital and medical office, and hotel uses). Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and habitats would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a,MM-1310-4b,MM-1310-6a,MM-1310-6b, and MM-13I0-7c would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts (including Local Development Mitigation fees required by the City's Municipal Code), onsite preservation of open space for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, and revegetating manufactured slopes in accordance with a Slope Revegetation Plan. 2.3.2 Wildlife Corridors According to the MSHCP and current scientific studies on and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Plateau and escarpment,terrestrial and riparian wildlife corridors are present on and in the vicinity of the project,particularly along Murrieta Creek, Santa Margarita River,and the slopes of the Santa Margarita Escarpment. These corridors allow for movement of mountain lion,bobcat,and a variety Altair Specific Plan A-17 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis of other wildlife. The Nature Center use would impact wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.While the Nature Center would not preclude the use of these linkages,development of the Nature Center would reduce corridor widths and introduce a new source of indirect impacts on wildlife moving through the linkages.As concluded by the Draft EIR,given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site(approximately 1,800 feet)and its location(east of I-15), similar to the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center use would have no direct or indirect effect on this linkage. The Nature Center would impact movement corridors used by mountain lion,bobcat, and other wildlife(e.g.,migratory birds). Impacts associated with the Nature Center would be similar to for the Civic/Institutional use,which include reducing corridor widths and increasing the urban/wildlands interface. Increasing the urban/wildlands interface would result in indirect impacts on wildlife movement, such as increased noise, light, and trash, as well as potential reduction in hunting,feeding, and reproductive behaviors.However,the Nature Center would reduce the intensity of indirect impacts on wildlife movement compared to the Civic/Institutional use for two primary reasons. The Nature Center would reduce the maximum building size on the South Parcel and would not allow higher intensity uses (e.g.,university,hospital and medical office, and hotel uses) on the South Parcel. Also,the UWIG in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP would be met,with implementation of the Nature Center eliminating nighttime lighting impacts except those needed for security, and significantly reducing noise impacts. Hiking trails associated with the Nature Center use are expected to have minimal impact on overall wildlife movement, especially with the limitation of no nighttime use.Nevertheless, impacts to wildlife movement resulting from the Nature Center would be significant. Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1,MM-13I0-3,MM-13I0-6b,MM-1310-7a,MM-13I0-7b,MM-13I0-7c,MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-Ib, and MM-NOI-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring conservation of land for the continued preservation and function of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, as well as requiring compliance with the UWIG. Specific impacts to Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 resulting from the Nature Center are discussed below. As summarized below for each linkage,the Nature Center would generally reduce impacts to corridor widths compared to the Civic/Institutional use described in the Draft EIR. The detailed corridor modeling study previously undertaken for the project was not updated specifically to reflect inclusion of the Nature Center as the"with Project including the Civic Site"scenario previously modeled remains applicable for the Nature Center use. Refer to Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of corridor modeling study results. Proposed Linkage 10 Impacts Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection in the southwest region of the MSHCP Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve)in the north to Existing Core G(Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve)in the south. The linkage consists of upland habitat that is complementary to the riparian habitat comprising Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). Width of the Proposed Linkage 10 adjacent to the Nature Center would exceed approximately 980 feet,which would be approximately 150 feet wider compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. This would result in a smaller graded pad for the Nature Center. Altair Specific Plan A-18 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis Proposed Linkage 10 is an important movement corridor for mountain lion. Mountain lion use of the linkage is expected to continue despite construction of the Nature Center.However,the overall suitability of Proposed Linkage 10 for the mountain lion movement would be reduced with construction of the Nature Center, especially for adult males and females without kittens. This would be similar to impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Civic/Institutional use.However, overall impacts on mountain lion movement associated with the Nature Center would be less severe compared to impacts associated with the Civic/Institutional use for the reasons previously discussed (i.e.,lower intensity uses,elimination of nighttime lighting,and reduction of noise impacts). Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Impacts Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the MSHCP Plan Area. This linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve)in the north to Proposed Linkage 10 in the south, and is already constrained by urban development, agricultural use,nine vehicular bridges, and one road through Murrieta Creek. The linkage would be further constrained by the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge. The Nature Center would require grading of the slope adjacent to Murrieta Creek. Widths of the Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 following construction of the Nature Center would be similar to existing widths along the southern reach of the linkage.With construction of the Nature Center,this linkage would be reduced to widths between approximately 255 and 450 feet for a distance of approximately 935 feet. The majority of this narrowing of the corridor includes the graded slope that would be revegetated with native sage scrub vegetation;the width of the corridor would be between approximately 356 and 758 feet with the revegetated slope included.With the revegetated slope included,Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 would be approximately 101 to 308 feet wider as compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. 2.3.3 Local Policies and Conservation Plans The project is subject to requirements applicable to biological resources contained in the City of Temecula Municipal Code, City of Temecula General Plan,and the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This section analyzes the Nature Center's compliance with these policies and plans. Refer to the Draft EIR for general descriptions of these policies and plans. City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance (Ord. 09-05 Section 1) As discussed in the Draft EIR,the project is not subject to the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance given the Altair Specific Plan will contain requirements for protection and preservation of Heritage Trees. Refer to Chapter 8.48.120 of the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance regarding applicability of the ordinance to previously adopted specific plans and future specific plan areas. Because the ordinance does not apply to the project,neither the Civic/Institutional use nor the Nature Center would have an impact related to the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. City of Temecula General Plan Similar to the Civic/Institutional use,development of the Nature Center on the South Parcel would be consistent with open space and conservation policies and goals in the City of Temecula General Plan(Table 2.3-2,Consistency of the Nature Center with the City of Temecula Altair Specific Plan A-19 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis General Plan Policies). The Nature Center would have no impact relative to the City's General Plan. Thus, compared to the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center use would not result in a change to impacts relative to the City's General Plan. MSHCP Consistency The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan; Subunit 1 —Murrieta Creek and Subunit 6—Santa Rosa Plateau(refer to Figure 3.3-2 of the Draft EIR). The South Parcel is within Independent Cells 7355 and 7356.Also,the project(including the South Parcel)is adjacent to and partially within Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The following analyses focus on consistency of the Nature Center with MSHCP requirements,including Rough Step requirements for specific habitats;Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area(NEPSSA)and Criteria Area Species Survey Area(CASSA)requirements;riparian and riverine conservation goals; Fuel Modification Guidelines;UWIG;wildlife corridors requirements; Subunit and Criteria Cell/Cell Group acreage requirements; and Planned Roadway Criteria. MSHCP Rough Step Habitats As part of its management responsibilities over the MSHCP,the RCA tracks habitats within nine zones established within the MSHCP area. These areas are called"Rough Steps"because they are meant to help the RCA,USFWS, and CDFW evaluate whether conservation of specific habitats is occurring in conjunction with development approvals. The sensitive natural communities on the South Parcel(i.e.,riparian scrub/woodland/forest, coastal sage scrub,woodland and forests, and grasslands)are tracked in Rough Step Unit 5. Unit 5 is currently in Rough Step;however,to ensure each vegetation community located within the project area(that is tracked in Unit 5) remains in Rough Step,the applicant must conserve a certain number of acres for every acre of impact. These conservation ratios are re-evaluated each year by the RCA using a formula included in Section 6.7 of the MSHCP. The Nature Center will permanently impact approximately 0.21 acre of riparian scrub/woodland/forest, 17.21 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.04 acre of upland coast live oak woodland/forest, and 1 acre of grassland habitats present on the South Parcel(Table 2.3-1). As discussed under Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat on page A-16,the Nature Center use would reduce total permanent impacts to vegetation communities by approximately 0.7 acre relative to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, due to a reduction in impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat on the South Parcel. In addition, approximately 8.2 acres of impacts to vegetation communities resulting from the Nature Center are associated with grading of manufactured slopes,which would be revegetated with native sage scrub vegetation following construction. Permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be significant and would require mitigation according to Table 3.3-10, Rough Step Consistency, of the Draft EIR to ensure compliance with the MSHCP. Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a, MM-1310-4b,MM-1310-6a,MM-1310-6b, and MM-13I0-7c as included in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts (including Local Development Mitigation fees required by the City's Municipal Code),onsite preservation of open space for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13,and revegetating manufactured slopes in accordance with a Slope Revegetation Plan. Altair Specific Plan A-20 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.3-2 CONSISTENCY OF THE NATURE CENTER WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES General Plan Policies Statement of Consistency,Non-Consistency,or Not Applicable Open Space and Conservation Element Goal 3:Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern,wildlife movement corridors,and general biodiversity. Policy 3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources Consistent.Significant biological resources and proposed mitigation, including the use and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques,selective preservation, planning techniques,selective preservation,provision of replacement habitats;and other provision of replacement habitats,and other appropriate measures have been identified appropriate measures. for the Nature Center use on the South Parcel. Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to Consistent.The project has worked with State and regional organizations to preserve preserve and enhance significant biological resources. and enhance significant biological resources.The City and project proponents have met with local non-profit organizations regarding the wildlife corridors. Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the Consistent.The project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Nature Center and implementation of the MSHCP. Conservation Plan. Policy 3.4 Encourage developers to incorporate native drought resistant vegetation, Consistent.Slopes adjacent to Conserved Lands on the South Parcel would be mature trees,and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for revegetated with native plants with implementation of the Nature Center. proposed projects. Policy 3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. Consistent.A compendium of biological resources recorded within the South Parcel has been provided. Policy 3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are Consistent.The Nature Center has been designed,to the extent possible,to separate sensitive biological resources as needed to protect these resources. out proposed open space areas from areas allowing recreational use. Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Consistent.The construction of the Nature Center could impede wildlife movement at Murrieta Creek,Santa Gertrudis Creek,Santa Margarita River,and other waterways to the intersection of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks. However,implementation of the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat,wildlife,and wildlife movement corridors. Mitigation Measures MM-13I0-1 b, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5b,and MM-BIO-8a-c will result in the project being consistent with this policy. Goal 5:Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation,scenic enjoyment,and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines,the Santa Consistent.To the extent possible the western escarpment has been preserved. Margarita River,slopes in the Sphere of Influence,and other important landforms and Proposed dedicated open space has been included as part of the Nature Center. historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved Consistent.Open space on the South Parcel will be preserved despite construction of through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading,site design,and the Nature Center to protect viewsheds. building techniques. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning Consistent.The Nature Center has incorporated cluster design and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces. elements. Altair Specific Plan A-21 ESA /D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.3-2 CONSISTENCY OF THE NATURE CENTER WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES General Plan Policies Statement of Consistency,Non-Consistency,or Not Applicable Policy 5.4 Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways,public slopes, Consistent.Chapter 9,Design Guidelines and Chapter 10, Development Standards of rights-of-way,parks,civic facilities,and other public open areas. the Altair Specific Plan identifies conceptual landscape plans for enhancing public spaces,parkways, roundabouts, parks,and entry monument areas along with an extensive plant list for use in both public and private areas. Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development Consistent.Slopes adjacent to open space areas on the South Parcel will be restored to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. to coastal sage scrub. Policy 5.11 Encourage the use of native vegetation where revegetation and landscaping Consistent.Slopes adjacent to open space areas on the South Parcel will be restored is to occur. to coastal sage scrub. Altair Specific Plan A-22 ESA /D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis As discussed in the Draft EIR,the entire project(assuming the Civic/Institutional use on the South Parcel)would exceed Rough Step requirements for onsite conservation of coastal sage scrub,but would be out of Rough Step(i.e.,fall short of conservation requirements)for riparian habitat and grassland. The Nature Center would not change these conclusions from the Draft EIR given that the Nature Center would only change(reduce)impacts to coastal sage scrub and the excess in onsite conservation of this habitat relative to Rough Step requirements would be maintained. Similar to the conclusion in the Draft EIR,given that Rough Step Unit 5 in its entirety currently exceeds requirements for riparian scrub/woodland/forest and grassland habitats,the project would not cause Rough Step Unit 5 to be out of Rough Step despite the shortfall experienced on the project site. In addition,required compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional riparian and riverine resources at a 3:1 ratio would mitigate the deficiency of 1.45 acres of Rough Step riparian habitat not met on site. Thus,the project would remain consistent with MSHCP Rough Step requirements with the Nature Center use on the South Parcel. NEPSSA and CASSA Consistency The South Parcel occurs outside of the area identified in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP as requiring focused surveys for NEPSSA plant species and Section 6.3.2 requiring focused surveys for Criteria Area Species Survey Area CASSA plant species. Riparian and Riverine Consistency Riparian and riverine habitat, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, are present on the South Parcel. As discussed under Riparian and Riverine Communities on page A-15,the Nature Center would avoid approximately 76 percent of riparian/riverine habitats on the South Parcel(including the largest stand of coast live oak woodland on the parcel)but would permanently impact 0.21 acre of riparian/riverine habitat(Table 2.3-1). The Nature Center would permanently impact the same amount of riparian/riverine habitat as the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. However,relative to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center disturbance is pulled back from the existing drainage in the central portion of the South Parcel to minimize indirect impacts to the drainage and promote wildlife movement through the low-lying area. Similar to the conclusion reached in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center use would be inconsistent with the conservation goals of the MSHCP for this habitat type. Permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat associated with the Nature Center would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures MM-1310-4a and MM-1310-4b as included in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring compensatory mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for riparian(vegetated)resources and 1:1 for riverine resources(i.e.,unvegetated streambed) using an approached approved by the USACE,RWQCB,CDFW, and RCA, such as offsite habitat restoration,purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program, or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. Fuel Modification Consistency The South Parcel is adjacent to an MSHCP Conservation Area. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center is designed such that fuel modification zones do not extend into the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore,the Nature Center would be consistent with the Fuel Modification Guidelines in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. Altair Specific Plan A-23 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis UrbanMildland Interface Guidelines Consistency The South Parcel is located adjacent to a MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore, development of the Nature Center on the South Parcel must adhere to the UWIG outlined in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Development of the Nature Center on the South Parcel could result in the project being inconsistent with the UWIG,which would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1,MM-13I0-3,MM-1310-6b,MM-1310-7a,MM-13I0-7b,MM-1310-7c, MM-NOI-la,MM-NOI-lb,MM-NOI-3,MM-HYD-1,MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant by ensuring consistency with the UWIG. Consistency with the UWIG through implementation of these measures is demonstrated below. While the overall conclusion regarding consistency with the UWIG remains unchanged compared to the Civic/Institutional use, development of the Nature Center on the South Parcel would reduce the intensity of some impacts. Drainage Similar to what was analyzed for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center would be designed to incorporate measures, including those required through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)requirements,to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to downstream areas is not adversely affected when compared with existing conditions. In particular,measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff into downstream waters. Stormwater systems would be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals,petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes downstream of the site. This would be accomplished by incorporating one or more of the following methods: natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance would occur to ensure effective operation of runoff control systems. The Nature Center use would have less impervious surface compared to the Civic/Institutional use; therefore, impacts on drainage would be reduced. Toxics The Nature Center use on the South Parcel is not anticipated to generate any toxics, although the use of herbicides,pesticides, and fertilizers could impact the adjacent preserve without proper measures to address these potential pollutants. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bio-products that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species,habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues would be implemented to avoid the potential impacts of toxics. Lighting The Nature Center use does not propose nighttime activities, and there would be no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the South Parcel other than lighting needed for security. Given the elimination of nighttime activities on the South Parcel,the Nature Center use would reduce lighting impacts relative to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan A-24 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis Noise The Nature Center use would be a low-intensity use with noise limited to low levels of traffic driving to and from the Nature Center.As such,the MSHCP Conservation Area would not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Nature Center use represents a lower-intensity use of the South Parcel compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR; thus,noise impacts would generally be reduced. Invasive Species Any landscaping for the Nature Center would consist of native and non-invasive non-native species and shall avoid the use of plants shown on MSHCP Table 6.2. Graded slopes would be revegetated with sage scrub species. Avoiding use of plants included in MSHCP Table 6.2 was assumed in Draft EIR;therefore,both the Nature Center and Civic/Institutional use would be consistent with this guideline. Barriers The edges of the Nature Center that are directly adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area would include fencing or other barriers to prevent unauthorized public access,illegal trespass, or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area where needed. Wildlife exclusion fencing is not needed with the Nature Center use on the South Parcel. Trails proposed on the graded slopes and within the Conservation Area would be clearly marked, and fencing would be provided where appropriate.Barriers may include native landscaping,rocks/boulders, fencing, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Similar barriers were referenced for the South Parcel in the Draft EIR; therefore,both the Nature Center and Civic/Institutional use would be consistent with this guideline. Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed Nature Center would not extend into the lands proposed to contribute to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Slopes not needed for fuel modification would be restored with native upland vegetation that abut the MSHCP Conservation Area. Manufactured slopes are included as a permanent impact to vegetation communities and require mitigation per Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-6a,which requires payment of Local Development Mitigation fees required by the City's Municipal Code. The Nature Center would reduce grading by approximately 0.7 acre compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. Wildlife Corridor Consistency The two wildlife corridors affected by the Nature Center use on the South Parcel are Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Refer to Section 2.3.3,Wildlife Corridors, above for a detailed discussion of the Nature Center's impact on these wildlife corridors. Because the Nature Center use on the South Parcel would constrain Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 there is a potentially significant effect on corridor functionality. Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1,MM-13I0-3,MM-13I0-6b,MM-13I0-7a,MM-13I0-7b, MM-13I0-7c,MM-NOI-Ia,MM-NOI-Ib, and MM-NOI-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring conservation of land for the continued preservation and function of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, as well as requiring compliance with the UWIG.As described in Section 2.3.3,Wildlife Corridors,while impacts to wildlife corridors Altair Specific Plan A-25 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis would be similar,the Nature Center would reduce intensity of indirect impacts on wildlife movement compared to the Civic/Institutional use. MSHCP Goals & Objectives, Subunit and Criteria Cell/Cell Group Acreage Consistency An acreage consistency analysis for the two Independent Cells that overlay the South Parcel(i.e., Independent Cells 7355 and 7356)was performed to assess compliance with conservation criteria for the cells. Given that the project footprint outside the South Parcel would remain unchanged, the analyses presented in the Draft EIR for these portions of the project remain unchanged. The Nature Center use on the South Parcel would impact approximately 8.9 acres within Independent Cell 7355, leaving 13.5 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10(Table 2.3-3,MSHCP Criteria Cells—Acreage Impacts And Conservation— South Parcel—Nature Center). In addition,the Nature Center use would impact approximately 10.7 acres within Independent Cell 7356, leaving 20.3 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (Table 2.3-3).Although conservation acreage goals fall short of the targeted acreages for each cell,conservation goals for each cell are met by the Nature Center use. Specifically,the Nature Center use would preserve coastal sage scrub and oak woodland habitats in the northeast portion of Cell 7355 and connect to coastal sage scrub habitat in Cell 7264 to the north and Cell 7356 to the east. In addition, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian habitats in the western portion of Cell 7356 would be preserved and connect to coastal sage scrub habitat in Cell No. 7355 to the west. TABLE 2.3-3 MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS—ACREAGE IMPACTS AND CONSERVATION—SOUTH PARCEL—NATURE CENTER Acres Cell Cell Group Existing On Site Impacts On Site Impacts Off Site Conserved 7355 — 24.0 8.9 1.6 13.5 7356 — 31.0 10.7 — 20.3 Total 55.0 19.6 1.6 33.8 SOURCE:Helix,2017. Compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,impacts in Independent Cells 7355 and 7356 from the Nature Center would be reduced by approximately 0.4 acre and 0.3 acre,respectively,resulting in slightly greater conserved acreage on the South Parcel.As described on pages 3.3-63 et seq. in the Draft EIR,taking into account the MSHCP reserve assembly guidance,the Civic/Institutional use would be consistent with the Area Plan, Subunit and Cell/Cell Group conservation acreage goals of the MSHCP and impacts would,therefore,be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the Nature Center use on the South Parcel given that impacts would be reduced compared to those previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan A-26 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis Planned Roadway Criteria Consistency Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP sets out Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines for planned roadways that are Covered Activities. These criteria are listed in Section 3.3.1,Regulatory Framework, of the Draft EIR. The project is required to adhere to the Planned Roadway Criteria.As described in the Draft EIR,the Western Bypass is a MSHCP Covered Activity and has been redesigned, and this could result in the Civic/Institutional use being inconsistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP. This was determined to be a significant impact requiring implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-13I0-1,MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b,MM-BIO-6b, and MM-BIO-7c to reduce impacts to less than significant. The design of the Western Bypass would remain the same as discussed in the Draft EIR with implementation of the Nature Center use on the South Parcel;thus,there would be no change to the conclusions of the Draft EIR regarding consistency with Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines of the MSHCP. 2.4 Cultural Resources The Nature Center and associated parking lots would be constructed within the footprint of the Civic/Institutional site but would include the development of a smaller earthen pad approximately 6.3 acres in size as opposed to the original 18.7 acres. The Nature Center's construction footprint is considerably smaller than that of the Civic/Institutional use, and the limits of construction for the Nature Center would be located approximately 400 feet further northwest of CA-RIV-270 than the Civic/Institutional use. Given that the Nature Center would be located in the same general area as the Civic Site,but further from CA-RIV-270,the construction of the Nature Center would not introduce any new impacts and the conclusions of the cultural resources analysis presented in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, are still applicable. Therefore,the mitigation measures included in Section 3.4 would be required for the development of the Nature Center to avoid significant impacts to historical and unique archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources, and human remains interred outside formal cemeteries. Consultation with the Pechanga under AB 52 resulted in the inclusion of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lc for monitoring and re-survey of the South Parcel prior to development. In lieu of the buildings and associated pedestrian paths proposed as part of the Civic/Institutional uses evaluated in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center would include the development of 1.15 miles of new trails in addition to the 0.80 mile of existing trails that bisect the southern parcel. The proposed nature trails would extend southeast from the Nature Center to the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek and would bisect portions of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) -eligible Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area(MCAA)(P-33-11443)and its contributed element, site CA-RIV-270, as well as a portion of the NRHP-listed Luiseno Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property(TCP). As with the Civic/Institutional use,the development of the trails is not expected to disturb and would not diminish the integrity of the MCAA, CA-RIV-270, or Origin Landscape TCP. However, discovery of resources associated with CA-RIV-270 (including through project construction or increased foot traffic and visitation within the site)could result in indirect impacts to these sites. As outlined above,mitigation measures required for the Civic Site shall apply to the Nature Center use(Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-la through MM-CUL-Id). With the existing mitigation applied to the Nature Center use,the project's impacts on cultural resources is expected to remain less than significant. Altair Specific Plan A-27 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2.5 Geology and Soils 2.5.1 Exposure to Earthquake Hazards The Nature Center use would be located on the same Civic Site as the Civic/Institutional use. Therefore,the potential for exposure to geologic hazards would be comparable. The site is not located within a Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone(AP Zone). However,the Civic Site is located within a seismically active region in Southern California. Similar to what is described in Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, of the Draft EIR,the proposed construction associated with the Nature Center use would be in accordance with applicable City ordinances and policies and consistent with the most recent version of the California Building Code(CBC), which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. In addition,the design-level geotechnical investigations would be prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist and recommendations would include final design parameters for any retaining walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related improvements(cut slopes,utilities,roadways,parking lots, and sidewalks). Therefore,the Nature Center use would result in comparable seismology impacts compared to the Civic/Institutional use. 2.5.2 Soil Erosion Construction activities associated with new development would involve earthwork activities, including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils formerly protected with vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete can become exposed to winds and water flows that result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As detailed in Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality,of the Draft EIR, individual development projects occurring during project implementation would be required to include construction best management practices(BMPs), as detailed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP), as dictated by the General Construction Permit from the NPDES program. Each individual development project would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) as required by the City. These SWPPPs,BMPs, and WQMPs are developed on a project-specific basis, and the specific criteria that would be contained within them would vary from one project to another. However, at minimum,typical examples of construction BMPs could include installation of silt fences,hay bales, or application of soil stabilization measures on exposed areas that are designed to minimize the potential for erosion to occur. These BMPs would be required for the Nature Center. Although the SWPPP and WQMP are intended to primarily prevent sedimentation from entering runoff from the site,they have proven effective in preventing soil erosion and loss of topsoil occurring at a construction site. Thus,with adherence to the required BMPs,potential construction-related erosion would be minimized. Following completion of construction activities, disturbed areas would be either revegetated or covered by impervious surfaces such as asphalt or buildings,which limits the potential for erosion. Impacts would be less than significant and result in comparable soil erosion impacts compared to the Civic/Institutional use. Altair Specific Plan A-28 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2.5.3 Site Soil Conditions The Nature Center would result in the construction of fewer buildings and a smaller overall footprint than the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. However,the Nature Center would be underlain by the same soil conditions as described for the Civic/Institutional use. As explained above, construction and development associated with the Nature Center use would adhere to City ordinances and policies,CBC, and geotechnical specifications. Impacts would be less than significant and result in comparable soil stability impacts compared to the Civic/Institutional use. 2.6 Greenhouse Gas Similar to the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center use would generate greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions from a variety of sources. GHG emissions would be generated during construction of the project. Additionally,the project's operations would generate GHG emissions from both area sources and mobile sources. Appendix Al contains the CalEEMod worksheets prepared for the project. Indirect source emissions generated by the project include electrical consumption,water and wastewater usage(transportation),and solid waste disposal. Mobile (direct) sources of air pollutants associated with the project would consist of motor vehicles trips generated by residents and patrons of the retail, community center, and school uses. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use,the GHG emissions estimates take into account the reductions in GHG emissions from Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-la through MM-AQ-Ie and MM-AQ-2 during construction and operation,where reductions can be quantified. 2.6.1 Construction The Nature Center use would replace the institutional land use from Phase 3 of the overall development with a Nature Center use,but would not change any of the Phase 1 or Phase 2 development. With the Nature Center,the same amount of residential and commercial land uses would be developed;however, instead of Civic/Institutional uses,the Nature Center would construct a 20,000-square-foot building and include outdoor and recreational land uses. Because the timing and acreage to be disturbed would be the same as the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,the construction emissions would be the same for the Nature Center during Phases 1 and 2,but would result in reduced emissions from the architectural coating during Phase 3. Therefore,the main difference between the Civic/Institutional use analysis and the Nature Center would occur during 2025 during the architectural coating phase. Construction-related GHG emissions for the Nature Center were estimated using the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. Total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 2.6-1,Estimated Total Construction-Related GHG Emissions. As per SCAQMD methodology and because GHG emissions are cumulative in nature,the total construction emissions would result in annual amortized construction emissions of 39 MT CO2e per year after amortization over 30 years. As shown in Table 2.6-1, GHG impacts associated with implementation of the Nature Center would be slightly less than those analyzed for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan A-29 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.6-1 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Construction Year Estimated CO2e Emissions Nature Center 2016' 1,009(MT) 2017 860(MT) 2018 539(MT) 2019' 967(MT) 2020 1,037(MT) 2021 1,025(MT) 2022 120(MT) 2022' 420(MT) 2023 1,256(MT) 2024 1,230(MT) 2025 792(MT) Total 9,225(MT) Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 309(MT/Yr) Civic/Institutional Use 9,287(MT) Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 310(MT/Yr) CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent;MT=metric tons;MT/yr=metric tons per year. a Note that site preparation and grading for each development phase is at the beginning of that development phase,with the predominant grading activities associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 development where soil is exported to Phase 3. SOURCE:ESA,2017;ESA,2015 2.6.2 Operation The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the Nature Center are shown in Table 2.6-2,Estimated Construction and Operations-Related GHG Emissions. Additionally,in accordance with SCAQMD's recommendation,the project's amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table 2.6-1 have been added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project's total annual GHG emissions. Operational GHG emissions as shown in Table 2.6-2 incorporate Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-la through MM-AQ-le. As shown in Table 2.6-2,the Nature Center would result in a reduction of 6,024 MT CO2e annually as compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, with respect to service population,the Nature Center would result in 0.87 MT CO2e per service population per year less than the Civic/Institutional use. This is a conservative estimate of per service population reductions,because it is unknown how many employees would be associated with the Nature Center and therefore employees from the Nature Center were not included in the service population. Altair Specific Plan A-30 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis TABLE 2.6-2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source Estimated Emissions CO2e(MT/yr) Construction Annual Construction(Amortized over 30 years) 309 Phase 1 4,595 Phase 2 7,320 Phase 3 Area Sources 10 Energy Consumption' 1,021 Mobile Sources' 5,069 Solid Waste 38 Water Consumption° 325 Total Phase 3 Emissions 6,464 Total Project Emissions 18,928 Service Population(SP) 4,680 Emissions per SP 4.04 Civic/Institutional Scenario Total Project Emissions 24,952.37 Service Population(SP) 5,080 Emissions per SP 4.91 Change from Civic/Institutional Use Total Project Emissions (6,024) Emissions per SP (0.87) Thresholds Nature Center Civic Center Exceed 25,000 MT CO2e/year? No No Exceed 10,000 MT CO2e/year? Yes Yes Exceed 3,000 MT CO2e/year? Yes Yes Significant? Yes Yes CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent;MT/yr=metric tons per year e The energy-related GHG emissions,as estimated by CaIEEMod,use 2008 Title 24 energy usage rates.However, according to the CEC,buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards would be 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards.As such,this additional reduction in energy consumption was accounted for in the project's estimated GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. b GHG emissions reductions associated with mobile sources are not quantified as there are no specifics as to the type of retail that will be included,or the level of on-site compliance.However,the implementation of these measures will provide further GHG reductions and benefit the project more than is quantified above. ° GHG emissions reductions associated with water use resulting from compliance with CALGreen requirements,which requires a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and the provision of irrigation controllers for outdoor water use,were accounted for in CalEEMod model run. SOURCE:ESA,2017;ESA,2015 The Nature Center would incorporate the same project features and mitigation measures as the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR.The Nature Center would comply with all of the Altair Specific Plan A-31 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis same GHG Emissions Reduction Plans and Policies as described for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR. Overall,the Nature Center use is expected to further reduce GHG emissions from the Civic/Institutional use, although not enough to reduce the emissions to a less-than-significant level. 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Nature Center use would not generate or use large quantities of hazardous and/or toxic materials as compared to the Civic/Institutional use. Similar to that described in the Draft EIR, small quantities of hazardous materials may be used during construction and operation, such as, fuels, oils, solvents, and glues, cleaning products,pesticides, and paints. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. Exposure to hazardous chemicals through improper handling or through accidental upset conditions could cause acute or chronic health effects to the public and environment. However,handling and use of these hazardous materials and the disposal of the resulting hazardous wastes would be required to follow the applicable laws and regulations, as described in Section 3.7,Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations of would be the reduction of risks and hazards to workers,the public, and the environment to levels that would be considered less than significant. Development of the Nature Center use would not introduce any new impacts, and the conclusions of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis presented in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR are the same. Therefore,the Nature Center would result in comparable or slightly less hazards impacts compared to the Civic/Institutional use,which are less than significant. 2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The Nature Center and associated parking lots would be constructed within the footprint of the original Civic Site but would include the development of a development pad approximately 6.3 acres in size as opposed to the 18.7-acre area for the Civic/Institutional uses. 2.8.1 Stormwater Runoff and Drainage System Capacity Construction Similar to the Civic/Institutional use,construction activities for the Nature Center would be subject to NPDES Permit requirements,and an SWPPP would be prepared. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use described in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center use would have the potential to affect surface water quality by generating urban runoff. Impacts would remain less than significant. Operation As already evaluated in the Draft EIR,runoff would increase at the Civic Site within Major Basin 600 under the Civic/Institutional use as shown in Overall Proposed Condition figure of the Preliminary Drainage Study provided in Appendix A4 of the Draft EIR. As with either the Civic/Institutional or Nature Center uses, storm drains would be constructed to convey the runoff from these major basins directly to Murrieta Creek, so that these areas do not impact existing storm drain systems. Since the runoff would be conveyed to Murrieta Creek, a diversion would not occur. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix A4,the overall flow rate into Murrieta Creek would Altair Specific Plan A-32 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis decrease slightly [under Nature Center use] due to reduced impermeable surfaces. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use described in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center use would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1. Impacts would be less than significant after the implementation of MM-HYD-I. 2.8.2 Water Quality Construction The Nature Center's construction would not introduce any new impacts as compared to the analysis for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR, and the conclusions regarding water quality impacts presented in Section 3.8 would be the same.Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2 would be required,which includes an NPDES Construction General Permit, and implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP would be required prior to grading for the Nature Center use to avoid significant impacts to water quality. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,impacts for the Nature Center would be less than significant after mitigation. Operation A Preliminary WQMP has been prepared which identifies BMPs for the stormwater treatment features, source control, and site design(Appendix A3 of this analysis). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of stormwater runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The Nature Center's construction would not introduce any new impacts from the analysis presented in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3 would be required prior to grading for the Nature Center,to avoid significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3 requires, as a condition of approval, a specific WQMP for the Nature Center development per the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. This would ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts for the Nature Center would be less than significant after mitigation. 2.8.3 Erosion and Siltation Construction Similar to the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center would require site clearing, grading and excavation, site contouring,installation of improvements and structural development, and site clean-up. These activities could expose and loosen sediment,which has the potential to mix with stormwater runoff and result in erosion or siltation off site. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use described in the Draft EIR, construction activities for the Nature Center would be subject to NPDES Permit requirements and implementation of an SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer(QSD). The QSD-prepared SWPPP would address site-specific conditions related to construction; identify the sources of sediment and other Altair Specific Plan A-33 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges during construction; and describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment,pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non-sediment pollutants in stormwater, as well as non-stormwater discharges. The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such that the environment is protected to the maximum extent feasible throughout the entirety of construction. In addition,the Qualified SWPPP Practitioner(QSP)would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections,to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts for the Nature Center would be less than significant after mitigation. Operation Similar to the Civic/Institutional use, development of the Nature Center would add impervious surfaces where they are currently impermeable surfaces. However, the Nature Center would add fewer impervious surfaces. Furthermore,BMPs required under the City's MS4 and the mitigation measures already included in the Draft EIR(see discussions above in Sections 2.8.1 and 2.8.2) would be implemented to convey and treat runoff from impervious surfaces. Therefore, development of the Nature Center would not result in substantial increased in erosion or siltation, either on site or off site. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts for the Nature Center would be less than significant after mitigation. 2.8.4 Groundwater Supplies The Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR and would require more water that the Nature Center use. The Nature Center would comply with all applicable water use restrictions. The Water Supply Assessment concluded that the Rancho California Water District(RCWD) would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the water needs of the Civic/Institutional use and the Nature Center use,as the Nature Center use would require less water that the Civic/Institutional Use. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater water supply. 2.8.5 Flooding and Inundation No structural development would occur in the within the 100-year flood zone. Thus, similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center would not introduce housing or structures into a flood zone area that could potentially impede or redirect flood flows. Nonetheless, specific building standards, as described within the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management),would apply since the project site is located in an area that has the potential for mud and debris flows. The City would review development plans to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. Therefore, similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts related to flooding and mudflows associated with the Nature Center would be less than significant. Altair Specific Plan A-34 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis The Nature Center use would not compromise the structures of the dams and,thus, does not contribute to an increase in the risk of dam failure. Further, City of Temecula has developed a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan,which is updated, as needed. This Plan would be put to use in the event of dam failure to ensure the safety of the public. Additionally,the City coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. The rare likelihood of such an event in combination with applicable plan and program compliance would reduce any risks of death or loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure to less than significant. Therefore, similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts associated with the Nature Center would be less than significant. 2.9 Land Use and Planning 2.9.1 Consistency with Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation The Nature Center use would similarly be consistent with the goals of Southern California Association of Government's(SCAG's)Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS),the City of Temecula General Plan policies, and the City of Temecula Zoning Ordinance. As depicted in Table 3.9-4, Consistency of the Project with the City of Temecula General Plan Policies, of the Draft EIR,the proposed the Nature Center use is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies that pertain to the project. Implementation of the Altair Specific Plan would require a General Plan Amendment that would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages,institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. Upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment,the project would be in conformance with the General Plan. From an environmental perspective,the Nature Center use does not conflict with the existing General Plan because the project is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan that aim to conserve natural resources and those that consider development compatibility. Upon approval of the project,the design standards and regulations outlined in the Altair Specific Plan would replace the existing zoning on the project site,resulting in the project's zoning being consistent with the General Plan. As with the Civic/Institutional use,there would be no impacts related to consistency with land use plans,policies, or regulations. See Section 2.5,Biological Resources, of this analysis for a discussion on the Nature Center use and its consistency with the MSHCP. 2.10 Noise Noise impacts are evaluated in two categories: construction noise sources and operational noise sources. Construction-related noise sources are associated with construction activities such as Altair Specific Plan A-35 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis demolition, excavation, and the use of construction equipment. Operational noise is primarily associated with stationary sources such as rooftop mechanical equipment and mobile sources such as vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Construction The Nature Center would generate incrementally less construction-related noise and groundborne vibration as compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, given the fact that the overall project extensive excavation and construction activities would occur within close proximity of sensitive receptors to the east of the project site, construction noise impacts resulting from construction activities, as well as groundborne vibration impacts,would still remain significant with implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR. Operation The Specific Plan including the Nature Center uses would result in 5,335 fewer average daily trips(from 19,239 to 13,897), 712 fewer trips during the AM peak hour(from 1,918 to 1,206), and 580 fewer trips during the PM peak hour(from 1,863 to 1,283) as compared to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR.2 As discussed in Section 3.10,Noise and Vibration, of the Draft EIR, Civic/Institutional use would not result in significant operational noise impacts. Due to the reduction in the number of trips and associated roadway noise with implementation of the Nature Center, operational traffic noise impacts would be less than those associated with the Civic/Institutional use. As opposed to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that operation of the Nature Center would not result in exceedances of the City's exterior noise standards at the existing offsite land uses. However, for the overall project with the Nature Center use, similar to that described for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR,with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-la through MM-NOI-4b,operational noise impacts from onsite noise sources would be less than significant. 2.11 Population and Housing The Nature Center would not accommodate predicted growth and would not result in a substantial increase in population. The Nature Center use would create a minimal number of employment opportunities. It is anticipated that most of the employees would be drawn from the region's existing employment stock,and it is not expected that new employment opportunities would draw large numbers of new employees from outside of the region. Therefore,the Nature Center would not result in a new population of employees that would result in growth inducement beyond that already projected for the City. Similar to that described for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR, impacts remain less than significant. 2 Fehr&Peers,Altair Specific Plan—Draft Supplemental Transportation Assessment,April,2017. Altair Specific Plan A-36 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2.12 Public Services 2.12.1 Fire Protection The Nature Center would include a building footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. The Nature Center is anticipated to have approximately 7,000 visitors on average per month. Due to the limited nature of the sites uses,no additional fire stations would be required as a result of development of the proposed Nature Center. Given the project area's proximity to an adjacent High Fire Hazard Area,there is the potential for wildland fires within the project area.As discussed in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR,the Western Bypass would serve as a fire break between wildland areas and the proposed development. Furthermore, a Fuel Modification Plan would be incorporated to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements to address this hazard.All development would be required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance with the most recent CFC,which provides minimum fire safety measures that would be incorporated into all building designs. Thus, similar to the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR,with adherence to the CFC,implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan, and the capabilities of existing fire protection services,the potential impact from wildfires associated with the Nature Center would be less than significant. 2.12.2 Police Protection The Nature Center land use would include a building footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. The Nature Center includes about 7,000 visitors on average per month. Due to the limited nature of the sites uses,it is not anticipated the Nature Center use would generate the need for additional police protection services that would facilitate the need for new police facilities. Additionally,compared to the uses previously analyzed in for the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center would result in fewer visitors as compared to the original proposed school, convention center, and/or hospital. Therefore,the Nature Center would result in fewer police service calls and less security needs than, and thus reduced impacts compared to,the Civic/Institutional use. Impacts would be less than significant. 2.12.3 Schools The Nature Center use would not generate a student population and would have no impacts to the Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD). The Nature Center would not result in the need for development of new schools. Therefore,the Nature Center would result in comparable or slightly less school impacts compared to the Civic/Institutional use,which are less than significant. 2.12.4 Recreation and Parks The Nature Center use would be considered a recreation and parks facility as part of the Altair Specific Plan. Because the Nature Center use would actually provide additional areas for passive recreational use, it would have lesser environmental impacts than construction of Civic/Institutional uses analyzed in the Draft EIR. Altair Specific Plan A-37 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2.12.5 Library Services The Civic/Institutional use would not affect the County's ability to provide library services or create the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities. Since the Nature Center use would not result in the generation of students and would not increase residents,the Nature Center would result in fewer library service impacts than, and thus reduced impacts compared to,the Civic/Institutional use. 2.13 Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and Circulation Development of the Nature Center would result in fewer transportation and traffic impacts as compared to that associated with Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR(Altair Specific Plan—Draft Supplemental Transportation Assessment(Fehr&Peers 2017) (Appendix A4). Construction While specific construction activity(timing and intensity)likely would be somewhat lessened for the Nature Center use compared to the Civic/Institutional scenario,the general nature of impacts during construction would be similar. Construction would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction, and the effects of the construction traffic, and effects due to lane closures,potential traffic hazards, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not designated as truck routes are considered potentially significant(as stated in the original Draft EIR). Implementation of the original Draft EIR's Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Operation Under the Nature Center uses,daily and peak-hour trip generation would be noticeably lower than under the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 2.13-1,Civic Institutional Use/Nature Center Use Trip Generation Estimates,the Nature Center use would result in 7,619 fewer average daily trips, 779 fewer trips during the AM peak hour,and 713 fewer trips during the PM peak hour as compared to the Civic/Institutional use. TABLE 2.13-1 CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL USE NATURE CENTER USE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Civic/Institutional Use(University) 8,550 663 187 850 272 578 850 Nature Center w/Trails 931 59 13 71 56 81 137 Difference' -7,619 -604 -174 -779 -216 -497 -713 This does not include the Mode Shift Adjustment/Internalization Reduction. SOURCE:Fehr&Peers,2015(Appendix I of Draft EIR)and Fehr&Peers,2017(Appendix A.2) As such,the total Specific Plan daily and peak trip generation with the Nature Center uses would be noticeably lower than under the Civic/Institutional use analyzed in the Draft EIR. As shown in Altair Specific Plan A-38 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis Table 2.13-2,Total Specific Plan with Civic Institutional Use versus Nature Center Use Trip Generation Estimates,the Nature Center use would result in 5,335 fewer average daily trips, 712 fewer trips during the AM peak hour, and 580 fewer trips during the PM peak hour as compared to the Civic/Institutional use(university)use. TABLE 2.13-2 TOTAL SPECIFIC PLAN WITH CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL USE VERSUS NATURE CENTER USE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Civic/Institutional Use Total 19,232 968 950 1,918 924 939 1,863 Nature Center Total 13,897 429 778 1,206 754 528 1,283 Difference -5,335 -539 -172 -712 -170 -411 -580 SOURCE:Fehr&Peers,2017(Appendix A.2) The Nature Center's effect on traffic operations within the City of Temecula would be reduced,as compared to the Civic/Institutional use,as a result of the lower trip generation. The significant impact at Pujol Street and First Street(Intersection#15)would no longer occur under Existing Plus Project conditions;the other intersection impacts(and mitigation measures, as appropriate) would remain the same.Under Cumulative(2025)Plus Project conditions, significant impacts would no longer occur at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road(Intersection#5)and Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway(Intersection#14);the other intersection impacts(and mitigation measures, as appropriate)would remain the same. Under Build Out(2035)Plus Project Conditions,the significant and unavoidable impact at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection#5) and the significant impact at Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (Intersection#14)would no longer occur;the other intersection impacts(and mitigation measures, as appropriate)would remain the same. As a result of the reduced impacts discussed above,the following impacts and mitigation measures,which were previously identified in the DEIR would no longer apply: • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-8/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8 which identified construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection#14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: — Impact TRA-10/Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10 which previously identified the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. Altair Specific Plan A-39 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis • Intersection#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: — Impact TRA-11: The Project would no longer create a significant and unavoidable impact at this intersection. Table 2.13-3,Intersection Mitigation Summary,provides a comparative summary of project mitigations for the Civic/Institutional use and Nature Center use. TABLE 2.13-3 INTERSECTION MITIGATION SUMMARY Cumulative(2025)Plus Existing Plus Project Project Buildout(2035)Plus Project Civic Nature Civic Nature Civic Nature Intersection Use Center Use Center Use Center 2. Jefferson Unchanged(Optimize No Impact No Impact Avenue I Old Signal Timing) Town Front Street and Rancho California Road ................................................................................................................,..................................................................,.................................................,...........................................................................................,........................................ 5. Ynez Road and Unchanged(Optimize Add EB Right- No Impact No Feasible No Rancho California Signal Timing) Turn Lane Mitigation Measure Impact Road (Significant& Unavoidable) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................i..................................................................i.................................................i...........................................................................................i........................................ 6. Vincent Moraga No Impact No Impact Unchanged(Convert the Ridge Drive and Ridge Park Drive approach to a Park Drive Right-in I Right-out Only) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................,..................... 10. I-15 NB Ramps Unchanged(Optimize No Impact No Impact and Temecula Signal Timing) Parkway ..................................................................................................................................................................................................<.....................................................................................................................i..................................................................................................................................... 11. La Paz Road and No Impact Unchanged(Add WB Left- No Impact Temecula Turn Lane, EB Through Parkway Lane;Widen Temecula Parkway to 8 lanes) 14. Margarita Road Unchanged(Optimize Add WB Right- No Impact Add WB Right-Turn No and Temecula Signal Timing) Turn Lane Lane Impact parkway ................... ..........................................................................................................................................................,........................ ........................... 15. Pujol Street and Install All- I No Unchanged Unchanged First Street Way Stop Impact (Install All-Way Stop) (Install Signal) ..................................................................................................................................................:............................................_i.....................................................................................................................i..................................................................................................................................... 17. Ynez Road and Unchanged(Add EB Unchanged(Add EB Left- No Impact Santiago Road Left-Turn Lane and Turn Lane and Optimize Optimize Signal Timing) Signal Timing) 25. 1-15 SB Ramps Unchanged No Impact No Impact and Temecula (Reconfigure Parkway Interchange) SOURCE:Fehr&Peers,2017(Appendix A.2) Altair Specific Plan A-40 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis 2.14 Utilities and Service Systems 2.14.1 Compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board The Nature Center use would introduce a development into the area,which would increase the amount of wastewater produced within the area. However,the Nature Center is a less-intensive use than the Civic/Institutional use;therefore,the amount of wastewater produced would be less than the Civic/Institutional use. Similar to that described for the Civic/Institutional use in the Draft EIR,the Nature Center use would generally not discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by RWQCB (such as large quantities of pesticides,herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are more typical in agricultural and industrial uses), and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the RWQCB. Impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB would remain less than significant. 2.14.2 Wastewater The Nature Center use would generate new land uses where there would have otherwise been no development and would,therefore,result in an increased generation of wastewater flows from the project site. However, due to the reduced size of the Nature Center use,it would generate a lower annual quantity of wastewater than the Civic/Institutional use.As described in Section 3.14, Utilities and Water Supply Assessment, of the Draft EIR,development of the Civic Site with a less-intensive Nature Center use would not result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would remain less than significant. 2.14.3 Stormwater Drainage and Treatment Features The Nature Center use would include an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. Similar to the Civic/Institutional use,the construction of the Nature Center would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation of non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process prior to project approval for development projects,which can include infiltration basin, detention basin,vegetated swale, media filter,pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage,protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall, and vector avoidance strategies.A WQMP would be prepared, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which would ensure that the project implements specific drainage features in order to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. As a part of the WQMP the project would be required to incorporate and maintain low-impact development(LID)BMPs into the project design,which include measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. Therefore, similar to the Civic/Institutional use,Nature Center impacts would remain less than significant. 2.14.4 Water and Water Supply Due to the reduced size and less intensive use,the Nature Center use would generate a lower annual water demand than the Civic/Institutional use. Therefore,the Nature Center use would Altair Specific Plan A-41 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis result in fewer impacts to water and water supply than, and thus reduced impacts compared to,the Civic/Institutional use, and impacts would remain less than significant. 2.14.5 Solid Waste The Nature Center use would generate lower annual quantity of solid waste than the Civic/Institutional use because of its reduced size and operational characteristics such as fewer employees and visitors. The Nature Center is not considered a major solid waste generator. As described in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR,the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation. Since the landfill would have sufficient permitted capacity(through 2045), similar to the Civic/Institutional use,the Nature Center would not cause an adverse impact to either solid waste collection service or the landfill disposal system. Therefore, impacts relating to solid waste production during project operation would remain less than significant. 2.15 Relationship to Project Objectives The Nature Center use would result in the implementation of a project with 95 percent reduction in maximum building square footage and 60 percent reduction in maximum building height as compared to the Civic/Institutional use. All project objectives identified in Chapter 2,Project Description,of the Draft EIR would also be achieved under the Nature Center use. 2.16 Conclusion Implementation of the Nature Center use would further reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with implementing the Civic/Institutional use, although the following impacts would not be reduced to less than significant levels: • Air Quality—During project operations ROG and NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMD established significance thresholds and result in significant unavoidable impacts, even after incorporation of mitigation. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions—GHG emissions from the Nature Center use would exceed regulatory thresholds, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures. • Noise and Vibration—Construction of the Nature Center use would generate incrementally less-severe construction-related noise and groundborne vibration. However, construction would still occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The following significant and unavoidable impacts associated with implementing the Civic/Institutional use would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the Nature Center use: • Air Quality—The Nature Center use would result in emissions less than the SCAQMD's established significance thresholds and would be less than significant without mitigation whereas the Civic/Institutional use would be significant and unavoidable for CO, even with the implementation of mitigation. Altair Specific Plan A-42 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 A.South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis • Transportation and Traffic—The Nature Center use would result in fewer average daily trips and fewer AM/PM peak hour trips as compared to the Civic/Institutional use. Significant and unavoidable impacts Under Build Out(2035)Plus Project Conditions at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road(Intersection#5)and the significant impact at Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway(Intersection#14)would no longer occur. By reducing the maximum building square footage and reducing building heights,the Nature Center use eliminates significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and traffic. The Nature Center use also slightly reduces operational air emissions, GHG emissions, and noise. All other impacts associated with the Nature Center use would be slightly reduced and comparable to impacts associated with the Civic/Institutional use.No new or more-severe significant impacts beyond those identified for the Civic/Institutional use would result from implementation of the Nature Center use. For these reasons,the Nature Center use alternative is environmentally superior to the original Civic/Institutional use proposed for the Civic Site and recirculation of the Draft EIR is unwarranted. (See Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside [2017] 9 Cal.App.5th 941 [changes to specific plan for development after circulation of draft EIR did not require recirculation where changes were intended to address public comments and did not raise significant environmental impacts]; County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada [2013] 221 Cal.App.4th 316 [consideration of new, greater open space alternative after circulation of draft EIR did not amount to significant new information].) Altair Specific Plan A-43 ESA/D140106 South Parcel Nature Center Use Analysis October 2017 APPENDIX B South Parcel Nature Center Biological Assessment Altair Specific Plan ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 HELIX Environmental Planning,Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa,CA 91942 HELIX 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax Environmental Planning www.helixepi.com June 19, 2017 WHC-02 Mr. Rob Honer Temecula West Village, LLC 179 Calle Magdalena#201 Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Supplement to Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report(Appendix C of DEIR)to address the Nature Center Use Dear Mr. Honer: This letter report serves as a supplement to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report for the Altair Project("2015 Consistency Report")' prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. ("HELIX") and included as Appendix C to the Altair Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR"). BACKGROUND Based on direction from the City Council for the City of Temecula after release of the DEIR, the Final EIR will include an alternative use for consideration on the South Parcel (Civic Site) described as the"Nature Center Use." This report has been prepared to compare the proposed alternative Nature Center Use to the previously analyzed Civic Site Use with regard to consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). The DEIR and the 2015 Consistency Report,2 analyzed the Civic Site for its most intense use as a university or hospital consisting of up to 450,000 square feet(SF) with buildings of up to five stories in height, and 24-hour activity("University/Hospital Use"). (See DEIR, 2-9,Appx. C,p. 1.) The alternative Nature Center Use would have a maximum of 20,000 square feet and a building of up to two stories in height, and would allow daytime operation only, similar to State 'Prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning,Inc.for Ambient Communities,dated October 19,2015. 2 Prepared by Environmental Science Associates(ESA)for the City of Temecula,dated May 2016. Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 2 of 14 June 19, 2017 Parks. The Nature Center Use also includes a series of trails within the larger 55-acre Civic Site parcel. These trails are largely designed to be constructed within the grading footprint and existing dirt trails. Up to an additional mile of trails 10 feet in width may be constructed beyond those shown on Figure 3 and will be sited and constructed consistent with Guidelines for the Siting and Design of Trails and Facilities on page 7-74 of the MSHCP. The Nature Center Use provides more than a 95 percent reduction in maximum building size and a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height compared to the University/Hospital Use. Further, the University/Hospital Use impacts 20.6 acres consisting of a 9.6-acre buildable pad, fuel modification areas, access roads, and 2.25 acres of primarily 2:1 slopes that are going to be revegetated. The Nature Center Use impacts 19.6 acres of grading consisting of a 3.7-acre buildable pad, fuel modification areas, access roads, and 8.2 acres of a combination of 2:1 and 3:1 to 5:1 undulating slopes similar to the natural topography that will be revegetated with native vegetation. Overall, the Nature Center Use is a much less intensive land use, and would provide a larger conservation area, and much larger slope restoration area compatible with biological resource uses than that provided by the University/Hospital Use. The following analysis compares the Civic Site's biological impacts as a Nature Center Use with the previously analyzed University/Hospital Use. PROJECT EFFECTS The impact assessment includes the grading footprint of the Nature Center building, access roads from the proposed development to the north, and grading needed for trails. As noted above, in addition to trails shown on Figure 3, up to an additional mile of future trails may be constructed within the 55-acre Civic Site parcel. For impact purposes, these potential future trails are estimated to result in impacts to up to an additional 1.21 acres consisting of Diegan coastal sage scrub, although as noted above, the trails will be sited and constructed consistent with Guidelines for the Siting and Design of Trails and Facilities on page 7-74 of the MSHCP. The Nature Center Use will result in permanent impacts to approximately 19.63 acres (Figure 1, Table 1), which is a reduction of 0.7 acre over the University/Hospital Use. The impact reduction is limited to 0.7 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub. It should be noted that 2.0 acres of impacts from the Nature Center Use are from trails, including 0.8 acre of which occurs primarily within existing dirt trails/access roads on the site. A majority of the impacts are the result of placement of fill material associated with overall Specific Plan balanced grading operations. Additionally, the Nature Center Use includes restoration of approximately 8.2 acres of slopes, as noted above. HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 3 of 14 June 19, 2017 Table 1 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES HABITAT ACRES* Impacts Riparian/Riverine Habitats Riparian woodland 0.00 Southern willow scrub 0.03 Herbaceous wetland 0.00 Coast live oak woodland 0.18 Subtotal 0.21+ Upland Habitats Native grassland 0.00 Coast live oak woodland 0.04 Die an coastal sage scrub 17.21 Southern mixed chaparral 0.00 Non-native grassland 1.00 Non-native vegetation 0.00 Disturbed habitat 1.17 Developed 0.00 Subtotal 19.42 TOTAL 19.63 * Riparian/Riverine Habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.01; upland communities are rounded to the nearest 0.1. + Does not include streambed numbers that are included in upland impacts. MSHCP CONSISTENCY/BIOLOGICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS Both the DEIR and the 2015 Consistency Report explain the Criteria Review Consistency Process outlined in the MSHCP(DEIR, p. 3.3-63; 2016 Consistency Report,pp. 42-45). Sections 3.1 to 3.2 below provide an analysis of the Nature Center Use's consistency with the MSHCP, when compared with the University/Hospital Use on the Civic Site. Consistent with the approach outlined in the DEIR, this analysis examines these two land uses using a sequential approach that starts with an examination of the project in the context of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area by looking at applicable Cores and Linkages, then continues with a review of the project in the context the specific Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit in which it is located, and finally, evaluates the specific Criteria for the identified Cell or Cell Group within which the project site is located(DEIR,p. 3.3-63; MSHCP,p. 3-122.). HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 4 of 14 June 19, 2017 Cores, Linkages,Area Plan and Area Plan Subunits The Proposed Project is located in Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) and Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) of the MSHCP's Southwest Area Plan. The property includes 8.1 acres in Cell Group K and 262.7 acres in Independent Cells. Compared to the University/Hospital Use, the Nature Center Use reduces impacts to Independent Cells 7355 and 7356, while the remainder of the project remains essentially unchanged. The analysis in this letter report will address these two cells as well as Subunit 1, Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, Proposed Linkage 10, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 where the changes are relevant. Subunit 1 of the Southwest Area Plan includes a list of biological issues and considerations that relate to the MSHCP Area Plan/Sub Area Plans Criteria. Each issue and consideration for Subunit 1 is listed below and an assessment of consistency is provided specific to the Civic Site. Subunit 1 is made up primarily of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The very southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 and the very western end of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 also occur in Subunit 1. Consistent with the DEIR analysis, Cores and Linkages will be discussed first, followed by Subunit 1, followed by specific Cell Criteria. Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 10 in the south. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban development and agricultural use and the planned land use surrounding the Linkage consists of city(Murrieta and Temecula). Therefore, care must be taken to maintain high-quality riparian habitat within the Linkage and along the edges for species such as yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the creek. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek is also important to western pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area. Guidelines pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP and are further discussed below. Status—The Project lies entirely outside of Murrieta Creek, although the Nature Center Use does show a more limited grading footprint next to Murrieta Creek in Cell No. 7356 compared to the University/Hospital Use. These graded slopes will mimic the natural topography with 3:1 to 5:1 slopes and be revegetated with native species, with the actual Nature Center pad area approximately 550 feet from Murrieta Creek. No habitat for the arroyo chub, western pond turtle, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo will be impacted. Guidelines pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface will be met consistent with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP as detailed below, with the Nature Center Use eliminating night lighting impacts except those needed for security, and significantly reducing noise impacts. Precluding nighttime uses will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 would be reduced for a distance of approximately 935 feet to between 255 and 450 feet in width between the Civic Site and development to the east (Figure 4), although a majority of this HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 5 of 14 June 19, 2017 narrowing of the corridor includes the graded slope that will be restored to native sage scrub vegetation. With the restored slopes included, this width expands to between 356 and 758 feet (Figure 4). Proposed Linkage 10 Proposed Linkage 10 consists of an upland connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Existing Core G(Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve) in the south. Private lands compose the entirety of the Linkage, which consists of upland Habitat complementary to the riparian Linkage provided between these two Cores by Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). This Linkage, which is only somewhat constrained by existing urban development, provides for movement between these two Cores for species such as bobcat and mountain lion. Although the Linkage is somewhat lengthy at 5.5 miles, it is also nearly a mile wide and thus provides Live-In Habitat for many species. Surrounding planned land uses are approximately evenly divided between Rural Mountainous and city(Murrieta, Temecula). In areas of the Linkage bordering cities, treatment of edge conditions will be necessary to maintain the proper Habitat and movement functions of the Linkage. Status—With project implementation as proposed, the minimum Proposed Linkage 10 width within Subunit I adjacent to the University/Hospital Use exceeds 980 feet when measured from the edge of grading to the edge of already conserved land or existing roadways (Figure 2). This pinch point exists with the existing approved alignment of the Western Bypass, and is unrelated to the Civic Site. The Nature Center Use does increase the width of the corridor at the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 by 150 feet resulting from the shortened length of the graded pad. Along with the lower intensity use being proposed, especially the elimination of night-time activities, this use will enhance wildlife movement over the University/Hospital Use. Subunit 1: Murrieta Creek (1) Biological Issues and Considerations—Maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula Creek to Cole Creek for wildlife movement and Conservation of wetland species. Status—The portion of Subunit I of the Area Plan, described here, is limited to Murrieta Creek from the approved and permitted crossing of the Western Bypass downstream to the confluence with the Santa Margarita River and overlaps with Proposed Linkage 10. Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 upstream of the Western Bypass crossing narrows considerably, with existing development occurring along much of the length of this constrained linkage. Mountain lion is not a planning species for Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The linkage in the area south of the proposed Western Bypass crossing where the Civic Site is located currently ranges from 1,800 to 2,500 feet in width. The development footprint lies entirely outside of Murrieta Creek, although the Civic Site does propose development next to Murrieta Creek. Development of the Civic Site with the Nature Center Use extends into a portion of this linkage, and the reduced footprint and HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 6 of 14 June 19, 2017 lower intensity use associated with the Nature Center Use will enhance potential wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek over the University/Hospital Use. Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 would still be reduced to a width of between 255 and 450 for a distance of approximately 940 feet between the Civic Site and development to the east (Figure 4), although a majority of this narrowing of the corridor includes the graded slope similar to existing grades that will be restored to native sage scrub vegetation along with a hiking trail that traverses the slope. With the restored slopes included, this corridor width expands to between 356 and 1,050 feet. Precluding nighttime uses will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. The hiking trails are expected to have minimal impact on overall wildlife movement, especially with the limitation of no nighttime use of the Nature Center. As with the University/Hospital Use, the Nature Center Use is anticipated to result in a reduction in overall suitability of Proposed Linkage 10 for the mountain lion, especially for adult males and females without kittens, although less so with the significant reduction in scale of the Nature Center Use. Some use of the linkage by mountain lion is anticipated to continue post project construction,primarily south and west of the project site. Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 is described as having its western terminus east of Interstate 15, and the Nature Center Use is not anticipated to adversely affect this linkage. Although the mountain lion is not a planning species for Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, a mountain lion has used the lower portion of Murrieta Creek at least periodically,up to the approximate location of the MSHCP approved Western Bypass Bridge crossing of Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek upstream of this point is not being used, likely because of the existing intense development on both sides of the creek which constrains the linkage to as narrow as 180 feet approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the Western Bypass Bridge crossing. While the Nature Center Use facilitates wildlife movement overall in Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 when compared to the University/Hospital Use, the change is expected to have a limited impact on wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek, which is anticipated to occur anyway when the Western Bypass Bridge is constructed, regardless of the Civic Site's future use. With project implementation as proposed, the minimum Proposed Linkage 10 width within Subunit 1 exceeds 600 feet when measured from the edge of grading to the edge of already conserved land or existing roadways. This pinch point exists with the existing approved alignment of the Western Bypass and is unrelated to the Civic Site. The Nature Center Use shortens the length of the graded pad at the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 by approximately 250 feet compared with the University/Hospital Use. This, combined with the lower intensity use and especially the elimination of night-time activities, will result in the Nature Center Use enhancing mountain lion movement over the University/Hospital Use. (2) Biological Issues and Considerations—Maintain linkage area for bobcat. Status—The Nature Center Use would improve Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 for bobcat over the University/Hospital Use. While Proposed HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 7 of 14 June 19, 2017 Constrained Linkage 13 would still be narrowed, a majority of this narrowing of the corridor includes graded undulating slopes that will be restored to native sage scrub vegetation which will still provide benefits to the bobcat over the long term. Precluding nighttime uses will further facilitate bobcat movement along Murrieta Creek and through Proposed Linkage 10. (3) Biological Issues and Considerations—Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion Linkage. Status—While development of the Civic Site under the Nature Center Use is still expected to have a negative impact on future, potential mountain lion usage, the reduction of the size of the development footprint, restoration of naturally graded slopes, the reduction in the maximum building size by over 95 percent, and elimination of nighttime activity enhances the use of this area as a mountain lion linkage when compared to the University/Hospital Use. As with the University/Hospital Use, indirect impacts will be minimized within the area between the Civic Site and Santa Margarita River by retaining a portion of Camino Estribo as a dirt road to minimize speeds on this existing dirt roadway. (4) Biological Issues and Considerations—Maintain Habitat for arroyo chub, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle within Murrieta Creek and Cole Creek. Status—The entire Project lies entirely outside of Murrieta Creek, although there is some development next to Murrieta Creek in Cell No. 7356. No habitat for the arroyo chub, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle will be impacted. The reduced intensity of the use of the Civic Site under the Nature Center Use will reduce potential for indirect impacts to pond turtle habitat along Murrieta Creek. Cell Criteria Level The following section discusses compliance with the individual Cell conservation criteria for the two Cells that overlay the Civic Site. Table 2 provides a summary of all of the Cells impacted by the project. The property includes 8.1 acres in Cell Group K and 262.7 acres in Independent Cells. Compared to the University/Hospital Use, the Nature Center Use reduces impacts to Independent Cells 7355 and 7356. The project footprint outside of the Civic Site is essentially unchanged. HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 8 of 14 June 19, 2017 Table 2 MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS—ACREAGE IMPACTS AND CONSERVATION ACRES CELL CELL GROUP Existing Impacts Impacts Conserved On Site On Site Off Site 7355 -- 24.0 8.9 1.6 13.5 7356 -- 31.0 10.7 -- 20.3 TOTAL 55.0 19.6 1.6 33.8 'Total does not equal 83.8 because of rounding The Nature Center Use would reduce impacts to Independent Cell No. 7355 from 9.3 acres to 8.9 acres, leaving 13.5 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10. Although conservation acreage goals fall short of the targeted acreage for the cell, conservation goals are met at the Core and Linkage and Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit basis and for this cell by project design, which would preserve coastal sage scrub and oak woodland habitats in the northeast portion of the cell and connect to coastal sage scrub habitat in Cell No. 7264 to the north and Cell No. 7356 to the east. The Nature Center Use would reduce impacts to Independent Cell No. 7356 from 11.0 acres to 10.7, leaving 20.3 acres for contributing to the assemblage of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. Overall conservation goals, including Biological Issues and Considerations, are met at the Core and Linkage and Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit basis and for this cell by project design, which would preserve coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian habitats in the western portion of the cell and connect to coastal sage scrub habitat in Cell No. 7355 to the west. Impacts in Cell 7355 and 7356 are reduced with the Nature Center Use and, similar to the University/Hospital Use, the Nature Center Use would meet overall conservation goals for Proposed Linkage 10. ROUGH STEP ANALYSIS The DEIR analyzed the larger project for Consistency with Rough Step Unit 5. This Rough Step Unit is currently in rough step3. As noted in page 3.3-58 of the DEIR, the University/Hospital Use exceeds Rough Step requirements for sage scrub by 8.4 acres and for woodlands and forests by 0.35 acre, and has an on-site shortfall for riparian habitat of 1.45 acres, although it is anticipated that 1.14 acres of this shortfall will be met through mitigation requirements (See DEIR, p. 3.3-42.). There is a 4.0-acre shortfall for grassland. Because Rough Step Unit 5 currently exceeds Rough Step requirements 3 Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Annual Report for the Period January 1,2014 through December 31,2014.Regional Conservation Authority. HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 9 of 14 June 19, 2017 for riparian scrub, woodland, forest, and grassland habitats, the University/Hospital Use would not cause Rough Step Unit 5 to be out of Rough Step. Because the Nature Center Use further reduces impacts, similar to the University/Hospital Use, the Nature Center Use will be in Rough Step. NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES SURVEY AREA AND CRITERIA AREA SPECIES SURVEY AREA SPECIES The site occurs outside of the area identified in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP as requiring focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area plant species and 6.3.2 requiring focused surveys for Criteria Area Species Survey Area plant species. Sensitive plant and animal species observed during project surveys were noted and addressed in the DEIR(See DEIR, p. 3.3-12). No sensitive plant species were observed on the Civic Site. RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOLS (MSHCP SECTION 6.1.2) Riparian/Riverine impacts are the same for both the Nature Center Use and the University/Hospital Use and total 0.35 acre. Both uses avoid 1.10 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat within the Civic Site parcel (Table 3; Figure 5). Table 3 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE IMPACTS AND CONSERVATION HABITAT EXISTING IMPACTS* CONSERVED* ACRES* Riparian woodland 0.48 0.00 0.48 Southern willow scrub 0.03 0.03 0.00 Coast live oak woodland 0.71 0.18 0.53 Streambed 0.23 0.14 0.09 TOTAL 1.45 0.35 1.10 *Presented in acre(s)rounded to the nearest hundredth. Avoidance, Minimization, and Implementation of Existing EIR Mitigation The Nature Center Use would avoid impacts to 1.103 acres (76 percent) of the Riparian/Riverine habitats within the Civic Site parcel and avoids impacts to the largest stand of coast live oak woodland in the southern portion of the site. The Nature Center Use includes design features that would further reduce potential impacts on biological resources. Indeed, the Nature Center Use would help further preserve the functions and values of Riparian/Riverine resources through the following design features: • The Civic Site has been pulled back even further from the existing drainage in the central portion of the southern parcel, which will further minimize indirect impacts to the drainage and promote wildlife movement through the low-lying area. HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 10 of 14 June 19, 2017 • The same standard Best Management Practices incorporated into the University/Hospital Use are included for the Nature Center Use, and further minimize potential erosion, sedimentation, and pollutants during construction(See DEIR, p. 3.3-39). • Likewise, as previously described in the DEIR for the University/Hospital Use, equipment would be stored in upland areas, outside of drainages, except as required by project design(for habitat restoration, for example), further avoiding and minimizing potential impacts associated with drainages (DEIR, p. 3.3-39). For both the University/Hospital Use and Nature Center Use, mitigation for impacts to Riparian (vegetated) resources is proposed to be at a 3:1 ratio for both temporary and permanent impacts and accomplished by one of three options: • Off-site habitat restoration; • Purchase of credits from an In Lieu Fee program; • Purchase of credits from a mitigation bank The mitigation could be one of these options or could be a combination of these options and will be determined through discussions with the City and resource agencies (See DEIR,p. 3.3-42). The Riverine resources (i.e.,unvegetated streambed) are proposed to be mitigated at 1:1 through one of these options as determined through discussions with the City and resource agencies (See DEIR,p. 3.3-42). Mitigation requirements are the same for both the University/Hospital Use and Nature Center Use. URBAN WILDLAND INTERFACE GUIDELINES (MSHCP SECTION 6.1.4) Section 6.1.4 addresses potential indirect impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area via the Urban Wildland Interface Guidelines (UWIG). This section focuses on the portion of the Civic Site that occurs adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area and, as such, is subject to the UWIG to reduce/prevent potential impacts to the reserve by the development. Drainage The Nature Center Use will have far less impervious surface than the University/Hospital Use and is anticipated to have less potential for impacts on drainage. The Nature Center building will be designed to incorporate measures, including those required through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to downstream areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff into downstream waters. For both the University/Hospital Use (See DEIR p. 3.3-32) and Nature Center Use, storm-water systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes downstream of the site. This would be accomplished by incorporating one or more of the following methods: natural detention basins, HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 11 of 14 June 19, 2017 grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operation of runoff control systems. The Nature Center Use will reduce potential impacts to drainage relative to the University/Hospital Use. Toxics The Nature Center Use is not anticipated to generate any toxics, although the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, if used, could impact the adjacent preserve without proper measures to address these potential pollutants. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bio-products that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality must, under the MSHCP, incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The measures incorporated as part of the existing University/Hospital use that address drainage issues (See DEIR p. 3.3-32) would likewise be incorporated as part of the Nature Center Use, and thus any possible impacts from toxics will be avoided. The Nature Center Use will reduce potential impacts from toxics relative to the University/Hospital Use. Lighting The Nature Center Use does not propose night-time activities and there will be no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the Civic Site other than lighting needed for security. The Nature Center Use will reduce potential impacts from lighting relative to the University/Hospital Use. Noise The Nature Center Use will be a low-intensity use with noise limited to low levels of traffic driving to and from the Nature Center. As such, the MSHCP Conservation Area would not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Nature Center Use will reduce potential impacts from noise relative to the University/Hospital Use. Invasives Any project landscaping in the Nature Center will consist of native and non-invasive non-native species and shall avoid the use of plants shown on MSHCP Table 6.2. Graded slopes will be revegetated with sage scrub species. The Nature Center Use will reduce potential impacts from invasives relative to the University/Hospital Use. Barriers The edges of the Nature Center that are directly adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall include fencing or other barriers to prevent unauthorized public access, illegal trespass, or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area where needed. Wildlife exclusion fencing is not needed with the Nature Center Use. Trails proposed on the graded slopes and within the Conservation Area will be clearly marked, and fencing will be provided where appropriate. HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 12 of 14 June 19, 2017 Barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. The Nature Center Use will reduce the need for barriers relative to the University/Hospital Use. Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed Nature Center Use will be included in the Proposed Project and will not extend into the lands proposed to contribute to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The applicant has also agreed to restore the slopes not needed for fuel modification with native upland vegetation that abut the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Nature Center Use will reduce the overall grading footprint relative to the University/Hospital Use, and both uses will exclude grading from the MSHCP Conservation Area. FUELS MANAGEMENT (MSHCP SECTION 6.4) As with the Hospital/University Use, the Nature Center Use would remain adjacent to an MSHCP Conservation Area. Fuel modification impacts would not extend into the Conservation Area because the fuel modification zone requirements were taken into account when the Nature Center was designed. MSHCP FEES As outlined in the DEIR(pages 3.3-6 and 3.3-45), the applicant shall pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) as determined by the City and already required under the MSHCP. The LDMF schedule is adjusted annually by the Regional Conservation Authority and was last adjusted on July 1, 2008. The current LDMF is $6,597 per acre for industrial or commercial uses, $1,938 for residential density less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre, $1,241 for residential density between 8.0 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre, and$1,008 for residential density greater than 14.0 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is processing the Altair Specific Plan on the subject property which primarily includes residential uses with an ultimate build-out of 870 to 1,750 units. The majority of the units will be subject to fees on either the residential density between 8.0 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre or the residential density greater than 14.0 dwelling units per acre categories. The applicant is requesting that LDMF be offset through donation of lands proposed for conservation. The actual LDMF reduction will be determined by the City. With the possible substitution of a Nature Center Use for the Hospital/University Use and related reduction in potential impacts associated with the MSHCP, the Nature Center Use may reduce the overall fees required under the MSHCP. CONCLUSION Development of the project under the Nature Center Use would remain consistent with the MSHCP and MSHCP criteria and reduces impacts compared to the University/Hospital Use, as follows: HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 13 of 14 June 19, 2017 • The Nature Center Use provides a nearly 1,100-foot separation from the Santa Margarita River to the south, and linkage widths generally in excess of 980 feet(and much wider if existing orchards are included in the linkage calculations based on the Proposed Linkage 10 description of being"nearly a mile wide") along the length of the escarpment adjacent to the Civic Site parcel. • A reduction in functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 will occur as a result of the implementation of the Western Bypass road and bridge (an MSHCP covered activity) regardless of whether the Civic Site is developed as the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Despite this reduction in functionality, however, the linkage will continue to function for mountain lion movement(regardless of use)with the Nature Center Use providing for greater functionality over the long term compared to the University/Hospital Use. • Conservation would occur that is consistent with Biological Goals and Objectives for the Criteria Cells and for Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 for both the Nature Center Use and University/Hospital Use. • All habitats would remain in rough step within Rough Step Unit 5 for both the Nature Center Use and University/Hospital Use. • As with the University/Hospital Use under the DEIR, the Nature Center Use would mitigate for the loss of 0.34 acre of Riparian/Riverine habitat at ratios of 3:1 for vegetated habitat and 1:1 for unvegetated(streambed) habitat. • The Nature Center would comply with the UWIG through fencing, elimination of lighting, vegetative buffering, and restoration of slopes adjacent to the preserve with native vegetation to avoid indirect impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area. In sum, the Nature Center Use remains consistent with the objectives of the MSHCP and would reduce overall impacts to sensitive habitats and improve Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 functions compared with the University/Hospital Use. Sincerely, Barry L. Jones Senior Consulting Biologist HELIX Environmental Planning Letter to Mr. Rob Honer Page 14 of 14 June 19, 2017 Enclosures: Figure 1 Regional Location Map Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map Figure 3 Site Plan Figure 4 Corridor/Linkage Widths Figure 5 Riparian/Riverine Impacts HELIX Environmental Planning SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Riverside Desert Hot Springs Banning Norco Moreno Valley , Lake Perris Beaumont Corona Lake AftMathews Palm Springs Perris San Jacinto 115 Hemet Pal ert Lake q Elsinore 3 Coachella Diamond Lake Valley Lake Laker Elsinore Lake Cahuilla Lake Skinner ptv M u rri eta Temecula Vail&Rake 'o 'm Salton Sea 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY u 3 3 F u m 0 s Regional Location Map GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS AND ALTAIR PROJECT HELIX A° '°Miles Figure 1 Environmental Planning VA i i sir•. ' r Reroort st • ",00Fmoo { I t r 1 F •Rancho ewifarnia'a4a �:7: f 1 .�. t,�? �;� a Tv • _ Jar • v7 8 A �"R'ri. 4 f ] C� � f� } �j :C4, •,+t 1 4Jfr�;.n: ,Tk r 4 - . v ic sm 014 t Mir Gnf ow- T, Course Project Vicinity Map GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS AND ALTAIR PROJECT HELIX Al° 2,°°° Feet F1gUP0 2, Environmental Planning _ S - �•'� a� k d f r T J a Y , '� r � `• 7 �.` rn ■ li ice :'.•:,.. t llII 1 r Y � i qV \-\ ir r \� , ",x J.. 1 ® Project Boundary a M-1 Civic Center E Proposed Trail Native Restoration Area MSHCP Criteria Cell 7 Vegetation . o Riparian Woodland - Southern Willow Scrub - Coast Live Oak Woodland �' ■ Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub e Non-native Grassland . Disturbed Habitat F o Developed Site Plan GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS AND ALTAIR PROJECT HELIX Q° 15 Feet Figure 3 Environmental Planning . . Ii i 1 1 t F 7355 T 410 J y r n• 8 u x 3 E 3 a: UI ® Project Boundary Civic Center Approved I-15/SR-79 Interchange Approved Western Bypass Bridge Crossing MSHCP Criteria Cell x e Native Restoration Area x 3 Corridor/Linkage with Revegetated Slopes F Corridor/Linkage Width Corridor/Linkage Widths GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE WESTERN BYPASS AND ALTAIR PROJECT HELIX Q I 350 Fit Figure 4 Environmental Planning / �fir/ S '� _ •• '� `r T A ♦ ♦ N .y • l� ♦ 1 \ \ 1 w\ \ ♦ u_ �. r. \\ •ram ��. '��_ - .w^' I� .••i of , g 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 1 , •■ ■ � ■ 1 1 , 1 1 ■ ■■• A ' APPENDIX C South Parcel Nature Center Traffic Impact Assessment Altair Specific Plan ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 FEHR PEERS MEMORANDUM Date: April 5, 2017 To: Matt Peters,Jerry Gonzales, City of Temecula Danielle Griffith, ESA From: Nathan Schmidt, Fehr& Peers Subject: Altair Specific Plan— Draft Supplemental Transportation Assessment OC14-0342 This technical memorandum has been prepared to summarize our assessment of the revised project description for the Altair Specific Plan Project (herein referred to as the "Project"). It is intended to supplement the information contained in the Project's original Transportation Impact Analysis Report and Draft Environmental Impact Report (ESA, Fehr& Peers, May 2016) for the Specific Plan. The Project site consists of a 215-acre property located west of Pujol Street near Old Town Temecula. The original Project description analyzed in the Altair Specific Plan DEIR included a university that could accommodate up to 5,000 students at the Civic / Community use site in the southernmost portion of the site. The revised project description proposes to replace the university with a Nature Center and Trails land use that would include a Nature Center of up to 20,000 square feet in floor area along with a system of hiking and bicycle trails. Included as part of this assessment are the following: • A trip generation study for the revised Project description including new estimates for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. • A re-evaluation of potential impacts to all study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours • The identification of appropriate mitigation measures for the identified Project impacts • A revised Project fair share analysis 8141 E. Kaiser Boulevard I Suite 110 1 Anaheim, CA 92808 1 (714)941-8800 1 Fax(949) 859-3209 www.fehrandpeers.com Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 2 of 25 The results of this assessment show that the revised Project's effect on traffic operations within the City of Temecula would be diminished as compared to the original Project description. A potentially significant impact at intersection #15 Pujol Street and First Street would no longer occur under Existing Plus Project conditions. Under Cumulative Plus Project, potentially significant impacts would no longer occur at intersections#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and#14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway. Under Build Out (2035) Conditions, the Significant and Unavoidable impact at intersection #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and the potentially significant impact at intersection#14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway would no longer occur. Table 1 provides a comparative summary of project mitigations for the original and revised Project descriptions. Appendix A, provides a summary of the intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis for all Project scenarios and comparison of LOS results between the original and revised Project description. As a result of the reduced impacts discussed above,the following Impacts and Mitigation Measures which were previously identified in the DEIR would no longer apply: • Intersection #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: o Impact TRA-8 / Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8 which identified construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection #14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: o Impact TRA-10 / Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10 which previously identified the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: o Impact TRA-11: The Project would no longer create a significant and unavoidable impact at this intersection. Altair Specific Plan—Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 3 of 25 Table 1 Intersection Mitigation Summary Intersection Mitigations Existing(2015)Plus Cumulative(2025)Plus Build Out(2035) Plus Project Project Conditions Project Conditions Conditions Intersection Name Plus Plus Plus Project Plus Plus Project Project Project w/ Project Plus Project w/Nature w/ w/Nature w/Nature w/Community Community Center& Community Center& Center& College College Trials College Trials Trials 2.Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street& Optimize Signal Timing' No Impact No Impact Rancho California Road' No Feasible 5.Ynez Road& Optimize Signal Timing' Add 1 EBR No Impact Mitigation No Impact Rancho California Road (Significant and Unavoidable) 6.Vincent Moraga Drive& Convert the Ridge Park Drive Ridge Park Drive No Impact No Impact Approach to a Right-In Right-Out Only 10.I-15 Northbound Ramps 2 &Temecula Pkwy z Optimize Signal Timing No Impact No Impact 11.La Paz Road&Temecula Add 1 WBT,1 EBT Pkwy No Impact (Widen Temecula Parkway No Impact to 8-Lanes) 14.Margarita Road& Optimize Signal Timing' Add 1 WBR No Impact Add 1 WBRTNa Impact Temecula Parkway' p g g p p 15.Pujol Street&First Street Install All- No Impact Install All-Way Stop Signalize Intersection Way Stop 17.Ynez Road&Santiago Add 1 EBL and Optimize Add 1 EBL and Optimize Road Signal Timing'. Signal Timing'. No Impact 25.I-15 Southbound Ramps & Reconfigure Interchange No Impact No Impact Temecula Parkway Source:Fehr&Peers 2015 (1) Since these intersections currently operate an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for optimizing the corridor and affected network. (2) Coordinate traffic signal timing optimization with Caltrans District 8 personnel. Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 4 of 25 RE-EVALUATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The original Project description analyzed in the Altair Specific Plan DEIR proposed a university that could accommodate up to 5,000 students at the separate SS-acre property at the south end of the site. The revised Project description proposes to develop the same site with a Nature Center and Trails, all other land uses would remain consistent with the original Project description. The Nature Center would include up to 20,000 square feet of floor area and may contain uses such as conference rooms, offices, an exhibit hall, outdoor amphitheater, restaurant and/or a library. The facilities' grounds would offer recreational amenities such as picnic facilities, community gardens, viewing areas, and a network of hiking trails and bicycle paths that could provide access to the City's existing trail network. REVISED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide trip generation rates for a Nature Center and Trails land. Per City direction, empirical data was collected at a similar site, the Mission Trails Regional Park Visitor Center and Trails in San Diego, California. The Mission Trails site includes a 14,000 square foot visitor and interpretive center and trails situated in the center of Mission Trails Regional Park at One Father Junipero Serra Trail in the City of San Diego. The visitor center facility includes an exhibit area, gallery space, gift shop, three meeting rooms, a 95-seat theater, 150 seat outdoor amphitheater and parking lot that can accommodate approximately 150 vehicles. The facility grounds include outdoor viewing areas, picnic facilities and trailheads that offer access to both hiking and bike trails. Surveys were conducted at the Mission Trail Nature Center and Trail parking lots from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday March 21, 2017. Vehicles were counted entering and exiting the driveway to the visitor center and as the entered and exited the parking lot at the nearby trail head. The driveway to the Visitor Center and the trail parking lot do not share access with another use. Table 2 provides a summary of the trip generation study for the Mission Trails Visitor Center and Trails and the respective trip generation rates for peak hour of the adjacent street. Altair Specific Plan—Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 5 of 25 Table 2 Park Visitors Center and Trails Trip Generation Rates Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Mission Trails Regional Park and Visitor Center, San Diego, CA Land Use Description Unit Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Ups Trips In I Out I Total I In Out Total Mission Trails Region Park Visitor Center and Trails Trip Generation Park Visitors Center w/ Trails 14,000 Sq. Ft. 652 41 9 50 39 57 96 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017) Mission Trails Regional Park Visitor Center and Trails Trip Generation Rates -f Park Visitors Center w/ Per 1,000 Sq. F46. 82% 18% 3.57 41% 59% 6.86 Trails Ft. Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 The revised Project trip generation, re-applying all appropriate adjustments using the MXD model, is summarized in Table 3. As shown, the revised Project would result in 5,335 fewer average daily trips (from 19,232 to 13,897), 712 fewer trips during the AM peak hour (from 1,918 to 1,206), and 580 fewer trips during the PM peak hour(from 1,863 to 1,283). Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 6 of 25 Table 3 Altair Specific Plan Temecula Revised Project Trip Generation Estimates Project AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Planning TAZ ITE Daily Area # Land Use Code Units Trips In Out Total In T Out Total Village A 4927 Apartments 220 280 DU's 1,862 29 114 143 113 61 174 Village B 4928 Apartments 220 220 DU's 1,463 23 90 113 89 48 137 Village C 4930 Apartments 220 665 DU's 4,423 68 272 340 268 145 413 Retail 820 7 KSF 253 13 4 17 7 18 25 Village D 4930 Apartments 220 160 DU's 1,064 16 66 82 65 35 100 Retail 820 15 KSF 542 28 8 36 15 39 54 Village E 4930 Apartments 220 115 DU's 765 12 47 59 47 25 72 Village F 4930 Apartments 220 180 DU's 1,197 18 74 92 73 39 112 Village G 4931 Apartments 220 130 DU's 865 13 54 67 53 28 81 School 4929 Elementary 520 730 Students 942 181 148 329 54 56 110 School Nature Community 4932 Center w/ n/a 1 20 KSF 931 59 13 71 56 81 137 /Civic Trails Community 4929 Community 495 29 KSF 981 40 20 60 39 41 80 /Civic Center Total Trips: 15,287 500 907 1,406 876 615 1,491 Mode Shift Adjustment/Internalization Reduction' -9.1% -14.4% -14.2% -1,391 -72 -131 -203 -125 -87 -212 Total Net Project Trip Generation: 13,897 429 778 1,206 754 528 1,283 Trip Generation Difference from Original Project Description Original Project Total 19,232 968 950 1,918 924 939 1,863 Revised Project Total 13,897 429 778 1,206 754 528 1,283 Difference: 5,335 539 172 712 170 411 580 Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 Notes: 'Calculated using MXD model 2 Rates for the Nature Center and Trails land use are based on empirical trip generation data obtain from the Mission Trails Visitor Center and Trails Trip Generation Survey conducted by Fehr&Peers(March 2017). Utilized ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition,2012 Peak hours are for peak hour of adjacent street traffic DU = Dwelling Unit,KSF = 1,000 Square Feet Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 7 of 25 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT For AM and PM peak hour trip assignment, the trip distribution patterns presented in the original analysis remains applicable for the revised Project description. The project trip distribution reflects the likely approach and departure routes to the project site as determined through multiple inputs such as the location of complementary land uses and existing traffic volumes within the study area. Generalized regional trip distribution was developed using the RivTAM model as well as Fehr & Peers' knowledge of the area and traffic patterns. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTIONS LEVELS OF SERVICE The re-evaluation of intersections was performed at all 25 intersections previously studied in the Altair Specific Plan DEIR and the intersection LOS results are summarized in Table 4 for Existing Plus Project conditions. Lane Configurations and peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown on Figure 1. The Existing Plus Project conditions LOS reports are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 4, all of the study intersections will operate acceptable at LOS D or better with the exception of the following locations: • Intersection #2:Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road (AM and PM peak hours). • Intersection #5:Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (PM peak hour). • Intersection #10: I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour). • Intersection #13: Pechanga Parkway and Rainbow Canyon Road (PM peak hour). • Intersection #14: Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours). • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street (PM peak hour). • Intersection #17:Ynez Road and Santiago Road (PM peak hour). • Intersection #25: I-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours). Altair Specific Plan -Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 8 of 25 Table 4 Intersection Level Of Service: Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions Existing Conditions LDela sting Plus Project Conditions AM Peak PM PeakPeak PM Peak Intersection Control DelayLOS DelayLOSLOS Delay LOS 1.Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road Signalized 22.7 C 49.9 D 28.5 C 44.2 D &Rancho California Road 2.Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street&Rancho California Signalized 85.4 F 70.7 E 63.1 E 102.7 F Road 3.I-15 SB&Rancho California Signalized 29.0 C 29.6 C 29.3 C 31.1 C Road 4.I-15 NB&Rancho California Signalized 9.8 A 23.0 C 9.9 A 24.5 C Road 5.Ynez Road&Rancho California Signalized 37.8 D 48.4 D 39.4 D 77.4 E Road 6.Vincent Moraga Drive&Ridge SSSC 14.2 B 22.7 C Park Driven Intersections 7.A Street&Western BypassZ Si nalized Do Not Exist 8.6 A 7.8 A 8.Calle Cerillo&Western BypassZ Si nalized 16.8 B 9.0 A 9.Old Town Front Street/I-15 SB& Signalized 22.0 C 27.8 C 10.2 B 19.0 B Temecula Parkway 10.I-15 NB&Temecula Parkwav Si nalized 9.1 A 41.4 D 9.9 A 110.2 F 11.La Paz Road&Temecula Signalized 9.6 A 21.3 C 13.0 B 22.8 C Parkway 12.Pechanga Parkway&Temecula Signalized 23.1 C 26.2 C 23.3 C 30.1 C Parkway 13.Pechanga Parkway&Rainbow Signalized 15.4 B 101.0 F 15.5 B 101.6 F Canyon 14.Margarita Road&Temecula Signalized 88.7 F 52.5 D 94.9 F 71.3 E Parkway 15.Pu'ol Street&First Street SSSC 12.3 B 41.0 E 12.5 B 41.3 E 16.Old Town Front Street&First Signalized 16.2 B 23.3 C 16 B 21.8 C Street/Santiago Road 17.Ynez Road&Santiago Road Signalized 25.5 C 48.4 D 27.1 C 55.4 E 18.Business Park Drive&Rancho Signalized 13.1 B 36.6 D 17.6 B 34.8 C California Road 19.Diaz Road&Rancho Way Signalized 7.9 A 9.5 A 8.8 A 9.8 A 20.Diaz Road&Winchester Road Signalized 23.8 C 40.6 D 24.5 C 41.3 D 21.Jefferson Avenue&Winchester Signalized 36.3 D 49.2 D 35.7 D 54.6 D Road 22.I-15 SB&Winchester Road Signalized 14.6 B 13.4 B 14.3 B 12.1 B 23.I-15 NB&Winchester Road Signalized 13.8 B 11.9 B 13.5 B 12.5 B 24.Ynez Road&Winchester Road Signalized 30.3 C 33.9 C 30.1 C 43.9 D 25.I-15 SB&Temecula Parkway Signalized 41.1 1 D 1 35.5 D 84.5 F 56.3 E Notes: 1.Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold. 2.Intersection will be constructed as part of the Western Bypass Project. SSSC=Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 44� 1.Vincent Moraga/DlazlRancho Callfomla Road 2.Jefferson Road/Rancho California Road 3.1-15 SB/Rancho California Road -46(10) mew -388(361) o c �1,252(881) r 643(276) 1,171(657) r 554(366) r r 28�0ro(444) r 28�6�(179) aHo R — .4 1 35(59) 115(343) 201 9 634(1,729)(643) 54 (1(3113)y o 33(60 46 18 206(334)— 4.1-15 ~ r NB/Rancho California Road 5.Ynez Road/Rancho California Road 6.Vincent Moraga/Diaz/Park Ridge Dr 0 AtJrppko NSF & o y 919(917) 1 167(230) 1,286(1,059) o rn� �1,259(917) O1 - �g, r123(181) �I .f'FJ P L Ksq BLAa 0 1B �1�r � ��Ilr �II `=- 1,467(2 - ,088) 476(803)923(1,620) 3 104(132)�r 214(523) rn 427(627) 3 59(48)Z. �N � �n R6apq GU 6p von a 7.Western Bypass/A Street 8.Project Rd/Western Bypass 9.Old Town Front SVTemeoule Parkway e ; 227(146) n �184(346) 228(490) ,0(0) �' r 137(1 v g -434(708) 40(25) M NM r30(51) y, (� 27(36) 1Ut%oSpecific Plan Pr)ect Site }} } }} q(2) �I I 23(37)� 8(28) 0(0)—4. 157(223) 560(695) ¢. 2(1) 12(20) Zt. 5(5) 10.1-15 NB/Temecula Parkway 11.La Paz Road(femecula Parkway 12.Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway tE 1M VID YEk1E01l7A 5 �'s"n1n gosA cIy,1N°1�S 4q - 1,465(882) o�� �250(326) 1,375(983) ._2,353(1,823) 1,117(1,023) ��'� r 26(22) r 267(349) 96 156— 0 0 Bm 120(125)— r1,671(2(557) TB1,043(1,583)—. 1,381(1,908)—� m 5(30)� 804(1,270) n © 13.Rainbow Canyon/Pechanga Parkway 14.Margarita Road(remecula Parkway 15.Pujol Street/First Street rnrn� � Intersection Control r (1,369) N.10 -931((700) a 24(44)) 341( Signal r 3`11 81) 241(335) 30(47) ® Stop �a. P.0(o)6 I m�259(459)� ))Ttr 1(5) Peak Hour Turn Volume 927(1505)� 718(1,413)—� 42(31)� 2616 02)ro 146(231) o(o) AM(PM) m . nm Figure 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Plus Project (2015) Conditions FAT 16.Old Town F-81111 rsr Srree -ti.go Road 17.Ynez Road/Santiago Road 18.Business Park Drive/Rancho Califomia Road 5 .�—170(127) 21(14) .�—448(183) 109(160) 54(48) 162(215) ri00(70) 8(3) r116(18) [� 31(38)� 214(404) 13(4)� 120(245) 46(51)41 196(296) 16(53) _ 153(358) 10(23) Mi c o �mu�i NN Nwm Fa oveBfo,Bo 8 19.Diaz Road/Rancho Way 20.Diaz Road/Winchester Road 21.Jefferson RoadMinchester Road � a 0. 431( ) 27(46 78) 1,i 0) r735(363) —549(331) �] o atrroav Sp ow43 163 1(3)�r 141(571)— �' ( )a 68(424) ^ 380(1,036)y v� 50 121 M- 18(68) C 35(73):4 v�0 NNtn 22.1-15 SBMfinchester Road 23.1-15 NB/Winchester Road 24.Ynez Road/Winchester Road r Ksq qGO n m 873(491) 558(1,239) ro �—1,55688 556(1,293) 1,338 1,676(1,169) 290(280) w'674(1,741)—�i w1,366(2,065)y )Yr 390(448)y 111TTr 174(224)�, 268(764) 8 554 i668) °� )� 1p �N� Nam^ Altair Specif c Plan 25.1-15 SB/Temecula Parkway Pro}ect Sitey1d' 10011 -'—486(1,059) 85e(4os) 374(717)—� YIA IN YEAIELYIIH 340(245) V' VW SAn1A pQSA C�Q 1yS4�0 � if Intersection control Signal ® Stop Movement Volume AM(PM) Figure 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Plus Project (2015) Conditions FAT Altair Specific Plan -Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 10 of 25 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Table 5 compares the changes in delay and LOS at intersections that operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F between Existing (No Project) and "Plus Project" scenarios to determine project impacts. Changes in delay of 2.0 seconds or greater indicate a project impact. Table 5 Existing No Project And Plus Project Intersection Delay Comparison Plus Allowable No With Project A Delay Intersection Control' LOS Delay Project Project AM AM(PM) M AM AM AM AM) (PM) (PM) (PM) (PM) 2. Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street& Signal E <2.0 85.4 63.1 -22.3 Rancho California (F) (<2.0) (70.7) (102.7) (32.0) Road 5. Ynez Road& D Rancho California Signal (F) (<2.0) (48.4) (77.4) (29.0) Road 10. I-15 NB Ramps& B Temecula ParkwaySignal (F) (<2.0) (41.4) (110.2) (68.8) 13. Pechanga Parkway& Signal B Canyon Rd. - Rainbow Can * Y (F) (<2.0) 101.0 101.E (0.6)* 14. Margarita Road& F <2.0 88.7 94.9 6.2 Temecula ParkwaySignal (E) (<2.0) (52.5) (71.3) (18.8) 15. Pujol Street&First 2-way B Street Stop (F) (<2.0) (41.0) (41.3) (0.3)* 17. Ynez Road& Signal C o Road -- - - Santiago (E) (<2.0) (48.4) (55.4) (7.0) 25. I-15 SB Ramps& F -<2.0 41.1 84.5 43.4 Temecula ParkwaySignal (F) (<2.0) (35.5) (56.3) (20.8) Notes: 1. Delay is measured in seconds.Calculated using Synchro 9 software package. 2. Bold-italicized type indicates project impact. 3. *No project impact at Intersections#13 or#15 as the addition of Project traffic does not increase delay by more than 2 seconds. Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 11 of 25 As shown in Table 5 the project will significantly impact six study intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS under Existing Plus Project Conditions. • Intersection #2:Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road (based on the average signalized intersection delay in the PM peak hour). • Intersection #5:Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (based on the average signalized intersection delay in the PM peak hour). • Intersection #10: I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (based on the average signalized intersection delay in the PM peak hour). • Intersection #14: Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (based on the average signalized intersection delay in the AM and PM peak hours). • Intersection #17:Ynez Road and Santiago Road (based on the average signalized intersection delay in the PM peak hour). • Intersection #25:I-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (based on the average signalized intersection delay in the AM and PM peak hours). As shown in the intersection LOS table in Appendix A, average delay at select study intersections was found to be lower under the revised Project description, in some cases by a substantial amount. At intersection #15 Pujol Street and First Street, the Project would no longer increase delay by 2.0 seconds or more and would no longer result in a Project impact at this intersection under Existing Plus Project conditions. Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 12 of 25 CUMULATIVE (2025) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE The methodology used to develop Cumulative Conditions in the Altair Specific Plan DEIR was applied to the intersections using the revised Project trip generation. Table 6, presents the updated level of service results for the study intersections under Cumulative (2025) No Project and Cumulative (2025) plus Project Conditions. Lane Configurations and peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown on Figure 2. Appendix C contains the corresponding calculation sheets. It should be noted that LOS at several study intersections will improve with implementation of the Project due to the construction of the Western Bypass and the I-15/Temecula Parkway interchange improvement project. The bypass will provide an alternative north/south route for trips which are currently required to travel through Old Town on Pujol Street and Old Town / Front Street. The decrease in traffic on these corridors resulted in improved LOS operations at several study intersections. As shown in Table 6, all of the study intersections will operate acceptably during the peak hours with the exception of the following five locations: • Intersection #11: La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours) • Intersection #13: Pechanga Parkway and Rainbow Canyon Road (PM peak hour) • Intersection #14: Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour) • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and Santiago Road (PM peak hour) • Intersection #17:Ynez Road and Santiago Road (PM peak hour) Altair Specific Plan-Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 13 of 25 Table 6 Intersection Level Of Service: Cumulative Growth Plus Project (2025) Conditions Cumulative(No Project) Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Delay I LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1.Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road Signalized 25.9 C 46.6 D 28.7 C 40.9 D & Rancho California Road 2.Jefferson Rd/Old Town Front Signalized 51.6 D 49.8 D 51.2 D 50.1 D Street&Rancho California Rd 3.I-15 SB& Rancho California Road Signalized 29.7 1 C 30.3 C 31.0 C 34.2 C 4.I-15 NB& Rancho California Road Signalized 9.0 A 17.5 B 9.1 A 18.2 B 5.Ynez Road &Rancho California Rd Signalized 41.8 D 53.0 D 45.0 D 54.7 D 6.Vincent Moraga Dr& Ridge Park SSSC N/A 16.3 C 27.5 D Drz 7.A Street&Western BypaSS2 Signalized N/A 9.2 A 8.0 A 8.Calle Cerillo &Western Bypassz Signalized N/A 17.5 B 9.4 A 9.Old Town Front/I-15 SB St& Signalized 28.5 C 44.8 D 30.3 C 50.4 D Temecula Pkw a 10.I-15 NB&Temecula Parkway Signalized 39.1 D 34.2 C 29.9 C 27.0 C 11. La Paz Road &Temecula Signalized 59.8 E 68.4 E 60.9 E 84.0 F Parkway 12. Pechan a &Temecula Pkwy Signalized 29.9 C 34.0 C 30.4 C 29.6 C 13. Pechanga Parkway&Rainbow Signalized 30.4 C 176.9 F 31.6 C 177.7 F C n. 14. Margarita Road &Temecula Signalized 50.7 D 54.0 D 52.4 D 55.4 E Pkw . 15. Pujol Street&First Street SSSC 13.7 B 101.1 F 14.7 B >200 F 16.Old Town Front Street& First Signalized 17.0 B 27.6 C 16.3 B 24.2 C Street/Santiago Road 17.Ynez Road &Santiago Road Signalized 28.8 C 63.0 E 31.6 C 68.1 E 18. Business Park Dr& Rancho Signalized 14.6 B 31.3 C 19.7 B 33.0 C California Rd 19. Diaz Rod &Rancho Way Signalized 1 8.2 A 9.6 A 9.1 A 9.8 A 20. Diaz Rd &Winchester Road Signalized 24.0 C 43.7 D 24.5 C 39.9 D 21.Jefferson Avenue&Winchester Signalized 47.0 D 45 D 47.1 D 43.6 D Road 22.I-15 SB &Winchester Road Signalized 13.1 B 16.6 B 13.2 B 16.9 B 23.I-15 NB &Winchester Road Signalized 11.1 B 14 B 11.2 B 14.0 B 24.Ynez Road &Winchester Road Signalized 37.1 D 37.9 D 37.1 D 37.9 D Notes: 1. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold. 2. Intersection will be constructed as part of the Western Bypass Project. 3. Assumes construction of the I-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange Improvement Project SSSC=Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection py9 1.Vincent Moraga/DlazlRancho Callfomla Road 2,Jefferson Road/Rancho California Road 3.1-15 SB/Rancho California Road o o -60(20) aMvi o € 570(410) o o a 1,533(991) a o o v r 731(320) 1,290(717) o^ ) T PDa �� r 311(470) r 348(226) 4 620(410 OVERLAND R � � �}}rro co am y ��Tf40(7 5 wrcn825 (1,9�d2,3�) 7203) 4 )y243( 4 36(6)7 ��ZZ 63(143) 254 385)_• ~ 4.1-15 NB/Rancho California Road 5.Ynez Road/Rancho California Road 6.Vincent Moraga/Diaz/Park Ridge Dr 9.p' I o0o m 9 1 R J-1,020(1,020) -190((1) 24) 1,560(1,179) � r 140(200) e^ g am.nocdx«nian«a ��r —537(901)a L 1,743(2,321)� o c 119(150)a uj 1,09 10(701)� m a ymN� Q�e 257(589) 510(700) 59(48) ,� 9 o n utOi v Ati q v l flANCHD CAUFORNIAR _� RD /W 7.Western Bypass/A Street 8.Project Rdestem Bypass 9.Old Town From SVI-15 SB/remewla Parkway -( 3 Lo a I vr�o k �247(156) Nye �204(386) a -226(491) j ,0(0) r 197(193) o°"O r 405(635) 40(25) M ue N r30(51) may, I r1,110(640) 4(2) s 23(37)� v10(40)� �4q 0(0) 177(223) rn w m 346(530) ryg� 2 2(1) a 12(20) Zt. 289(220) Altair Specific Plan Project Site r N N a - - _ 10.1-15 NB/Temecula Parkway 11.La Paz Road(remecula Parkway 12.Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway p0 s CN� r 1,780(1,120) o 00 .�370(440) �—1,694(1,216) DE gtCW 3,034(2,373) 1,437(1,276) r 30(30) r 380(510) } A RIO TEMECUL�A em«eve a m 113(1Z pt'm m«eve 0(0) 6 148(143)�r 2,259(3,252 321 8 )— VIA SANTA 5A 1,703(2,297) 1,199 815)10(40) 13.Rainbow Canyon/Pechanga Parkway 14.Margarita Road(remecula Parkway 15.Pujol Street/First Street o 1,721 (1, 100(230) r tN 10 8(17 5) 400(130) 31(47) 270(380) 40(90) 0(O Y 330(530) ))}tr 20(20) t 1,329(1935) 69(11625) 49(35)� Intersection Control 370(370 21 300) 20(20) a o^ Signal " `� • Stop Peak Hour Turn Volume AM(PM) Figure 2 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative (2025) Plus Project Conditions 16.old Tov c Fmnl Srl--ti.go Road 17.Ynez Road/Santiago Road 18.Business Park Drive/Rancho California Road —210(150) 30(20) € 498(209) a 121(177) .-71(57) 201(250) r120(80) �j� 10(10) � r130(20) OVERLAND It T 40(50)_ 240(450) 1� 20(10) 1� 129(275) 09(65)� 233(343)� 1 24(81) 17 (400) 17(27) 9Gf f AR ? � N Q 19.Diaz Road/Rancho Way 20.Diaz Road/Winchester Road 21.Jefferson Road/Winchester Road o CALLFORNfA R' o 380(130) 540(450) JI r 480(90) 1,245(511) r815(401) �l�l� r840(370) 10(10)— 160(640)- 50(190)a 80(470) 428(1,143)y c C 2mNs � 61(137) 20(80) 50(90)� ,: $ N �v H 4ANaND0ALIFOHNIAR 22.1-15 SB/Winchester Road 23.1-15 NB/Winchester Road 24.Ynez Road/Winchester Road R9 gOT N •• N —970(550) 620(1,370) o., 90(100) 1,615(864) �.a 1,995(1,294) ~330((1,) r 1,8 5 1, }} s .958 tr 450(500)�' )I)1)11I(r ff, 9580(250)—�i 1,6070(85)—� 0 1,047 1,941 200(250) 410(850) 0 620(740) Altair Specific Plan s Project Site L � ' o / DE / VIA 910 TEMECOLA VIA SANTA SA R Intersection Control Signal Stop Peak Hour Turn Volume AM(PM) Figure 2 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative (2025) Plus Project Conditions Altair Specific Plan -Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 15 of 25 CUMULATIVE (2025) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Table 7 compares the changes in delay and LOS at intersections that operate at LOS E or F between Cumulative (No Project) and "Plus Project" scenarios to determine project impacts. Changes in delay of 2.0 seconds or greater indicate a project impact. Table 7 Intersection Level Of Service: Cumulative (2025) No Project And Plus Project Comparison Plus Project Allowable No Project Plus Project LOS A Delay Delay Delay 0 Delay AM AM AM AM AM Intersection Control' (PM) (PM) (PM) (PM) (PM) 11.La Paz Road & E <2.0 59.8 60.9 1.1 Temecula ParkwaySignal (F) (<2.0) (68.4) (84.0) (15.6) 13. Pechanga Parkway& C Rainbow Canyon Signal Rd.* (F) (<2.0) (176.9) (177.7) (0.8)* 14. Margarita Road & Signal F <2.0 50.7 52.4 1.7* Temecula Parkway* (E) (<2.0) (54.0) (55.4) (1.4)* 15. Pujol Street&First B -� -- SSSC Street (F) (<2.0) (101.1) (>200) (>200) 17. Ynez Road & Signal C o Road -- -- -- -- Santiago (E) (<2.0) (63.0) (68.1) (5.1) Notes: 1. Delay is measured in seconds.Calculated using Synchro 9 software package. 2. Bold-italicized type indicates project impact. 3. *No Project Impact at intersections#13 and#14 as the addition of Project traffic does not increase delay by more than 2 seconds. Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 As shown in Table 7,the project would impact the following intersections under Cumulative (2025) Plus Project Conditions: • Intersection #11: La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour). • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street: (PM peak hour). Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 16 of 25 • Intersection #17:Ynez Road and Santiago Road (PM peak hour). At intersections #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and #14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway, the Project would no longer increase delay by 2.0 seconds or more and would no longer result in a Project impact at this intersection under Cumulative (2025) Plus Project conditions. As a result, the following two impacts previously identified in the DEIR would no longer apply: • Intersection #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: o Impact TRA-8 and Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8 which identified construction of one additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. • Intersection #14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: o Impact TRA-10 and Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10 which was previously identified the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. GENERAL PLAN BUILD OUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE The methodology used to develop Build Out Conditions in the Altair Specific Plan DEIR was applied to the intersections using the revised Project trip generation. Table 8, presents the updated LOS results for the study intersections under Build Out (2035) No Project and Build Out (2035) plus Project Conditions. Lane Configurations and peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown on Figure 3. Appendix D contains the corresponding calculation sheets. As shown in Table 8, all of the study intersections will operate acceptably during the peak hours with the exception of the following locations: • Intersection #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (AM and PM peak hours) • Intersection#6: Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive (AM and PM peak hours) • Intersection #14: Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours) • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street Road (PM peak hour) Altair Specific Plan -Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 17 of 25 Table 8 Intersection Level Of Service: General Plan Build Out (2035) Conditions Build Out(2035) Build Out(2035) No Project Plus Project Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1.Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road & Signalized 36.0 D 56.3 E 24.4 C 44.5 D Rancho California Road 2.Jefferson Rd/Old Town Front Street Signalized 24.7 C 50.2 D 26.3 C 47.3 D &Rancho California Rd 3.I-15 SB &Rancho California Road Signalized 36.8 D 41.2 D 37.2 D 53.5 D 4.I-15 NB &Rancho California Road Signalized 10.2 B 25.7 C 10.4 B 26.6 C 5.Ynez Road &Rancho California Rd Signalized 51.7 D 70.3 E 54.9 D 67.1 E 6.Vincent Moraga Dr&Ridge Park SSSC 22.4 C 155.7 F 85.5 F >200 F D rz 7.A Street&Western Bypassz Signalized 6.5 A 4.3 A 12.0 B 10.5 B 8.Calle Cerillo&Western Bypassz Signalized 11.0 B 17.9 B 26.0 D 12.5 B 9.Old Town Front/I-15 SB St& Signalized 26.3 C 42.1 D 34.0 C 52.5 D Temecula Pkwy 10.I-15 NB&Temecula Parkway Signalizedl 19.6 B 25.5 C 22.0 C 25.0 C 11. La Paz Road &Temecula Parkway Signalized 28.2 C 1 23.8 C 1 30.6 1 C 1 25.1 C 12. Pechanga Pkwy&Temecula Pkwy Signalized 18.6 B 14.9 B 18.9 B 14.9 B 13. Pechanga Parkway&Rainbow Signalized 4.9 A 11.3 B 6.8 A 11.0 B Cyn. 14. Margarita Road &Temecula Pkwy.Signalizedl 68.4 E 93.6 F 70.2 E 95.5 F 15. Pujol Street&First Street SSSC 1 17.5 C >200z F 20 C >200 F 16.Old Town Front Street&First Signalized 17.7 B 23.8 C 18.0 B 24.4 C Street/Santiago Road 17.Ynez Road &Santiago Road Signalized 25.5 C 41.8 D 25.8 C 42.0 D 18. Business Park Dr&Rancho Signalized 15.3 B 31.9 C 15.4 B 28.1 C California Rd 19. Diaz Road & Rancho Way Signalized 23.0 C 20.8 C 24.9 C 22.6 C 20. Diaz Road &Winchester Road Signalized 20.7 C 37.5 D 21.1 C 39.8 D 21.Jefferson Rd &Winchester Rd Signalized 43.9 D 48.5 D 44.7 D 48.5 D 22.I-15 SB&Winchester Road Signalized 13.8 B 19.6 B 13.7 B 17.5 B 23.I-15 NB&Winchester Road Signalized 11.3 B 18.4 A 11.3 B 9.5 A 24.Ynez Road &Winchester Road Signalizedll 40.4 D 50.5 D 40.7 D 52.2 D Notes: 1. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold. 2. Delay in excess of 200 seconds indicates overflow conditions SSSC= Side-Street Stop-Controlled Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 pp� 1.Vincent Moraga/DIIVRancho Callromla Road 2,Jefferson Road/Rancho California Road 3.1-15 SB/Rancho California Road �C 50(10) ^ 650(420) 610(300) o v �—1,298(893) N .~—620((1,121) �358(413) �140(180) u„L �620(690) ERIAND R m a wn<nou •�• a 0 130(80)�r 110(220)y 1,235(2,213)~ 280(660) 759(1,578)y 234(335) 106(227) 50(120)4 4.1-15 NB/Rancho California Road 5.Ynez Road/Rancho California Road 6.Vincent Moraga/Dia7JPark Ridge Dr O CALrFORNfA R N r 1,020(1,130) Y r 1170,635(1) �1,710(1,599) r22220}(320) e^�707 811 y LV, 2,143(2,681) ( ) 109(120)� 1,337(1,921)y 2N Q�e 237(539) 470(1,010) " n 132(101) s � pgR,t- yti N v m w n n P � RANCHOCAUFORNIAR 7.Western Bypass/A Street 8.Project Rd/WesternBypass 9.Old Town Front SVI-15 SB/remewla Parkway 237(166) N N m 252(281) —570(150) 4,1(0) 944(772) r 1,041(1,026) 9}0}(95) M ^f r4}0(81) y I r}8}60(240) 4(2) I ms 63(5577)�r �1 .w v,20(`2L0) 4'ry 1 qy i 6(0) e 427(829) m E m 361(560) 2(1) 1W Zt. 22(40) 317(507) v Altair Specific Plan s a N Project Site Yr P R r 10.I-15 NB/Temecula Parkway 11.La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway 12.Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway a P� s DIE .�— A 290(330) '— p 1,560(900) '—1,574(1,166) 1,447(926) I r 30(30) r 60(350) 1 VIA Rio TEMECUTA /� em«uave �r )1rrr •^•«�223(295)y I* m«usve 0(0)y )I)r VIA SAN7A SA 128(133)y �c c 1,889(2,752)—� 1,621(2,036)—. 1,533(2,057)y V o 10(30) p'ro 489(975) o 13.Rainbow Canyon/Pechanga Parkway 14.Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway 15.Pujol Street/Firat Street T V 350(270) 130(180) r 1,581(1,147) �—921(707) o 0 0 191(287) ewe a, r 100(60) 250(740) � �130(190) v.0(0)S Wr m�290(510)- �M90(180) + Intersection Control 509(1,225) 1,009(1,315)—� 219(375) Signal 20(20)ro 281(300) n M 90(170) Stop Peak Hour Turn Volume AM(PM) Figure 3 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations General Plan Build Out (2035) Plus Project Conditions 11 011 T-1 sveeursr sr,eeusa ua90 Rose 17.Ynez Road/Santiago Road 18.Business Park Drive/Rancho California Road @d 200(130) 90(150) € 448(239) a ' 321(387) 61(87) 270(430) pp Yi� r 130(70) aa.e Yi� 20 00) u �� r 120(30) OVERLAND R50 F Y 9(405)„ zao((55) — 30(10)— 0r �qy 1 z9s(aos) 8s(ss) 410(aao) 90(300) 160(360) 50(120) S � hy� / 19.Diaz Road/Rancho Way 20.Diaz Road/Winchester Road 21.Jefferson RoadMinchester Road ¢ p p p �r a o� 'RO o CALIROR(y�R 30(40) o 350(220) r 490(450) r 30(90) o m r 440(120) m r 1,145(461) r735(401) �lll� —830(340) ow 50(170)— � 10(30)— )tTr 240(660)-- 11ttr " 9 20(50)a 80(a30) N M 468 )y vo^i 51 —VI(127) 20(70) 50(80(80) voo RANCHOCAUFORNIAR AO 22.1-15 SB/Winchester Road 23.1-15 NB/Winchester Road 24.Ynez Road/Winchester Road T n w 1,170(810) r_560(1,240) o o n 140(110) �1,485(784) �2,165(1,494) �340(510) r 400 450 8880(270)y 1,7370(77)—�i o 1,617(2,171)=3 8A 220(270) 430(770) 670(830) ' Altair Specific Plan Protect Site m � o r DE � gMllq VIA SANTAAOSA e VIA R10 TEMFC" Intersection Control Ip Signal ® Stop Peak Hour Turn Volume AM(PM) Figure 3 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations General Plan Build Out (2035) Plus Project Conditions Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 19 of 25 GENERAL PLAN BUILD OUT (2035) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Table 9 compares the changes in delay and LOS at intersections that operate at LOS E or F between Cumulative (No Project) and "Plus Project" scenarios to determine project impacts. Changes in delay of 2.0 seconds or greater indicate a project impact. Table 9 Intersection Level Of Service: General Plan Build Out (2035) No Project And Plus Project Comparison Plus No Plus Project Allowable Project Project LOS A Delay Delay Delay A Delay AM AM AM AM AM Intersection Control' (PM) (PM) (PM) (PM) (PM) S. Ynez Road & D Rancho California Signal (E) (<2.0) (70.3) (67.1) (-3.2)* Road 6. Vincent Moraga F <2.0 22.4 85.5 63.1 Drive& SSSC Ridge Park Drive (F) (<2.0) (155.7) (>200) (>200) 14. Margarita Road & E <2.0 68.4 70.2 1.8* Temecula Parkway* Signal Y (F) (<2.0) (93.6) (95.5) (1.9)* 15. Pujol Street& SSSC B -- -- -- -- First Street (F) (<2.0) (>200) (>200) (200) Notes: 1. Delay is measured in seconds.Calculated using Synchro 9 software package. 2. Bold-italicized type indicates project impact. 3. *No Project Impact at intersections#5 and#14 as the addition of Project traffic does not increase delay by more than 2 seconds. SSSC= Side Street Stop-Controlled Source:Fehr&Peers,2017 As shown in Table 9,the project would impact the following intersections under General Plan Build Out (2035) Plus Project Conditions: • Intersection #6:Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive (based on the worst approach delay in the AM and PM peak hour). • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street (based on the worst approach delay in the PM peak hour). Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 20 of 25 At intersections#5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and #14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway, the Project would no longer increase delay by 2.0 seconds or more and would no longer result in Project impacts at these intersections under Build Out (2035) Plus Project conditions. As a result, the following two impacts previously identified in the DEIR would no longer apply: • Intersection #5 Ynez Road and Rancho California Road: o Impact TRA-11: The Project would no longer create a significant and unavoidable impact at this intersection. • Intersection #14 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway: o Impact TRA-10 and Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10 which was previously identified the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. MITIGATION MEASURES & FAIR SHARE ANALYSIS Improvement measures were developed to minimize the impact of the Project on the study area. Implementing the mitigation measures described below, the "plus project" scenarios would no longer result in a significant impact. A description of all mitigation measures recommended is provided below and shown graphically in Figure 4. LOS results for mitigation measures are provided in Appendix E. Six direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to deteriorate from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS E or F under Existing Plus Project Conditions. The City of Temecula requires that direct project-related traffic impacts are funded directly by the project applicant. The six intersections directly impacted by the proposed Project are Intersections #2, 5, 10, 14, 17, and 25 are described in detail as follows: Existing (2015) Plus Project Conditions • Intersection #2: Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road (AM and PM peak hours). o MM-TRA-1 Signal timing optimization: Phase timings and cycle length were adjusted to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes. Since Jefferson Avenue currently operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Altair Specific Plan—Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 21 of 25 Program, the applicant shall be responsible for modifying the signal timing along the corridor from Rancho California Road to Winchester Road. ■ This mitigation will improve AM operations to an acceptable LOS C, delay of 34.6 seconds and PM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 45.8 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ This is a direct impact, thus the project's fair share contribution towards this improvement is 100%. • Intersection #5:Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-2 Signal timing optimization: Phase timings and cycle length were adjusted to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes. Since Rancho California currently operates an Adaptive Signal Timing Program,the applicant shall be responsible for modifying the signal timing along the corridor from Diaz Road to Margarita Road. ■ This mitigation will improve PM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 46.9 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ This is a direct impact, thus the project's fair share contribution towards this improvement is 100%. • Intersection #10: I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-3 Signal timing optimization: Phase timings and cycle length were adjusted to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes. ■ This mitigation will improve PM operations to an acceptable LOS B, delay of 15.0 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ This is a direct impact, thus the project applicant shall install or fund the improvement at this intersection. ■ The applicant shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Altair Specific Plan—Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 22 of 25 • Intersection #14: Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours). o MM-TRA-4 Signal timing optimization: Phase timings and cycle length were adjusted to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes. Since Temecula Parkway currently operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the applicant shall be responsible for modifying the signal timing along the corridor from La Paz Road to Butterfield Stage Road. ■ This mitigation will improve AM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 38.1 seconds and PM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 48.9 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ This is a direct impact, thus the project's fair share contribution towards this improvement is 100%. • Intersection #17:Ynez Road and Santiago Road (PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-6 Add an exclusive left turn lane in the eastbound direction. Signal timing optimization: Phase timings and cycle length were adjusted to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes. ■ This mitigation will improve PM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 48.5 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ This is a direct impact, thus the project applicant shall fund the improvement at this intersection and the signal timing optimization of the affected network. • Intersection #25: I-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours). o MM-TRA-7 Construct the City of Temecula CIP project entitled 1-15 / SR-79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange". This project will remove the existing southbound I-15 freeway ramps at Temecula Parkway and reconfigure the intersection of Old Town / Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate a southbound loop off-ramp and southbound on-ramp for I- 15. Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 23 of 25 ■ Improve AM operations to an acceptable LOS C, delay of 27.7 seconds and PM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 36.3 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ The project will not be responsible for funding this improvement. Funding for this project is currently secured through TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2016/2017. ■ This mitigation is within Caltrans jurisdiction and therefore any mitigation will require Caltrans approval. Cumulative (Year 2025) Plus Project Conditions • Intersection #11: La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-9 Add an exclusive through lane in both the eastbound direction and westbound directions. o This project would require Temecula Parkway to be widened to its General Plan build out configuration of four lanes in each direction. o The recommended mitigation measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way and roadway widening along Temecula Parkway that affects properties outside the Project area. ■ Improve AM operations to an acceptable LOS C, delay of 33.2 seconds and PM operations to an acceptable LOS C, delay of 30.8 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ The widening improvements will require acquisition of right-of-way. The applicant will be responsible for contributing a fair-share for the acquisition of right-of-way. ■ The Project's Fair-share contribution for this mitigation is 14.6%. • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street (PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-S Install an all-way stop control at this intersection. ■ Improve PM operations to an acceptable LOS C, delay of 17.9 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. Altair Specific Plan —Supplemental Transportation Assessment April 5, 2017 Page 24 of 25 ■ Fair-share contribution for this mitigation is 5.6% • Intersection #17:Ynez Road and Santiago Road (PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-6 Add an exclusive left turn lane in the eastbound direction and optimize signal timing at the intersection. This improvement was identified under Existing Plus Project Conditions. ■ Improve PM operations to an acceptable LOS D, delay of 51.2 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ This is a direct impact, thus the project applicant shall fund the improvement at this intersection and the signal timing optimization of the affected network. General Plan Build Out (Year 2035) Plus Project Conditions • Intersection #6:Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive (AM and PM peak hours). o MM-TRA-12 Construct intersection improvements at the west leg of the intersection (Ridge Park Drive) to allow for right-in right-out turn movements only. The final design of the intersection improvements shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Temecula and may include an island or other barriers to traffic. ■ Improve AM operations to acceptable LOS B, delay of 12.3 seconds, and PM operations to an acceptable LOS C, delay of 21.7 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ Fair-share contribution for this mitigation is 34.7%. • Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street (PM peak hour). o MM-TRA-13 Signalize the intersection. ■ The mitigation of a traffic signal will improve PM operations to an acceptable LOS B, delay of 12.3 seconds. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential project impacts at this intersection to less than significant level. ■ Fair-share contribution for this mitigation is 5.9%. EXISTING (2015)PLUS CUMULATIVE(2025)PLUS BUILD OUT(2035)PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS 2. Jefferson Road& ff:� Rancho California NOIMPACT NOIMPACT Rancho California Road 1 SIGNALTIMING Jefferson "l— OVLP 5. Ynez Road& Rancho California NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Rancho California Road !! � OVLP OPTIMIZE SIGNALTIMING �1 Ynez 6. Vincent Moraga Drive& NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Ridge Park Ridge Park Drive Vincent Moraga/Western Bypass *CONVERT RIDGE PARK DR.ACCESS TO RIGHT-IN RIGHT-OUT ONLY 10. 1-15 Northbound Ramps& Temecula Parkway NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Temecula Parkway 14 R �� OPTIMIZE SIGNALTIMING 1-15 NB 11. La Paz Road& NO IMPACT Temecula Parkway NO IMPACT Temecula Parkway 4 La Paz LEGEND 9 Traffic Signal Stop Sign OVLP Overlap Phase ** Channelized Right Turn Lane Remove Travel Lane • Optimized Signal Timing ■ Mitigation Measure FEHRJfPEERS INTERSECTION MITIGATIONS Jul 06, 2015 CP FIGURE 4-1 C:\Users\cpaquin\Desktop\Jefferson Lane Configs 6-29.dwg EXISTING (2015)PLUS CUMULATIVE(2025)PLUS BUILD OUT(2035)PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT CONDITIONS 14. Margarita Road& Temecula Parkway NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Temecula Parkway 4 R R l 1 OVLP OPTIMIZE SIGNALTIMING Margarita 4�, k- 4�, k- t 15. Pujol Street& 7 First SAME AS EXISTING PLUS First First Street PROJECT CONDITIONS INSTALL ALL-WAY STOP SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION Pujol Pujol 17. Ynez Road& Santiago SAME AS EXISTING PLUS NO IMPACT Santiago Road PROJECT CONDITIONS Ynez Old Town Front Street `�t.1IWIr 25. 1-15 Southbound Ramps& '" Temecula Parkway NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Temecula Parkway4 ! � (ASSUMES CONSTRUCTION OF (ASSUMES CONSTRUCTION OF -1 1-15/TEMECULA PARKWAY 1-151TEMECULA PARKWAY ** ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE PROJECT) ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE PROJECT) 1-15 SIB *Construct 1-15/Temecula Parkway Ultimate Interchange Project LEGEND O Traffic Signal Stop Sign OVLP Overlap Phase Channelized Right Turn Lane • Optimized Signal Timing ■ Mitigation Measure FEHRJfPEERS INTERSECTION MITIGATIONS Jul 06, 2015 CP FIGURE4-2 C:\Users\cpaquin\Desktop\Jefferson Lane Configs 6-29.dwg APPENDIX A: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS SUMMARY AND COMPARISON BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND REVISED PROJECT Appendix A Altair Specific Plan-Intersection Level of Service Results Existing Conditions 11 Cumulative Growth(2025)Conditions General Plan Build Out(2035)Conditions No Project Plus Project Plus Project No Project Plus Project Plus Project No Project Plus Project Plus Project w/University w/Nature Center&Trails w/University w/Nature Center&Trails w/University w/Nature Center&Trails Intersection Control M Peak PM AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak A PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS .Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road& Signalized 22.7 C 49.9 D 29.4 C 43.8 D 28.5 C 44.2 D 25.9 C 46.6 D 29.2 C 46.2 D 28.7 C 40.9 D 36.0 D 56.3 26.3 C 45.2 D 24.4 C 44.5 D Rancho California Road 2.Jefferson Rd/Old Town Front Street& Signalized 85.4 F 70.7 E 61.1 100.1 F 63.1 E 102.7 F 51.6 D 49.8 D 50.3 D 49.0 D 51.2 D 50.1 D 24.7 C 50.2 D 26.7 C 53.2 D 26.3 C 47.3 D Rancho California Rd 3.1-15 SB&Rancho California Road Signalized 29.0 C 29.6 C 29.4 C 32.2 C 29.3 C 31.1 C 29.7 C 30.3 C 31.4 C 34.4 C 31.0 C 34.2 C 36.8 D 41.2 D 37.0 D 54.8 D 37.2 D 53.5 D 4.1-15 NB&Rancho California Road Signalized 9.8 A 23.0 C 9.8 A 24.6 C 9.9 A 24.5 C 9.0 A 17.5 B 9.1 A 18.6 B 9.1 A 18.2 B 10.2 B 25.7 C 10.5 B 26.9 C 10.4 B 26.6 C 5.Ynez Road&Rancho California Rd Signalized 37.8 D 48.4 LD 39.9 D 80.8 39.4 D 77.4 E 41.8 D 53.0 D 46.8 D 56.4 E 45.0 D 54.7 D 51.7 D 70.3 E 57.0 E 67.1 54.9 D 67.1 E 6.Vincent Moraga Dr&Ridge Park Dr' SSSC Intersection Does Not Exist 19.7 C 30.9 D 14.2 B 22.7 C Intersection Does Not Exist 27.5 D 32.0 C 16.3 C 27.5 D 22.4 C 155.7 179.1 F >200 85.5 F >200 F 7.A Street&Western Bypassz Signalized Intersection Does Not Exist 8.8 A 9.0 A 8.6 A 7.8 A Intersection Does Not Exist 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.2 A 8.0 A 6.5 A 4.3 A 42.7 D 30.3 C 12.0 B 10.5 B 8.Calle Cerillo&Western Bypas52 Signalized Intersection Does Not Exist 21.0 C 8.8 A 16.8 B 9.0 A Intersection Does Not Exist 21.2 C 9.2 A 17.5 B 9.4 A 11.0 B 17.9 B 30.0 C 14.8 B 26.0 D 12.5 B 9.Old Town Front/I- 5 SB St&Temecula 3 Signalized 22.0 C 27.8 C 10.0 B 19.0 B 10.2 B 19.0 B 28.5 C 44.8 D 53.7 D 52.8 D 30.3 C 50.4 D 26.3 C 42.1 D 50.2 D 54.1 D 34.0 C 52.5 D 10.1-15 NB&Temecula Parkway Signalized 9.1 A 41.4 D 19.2 B 113.5 9.9 A 110.2 39.1 D 34.2 C 23.3 C 30.3 C 29.9 C 27.0 C 19.6 B 25.5 C 27.2 C 33.0 C 22.0 C 25.0 C 11.La Paz Road&Temecula Parkway Signalized 9.6 A 21.3 C 17.6 B 24.9 C 13.0 B 22.8 C 59.8 E 68.4 68.8 92.7 60.9 84.0 F 28.2 C 23.8 C 33.7 C 25.5 C 30.6 C 25.1 C 12.Pechanga&Temecula Pkwy Signalized 23.1 C 26.2 C 23.2 C 31.5 C 23.3 C 30.1 C 29.9 C 34.0 C 32.2 C 34.7 C 30.4 C 29.6 C 18.6 B 14.9 B 19.3 B 14.8 B 18.9 B 14.9 B 13.Pechanga Parkway&Rainbow Cyn. Signalized 15.4 B 101.0 15.4 B 102.0 F 15.5 B 101.6 30.4 C 176.9 F 31.9 C 178.0 F 31.6 C 177.7 F 4.9 A 11.3 B 5.0 A 11.1 B 6.8 A 11.0 B 14.Margarita Road&Temecula Pkwy. Signalized 88.7 F 52.5 D 104.6 72.7 E 94.9 71.3 E 50.7 D 54.0 D 55.1 E 58.2 E 52.4 D 55.4 E 68.4 93.6 % 76.2 101.6 70.2 95.5 F 15.Pujol Street&First Street SSSC 12.3 B 41.0 E 12.6 B 61.4 F 12.5 B 41.3 E 13.7 B 101.1 F 22.1 C C 15.7 C >200 F 17.5 C >200 F 22.1 C >200 F 20.0 C >200 F 16.Old Town Front Street&First Street Santiao Road Signalized 16.2 B 23.3 C 16.1 B 22.3 C 16.0 B 21.8 C 17.0 B 27.6 C 16.4 B 25.0 C 16.3 B 24.2 C 17.7 B 23.8 C 18.0 B 25.1 C 18.0 B 24.4 C 17.Ynez Road&Santiago Road Signalized 25.5 C 48.4 D 27.7 C 58.0 27.1 C 55.4 E 28.8 C 63.0 E 34.0 C 72.5 E 31.6 C 68.1 E 25.5 C 41.8 D 25.9 C 42.4 D 25.8 C 42.0 D 18.Business Park Or&Rancho California Rd Signalized 13.1 B 36.6 D 17.2 B 33.1 C 17.6 B 34.8 C 14.6 B 31.3 C 20.3 C 32.1 C 19.7 B 33.0 C 15.3 B 31.9 C 15.6 B 32.7 C 15.4 B 28.1 C 19.Diaz Rod&Rancho Way Signalized 7.9 A 9.5 A 8.8 A 10.0 B 8.8 A 9.8 A 8.2 A 9.6 A 9.2 A 10.3 B 9.1 A 9.8 A 23.0 C 20.8 C 24.9 C 23.0 C 24.9 C 22.6 C 20.Diaz Rd&Winchester Road Signalized 23.8 C 40.6 D 24.8 C 42.2 D 24.5 C 41.3 D 24.0 C 43.7 D 24.6 C 42.0 D 24.5 C 39.9 D 20.7 C 37.5 D 21.5 C 40.1 D 21.1 C 39.8 D 21.Jefferson Avenue&Winchester Road Signalized 36.3 D 49.2 D 35.6 D 54.6 D 35.7 D 54.6 D 47.0 D 45.0 D 47.2 D 43.0 D 47.1 D 43.6 D 43.9 D 48.5 D 45.4 D 48.4 D 44.7 D 48.5 D 22.I-15 SB&Winchester Road Signalized 14.6 B 13.4 B 14.1 B 12.0 B 14.3 B 12.1 B 13.1 B 16.6 B 13.3 B 17.1 B 13.2 B 16.9 B 13.8 B 19.6 B 13.6 B 17.6 B 13.7 B 17.5 B 23.1-15 NB&Winchester Road Signalized 13.8 B 11.9 B 13.4 B 12.5 B 13.5 B 12.5 B 11.1 B 14.0 B 11.2 B 14.1 B 11.2 B 14.0 B 11.3 B 18.4 A 11.3 B 9A A 11.3 B 9.5 A 24.Ynez Road&Winchester Road Signalized 30.3 C 33.9 C 30.2 C 49.8 D 30.1 C 43.9 D 37.1 D 37.9 D 37.3 D 37.9 D 37.1 D 37.9 D 40.4 D 50.5 D 41.2 D 52.0 D 40.7 D 52.2 D 25.I-15 SB&Temecula Parkway Signalized 41.1 D 35.5 D 99.8 F 97.3 84.5 56.3 Intersection Does Not Exist Intersection Does Not Exist Notes: 1. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold. 2. Intersection will be constructed as part of the Western Bypass Project. 3. Assumes construction of the 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange Improvement Project SSSC=Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITIONS (WITH PROJECT) LOS REPORTS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 1: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip t tt r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 35 201 33 280 643 46 61 193 307 209 99 45 Future Volume(veh/h) 35 201 33 280 643 46 61 193 307 209 99 45 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 42 242 4 337 775 48 73 233 311 252 119 13 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 52 1530 25 398 1746 108 85 680 495 309 796 86 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.86 0.82 0.12 0.52 0.50 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3563 59 3442 3386 210 1774 3539 1583 3442 3223 347 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 42 120 126 337 405 418 73 233 311 252 65 67 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1852 1721 1770 1826 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 1801 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.3 1.1 1.1 9.6 14.4 14.4 4.1 5.7 16.8 7.2 2.9 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 1.1 1.1 9.6 14.4 14.4 4.1 5.7 16.8 7.2 2.9 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 52 760 796 398 912 941 85 680 495 309 437 445 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.16 0.16 0.85 0.44 0.44 0.86 0.34 0.63 0.82 0.15 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 106 760 796 757 912 941 195 743 523 482 437 445 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 46.8 4.1 4.1 43.4 15.2 15.3 47.2 34.9 29.4 44.7 29.4 29.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.9 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 8.8 0.1 1.5 3.0 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.3 0.6 0.7 4.6 7.3 7.5 2.2 2.8 7.5 3.6 1.4 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.7 4.5 4.5 44.8 16.4 16.4 56.0 35.0 30.9 47.7 29.5 29.5 LnGrp LOS E A A D B B E D C D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 288 1160 617 384 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.1 24.7 35.5 41.5 Approach LOS B C D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 15.6 46.9 8.8 28.7 6.9 55.6 13.0 24.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.7 3.5 *5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.5 25.3 11.5 22.7 6.5 41.3 14.5 *21 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 11.6 3.1 6.1 4.9 4.3 16.4 9.2 18.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.5 6.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.8 0.3 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 115 549 46 286 1171 388 87 111 101 189 150 169 Future Volume(veh/h) 115 549 46 286 1171 388 87 111 101 189 150 169 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 631 46 329 1346 0 100 128 1 217 172 60 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 127 4051 291 204 2411 1079 147 258 115 286 426 190 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.66 0.65 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6148 442 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1579 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 491 186 329 1346 0 100 128 1 217 172 60 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1784 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1579 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.0 5.2 5.4 8.0 26.4 0.0 3.9 4.7 0.1 8.3 6.1 4.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.0 5.2 5.4 8.0 26.4 0.0 3.9 4.7 0.1 8.3 6.1 4.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 127 3167 1176 204 2411 1079 147 258 115 286 426 190 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.16 0.16 1.61 0.56 0.00 0.68 0.50 0.01 0.76 0.40 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 127 3167 1176 204 2411 1079 229 996 446 867 1678 749 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 65.0 8.7 8.8 63.5 11.1 0.0 63.7 60.2 58.1 60.6 54.9 54.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 84.5 0.1 0.3 291.9 0.7 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.9 2.3 2.7 12.1 12.9 0.0 1.9 2.3 0.0 4.1 3.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 150.0 8.8 9.1 355.4 11.8 0.0 65.7 61.7 58.1 63.2 55.3 54.9 LnGrp LOS F A A F B E E E E E D Approach Vol,veh/h 809 1675 229 449 Approach Delay,s/veh 31.9 79.3 63.4 59.1 Approach LOS C E E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t6.2 13.8 12.0 93.0 9.8 20.3 9.0 96.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaa4,.g 37.0 8.0 37.0 9.0 63.0 5.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,3; 6.7 10.0 7.4 5.9 8.1 7.0 28.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 1.6 0.0 18.2 0.1 1.6 0.0 9.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.1 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 3: 1-15 SIB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt'* r )) ttt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 634 206 554 1252 0 0 0 0 1021 5 630 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 634 206 554 1252 0 0 0 0 1021 5 630 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 697 42 609 1376 0 1322 0 426 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 1452 411 691 2545 0 1488 0 664 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.50 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5588 1583 3442 5253 0 3548 0 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 697 42 609 1376 0 1322 0 426 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1863 1583 1721 1695 0 1774 0 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 10.5 2.0 17.2 18.5 0.0 34.5 0.0 21.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 10.5 2.0 17.2 18.5 0.0 34.5 0.0 21.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 1452 411 691 2545 0 1488 0 664 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.48 0.10 0.88 0.54 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 1452 411 723 2545 0 1632 0 728 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 31.3 28.1 38.8 17.1 0.0 26.9 0.0 23.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.1 0.5 9.9 0.7 0.0 5.6 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 5.6 0.9 9.1 8.8 0.0 18.1 0.0 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 32.4 28.6 48.7 17.8 0.0 32.5 0.0 24.2 LnGrp LOS C C D B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 739 1985 1748 Approach Delay,s/veh 32.2 27.3 30.5 Approach LOS C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),Z4.1 30.0 46.0 54.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gma21,.4 19.7 44.7 44.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,a 12.5 36.5 20.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 4.0 4.2 7.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 4: 1-15 NB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt r ttm r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1467 214 0 1286 919 464 0 368 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1467 214 0 1286 919 464 0 368 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1561 0 0 1354 761 600 0 228 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 2 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3588 1117 0 3942 2234 761 0 340 Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.21 0.00 0.21 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5588 3167 3548 0 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1561 0 0 1354 761 600 0 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1863 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.3 16.0 0.0 13.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.3 16.0 0.0 13.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3588 1117 0 3942 2234 761 0 340 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.79 0.00 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3588 1117 0 3942 2234 1100 0 491 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 37.1 0.0 36.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.1 8.0 0.0 5.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9 38.5 0.0 36.9 LnGrp LOS A A A D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1561 2115 828 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.2 5.9 38.1 Approach LOS A A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 74.5 74.5 25.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 59.7 59.7 29.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 11.4 18.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 22.6 21.4 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) ttt r Vii ttt r )) tt r )) tt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 476 923 427 123 1259 167 633 499 123 111 291 307 Future Volume(veh/h) 476 923 427 123 1259 167 633 499 123 111 291 307 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 496 961 379 128 1311 53 659 520 28 116 303 250 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 516 2139 1014 149 1803 561 705 865 386 313 462 817 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5085 1582 3442 3539 1579 3442 3539 2735 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 496 961 379 128 1311 53 659 520 28 116 303 250 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1695 1583 1774 1695 1582 1721 1770 1579 1721 1770 1368 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.4 17.4 13.9 7.1 22.4 2.2 18.8 13.0 1.4 3.2 8.1 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 17.4 13.9 7.1 22.4 2.2 18.8 13.0 1.4 3.2 8.1 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 516 2139 1014 149 1803 561 705 865 386 313 462 817 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.45 0.37 0.86 0.73 0.09 0.94 0.60 0.07 0.37 0.66 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 516 2139 1014 213 1803 561 723 956 426 344 566 897 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 47.2 32.4 13.3 45.2 28.1 21.5 39.1 33.5 29.1 42.8 41.3 27.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 27.0 0.6 0.9 15.6 2.6 0.3 18.8 0.7 0.1 1.0 1.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr8.8 8.3 6.3 4.1 10.9 1.0 10.8 6.4 0.6 1.6 4.1 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.3 33.0 14.2 60.9 30.7 21.9 57.9 34.2 29.1 43.8 42.9 27.5 LnGrp LOS E C B E C C E C C D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1836 1492 1207 669 Approach Delay,s/veh 40.3 32.9 47.0 37.3 Approach LOS D C D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t2.4 46.1 24.5 17.1 19.0 39.5 13.1 28.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalq.5 34.0 21.5 15.0 15.5 31.0 10.5 26.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l19,t 19.4 20.8 10.1 16.4 24.4 5.2 15.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 10.9 0.1 1.9 0.0 5.6 0.2 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 TWSC E+P AM 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 104 59 47 363 226 101 Future Vol,veh/h 104 59 47 363 226 101 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 200 - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 112 63 51 390 243 109 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 593 176 352 0 - 0 Stage 1 297 - - - - - Stage 2 296 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 437 837 1203 - - Stage 1 728 - - - - Stage 2 729 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 418 837 1203 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 418 - - - - Stage 1 728 - - Stage 2 698 - - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 14.2 0.9 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1203 - 418 837 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - 0.268 0.076 - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.1 - 16.7 9.7 - HCM Lane LOS A - C A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.1 0.2 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 7: Western Bypass & A Street 03/30/2017 --I. -*.-- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 4 0 2 40 0 227 1 179 22 136 148 1 Future Volume(veh/h) 4 0 2 40 0 227 1 179 22 136 148 1 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 4 0 -1 43 0 10 1 192 -41 146 159 1 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 530 157 0 447 0 81 9 723 0 189 1116 7 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 815 0 -204 1412 0 1500 1681 3441 0 1681 3416 21 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 0 43 0 10 1 151 0 146 78 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 0 1412 0 1500 1681 1676 0 1681 1676 1761 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.33 -0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 0 447 0 81 9 723 0 189 548 575 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.00 0.77 0.14 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 0 1535 0 1237 346 2765 0 520 1555 1633 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 8.7 9.6 6.3 0.0 8.4 4.6 4.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 5.8 0.1 0.0 6.6 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 9.4 15.4 6.4 0.0 15.0 4.7 4.7 LnGrp LOS A A B A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 53 152 306 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 9.1 6.5 9.6 Approach LOS A A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 8.2 5.0 4.0 10.3 5.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 18.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.6 2.7 0.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 11 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 8: Project Rd & Western Bypass 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t )) t Vii t r Vii Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 157 12 30 137 184 13 6 35 324 5 52 Future Volume(veh/h) 23 157 12 30 137 184 13 6 35 324 5 52 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 25 169 -125 32 147 115 14 6 -103 348 5 14 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 42 617 9999 102 352 257 25 6 5 451 66 184 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 3261 1850 1353 1681 1765 1500 1681 411 1151 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 25 44 0 32 132 130 14 6 -103 348 0 19 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 0 1630 1676 1526 1681 1765 1500 1681 0 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.0 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.0 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 42 617 0 102 319 290 25 6 5 451 0 250 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.07 0.00 0.31 0.41 0.45 0.57 1.00 -20.26 0.77 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 2841 0 442 1420 1293 228 957 813 968 0 1535 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 14.2 10.0 0.0 14.0 10.5 10.6 14.4 14.8 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.9 1.1 18.8 172.1 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.8 10.0 0.0 15.7 11.4 11.7 33.2 186.9 0.0 12.8 0.0 10.7 LnGrp LOS C B B B B C F B B Approach Vol,veh/h 69 294 -83 367 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.1 12.0 -19.1 12.7 Approach LOS B B A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t1.9 2.2 4.9 10.4 4.4 9.7 4.7 10.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1j,.9 16.0 4.0 25.0 4.0 29.0 4.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l17j,6,� 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 4.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 12 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 9: Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t t rr Vii t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 8 560 5 27 434 228 2 8 38 104 4 11 Future Volume(veh/h) 8 560 5 27 434 228 2 8 38 104 4 11 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 9 602 5 29 467 180 2 9 0 112 4 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 10 2602 22 41 1379 2063 2 101 0 174 164 0 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.72 0.72 0.02 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3597 30 1774 1863 2787 1774 3632 0 3442 1863 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 9 296 311 29 467 180 2 9 0 112 4 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1857 1774 1863 1393 1774 1770 0 1721 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.5 5.3 5.3 1.5 8.3 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 5.3 5.3 1.5 8.3 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 10 1280 1344 41 1379 2063 2 101 0 174 164 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.23 0.23 0.71 0.34 0.09 1.07 0.09 0.00 0.64 0.02 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 131 1280 1344 131 1379 2063 131 991 0 254 522 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 47.2 4.4 4.4 46.1 4.3 3.4 47.5 45.0 0.0 44.3 39.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 46.5 0.4 0.4 8.1 0.6 0.1 209.4 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 2.7 2.8 0.8 4.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 93.7 4.8 4.7 54.2 4.9 3.5 259.0 45.1 0.0 45.7 39.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A A D A A F D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 616 676 11 116 Approach Delay,s/veh 6.0 6.7 84.0 45.5 Approach LOS A A F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.2 72.7 3.8 12.4 4.6 74.3 8.8 7.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6 4.0 *4.6 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 37.8 7.5 26.0 7.5 37.8 7.0 *27 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,,% 7.3 2.1 2.2 2.5 10.3 5.0 2.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt r Vii rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 120 1381 0 0 1117 1465 204 0 410 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 120 1381 0 0 1117 1465 204 0 410 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 0 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 122 1409 0 0 1140 1082 208 0 418 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 161 4319 0 0 3961 3367 286 0 449 Arrive On Green 0.19 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 0 3529 3000 1681 0 2640 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 122 1409 0 0 1140 1082 208 0 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 0 0 1765 1500 1681 0 1320 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 161 4319 0 0 3961 3367 286 0 449 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.32 0.73 0.00 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 185 4319 0 0 3961 3367 286 0 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 40.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 26.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 7.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 67.4 LnGrp LOS D A A A D E Approach Vol,veh/h 1531 2222 626 Approach Delay,s/veh 3.3 0.0 61.3 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 134.4 13.6 120.8 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 69.7 10.0 *58 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 8.9 2.0 17.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 20.2 0.0 19.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 15 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt ) tt t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 96 1671 5 26 2353 250 32 6 21 193 5 205 Future Volume(veh/h) 96 1671 5 26 2353 250 32 6 21 193 5 205 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 102 1778 5 28 2503 253 34 6 1 205 5 52 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 119 3131 9 39 2604 257 103 18 3 266 279 237 Arrive On Green 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 5236 15 1774 4707 464 1477 261 43 1774 1863 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 102 1151 632 28 1785 971 41 0 0 205 5 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1695 1860 1774 1695 1781 1781 0 0 1774 1863 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.2 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.2 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.26 0.83 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 119 2027 1112 39 1875 985 125 0 0 266 279 237 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.57 0.57 0.72 0.95 0.99 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.02 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 124 2027 1112 124 1875 985 125 0 0 266 279 237 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.9 0.0 0.0 47.5 0.0 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0 40.8 36.2 37.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 30.4 0.8 1.5 6.3 9.3 20.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.7 0.2 0.5 0.8 2.4 5.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.1 1.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 0.8 1.5 53.8 9.3 20.9 51.2 0.0 0.0 60.0 36.3 39.5 LnGrp LOS E A A D A C D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1885 2784 41 262 Approach Delay,s/veh 5.0 13.8 51.2 55.5 Approach LOS A B D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.2 63.8 19.0 10.7 59.3 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.5 53.0 14.4 7.5 53.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,6,� 2.0 13.1 7.6 2.0 4.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 49.1 0.1 0.0 49.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 17 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 12: Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A PH rr )) ttt ))) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1043 804 267 1375 1307 224 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1043 804 267 1375 1307 224 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1110 848 284 1463 1390 227 Adj No.of Lanes 4 2 2 3 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 2532 2099 313 2665 1739 715 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.55 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 6318 2640 3261 4976 4739 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1110 848 284 1463 1390 227 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1518 1320 1630 1606 1580 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.8 10.9 8.6 19.5 26.3 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.8 10.9 8.6 19.5 26.3 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2532 2099 313 2665 1739 715 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.40 0.91 0.55 0.80 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2532 2099 313 2665 1891 764 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.76 0.76 0.24 0.24 0.92 0.92 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 32.4 4.8 44.8 14.3 28.4 16.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 0.4 9.0 0.2 2.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.1 11.5 4.3 8.6 11.8 3.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 5.2 53.8 14.5 30.7 16.5 LnGrp LOS C A D B C B Approach Vol,veh/h 1958 1747 1617 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.8 20.9 28.7 Approach LOS C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t3.6 45.7 59.3 40.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 6.0 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gma1q,.t 36.5 36.5 39.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+T,6,� 18.8 21.5 28.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 16.5 14.1 7.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+P AM 13: Rainbow Canyon & Pechanga Parkway 03/30/2017 --I- 4___ Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r ) ttt Traffic Volume(vph) 0 927 261 341 1366 94 47 Future Volume(vph) 0 927 261 341 1366 94 47 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1624 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1624 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 956 269 352 1408 97 48 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 124 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 956 145 352 1408 120 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 34.8 34.8 28.0 66.3 14.7 Effective Green,g(s) 36.3 34.8 27.5 67.8 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.38 0.30 0.75 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1921 573 506 3589 271 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.21 0.29 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.25 0.70 0.39 0.44 Uniform Delay,d1 20.5 19.2 28.1 4.2 34.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.9 1.1 3.3 0.3 1.2 Delay(s) 21.4 20.3 31.4 4.5 35.2 Level of Service C C C A D Approach Delay(s) 21.2 9.9 35.2 Approach LOS C A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 91.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) tt )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 259 718 146 241 931 81 344 414 179 104 389 240 Future Volume(veh/h) 259 718 146 241 931 81 344 414 179 104 389 240 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 282 780 132 262 1012 80 374 450 29 113 423 61 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 369 2124 357 311 2247 177 154 639 285 168 641 286 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.51 0.49 0.10 0.49 0.47 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4153 697 3261 4552 359 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1493 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 282 602 310 262 713 379 374 450 29 113 423 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 1639 1630 1606 1700 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1493 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.9 11.9 12.2 8.4 15.3 15.5 5.0 13.3 1.7 3.6 12.4 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.9 11.9 12.2 8.4 15.3 15.5 5.0 13.3 1.7 3.6 12.4 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 369 1643 838 311 1585 839 154 639 285 168 641 286 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.37 0.37 0.84 0.45 0.45 2.43 0.70 0.10 0.67 0.66 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 369 1643 838 311 1585 839 154 1120 500 277 1104 492 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.6 15.6 15.9 47.2 17.5 17.6 50.5 40.1 35.4 49.4 39.7 36.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.0 0.6 1.1 18.3 0.9 1.8 663.6 1.1 0.1 1.7 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr4.4 5.4 5.7 4.6 6.9 7.6 16.4 6.2 0.7 1.7 5.8 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.6 16.1 17.0 65.4 18.4 19.4 714.1 41.2 35.5 51.1 40.5 36.4 LnGrp LOS D B B E B B F D D D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1194 1354 853 597 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.2 27.8 336.0 42.1 Approach LOS C C F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.1 58.2 9.0 24.7 16.0 56.3 9.5 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gma1q,.t 34.0 5.0 *34 12.0 28.0 9.0 34.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,-+o 14.2 7.0 14.4 10.9 17.5 5.6 15.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 12.6 0.0 3.4 0.1 7.9 0.1 3.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 94.9 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 21 HCM 2010 TWSC E+P AM 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 1 42 0 30 24 94 0 66 55 57 58 0 Future Vol,veh/h 1 42 0 30 24 94 0 66 55 57 58 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 - 105 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 53 0 38 30 118 0 83 69 71 73 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 347 366 73 358 332 117 73 0 0 151 0 0 Stage 1 215 215 - 117 117 - - - - - - - Stage 2 132 151 - 241 215 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 607 562 989 597 588 935 1527 - 1430 - Stage 1 787 725 - 888 799 - - - Stage 2 871 772 - 762 725 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 490 534 989 531 559 935 1527 1430 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 490 534 - 531 559 - - - Stage 1 787 689 888 799 - Stage 2 733 772 669 689 - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 12.5 10.6 0 3.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1527 - 533 543 935 1430 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.101 0.124 0.126 0.05 - HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - 12.5 0 12.6 9.4 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A B A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 0.2 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 23 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 16: Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road 03/30/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 31 120 16 100 109 170 21 68 57 65 46 26 Future Volume(veh/h) 31 120 16 100 109 170 21 68 57 65 46 26 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 33 129 3 108 117 36 23 73 7 70 49 4 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 194 332 281 194 332 281 194 333 282 194 666 54 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1492 1681 1765 1492 1681 1765 1492 1681 3142 253 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 33 129 3 108 117 36 23 73 7 70 26 27 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1492 1681 1765 1492 1681 1765 1492 1681 1676 1719 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.8 2.8 0.1 2.6 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.8 2.8 0.1 2.6 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 194 332 281 194 332 281 194 333 282 194 355 364 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.39 0.01 0.56 0.35 0.13 0.12 0.22 0.02 0.36 0.07 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 776 855 723 776 855 723 776 936 792 776 890 912 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 17.3 15.4 14.3 18.1 15.3 5.3 17.2 14.9 5.7 17.7 13.7 13.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 16.3 14.3 19.1 16.1 5.6 17.3 15.3 5.7 18.1 13.8 13.8 LnGrp LOS B B B B B A B B A B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 165 261 103 123 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.5 15.8 15.1 16.2 Approach LOS B B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 12.7 9.5 12.7 8.5 12.7 8.5 13.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 4.5 *4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 20.0 21.0 20.0 *23 20.0 21.0 20.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.8 4.5 3.7 3.5 4.6 4.8 2.5 2.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 24 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/31/2017 --I. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 214 46 153 8 54 21 237 296 6 13 296 348 Future Volume(veh/h) 214 46 153 8 54 21 237 296 6 13 296 348 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 233 50 80 9 59 16 258 322 6 14 322 133 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 301 65 322 20 130 35 305 668 12 112 481 407 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,veh/h 1395 299 1493 182 1191 323 1681 1727 32 1681 1765 1494 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 283 0 80 84 0 0 258 0 328 14 322 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1695 0 1493 1695 0 0 1681 0 1759 1681 1765 1494 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.7 0.0 3.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 10.5 0.6 12.1 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.7 0.0 3.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 10.5 0.6 12.1 5.3 Prop In Lane 0.82 1.00 0.11 0.19 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 366 0 322 186 0 0 305 0 680 112 481 407 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.25 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.48 0.12 0.67 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 680 0 599 454 0 0 674 0 941 337 944 800 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 27.6 0.0 24.3 31.2 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 17.3 32.8 24.2 21.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.9 0.0 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.3 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.0 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.2 0.3 6.2 2.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 0.0 24.8 32.9 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 18.0 33.0 26.5 22.4 LnGrp LOS C C C C B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 363 84 586 469 Approach Delay,s/veh 30.8 32.9 25.3 25.5 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.1 25.4 12.2 8.5 33.9 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 30.0 40.0 20.0 15.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 13.1 14.1 5.5 2.6 12.5 13.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.5 6.2 0.3 0.0 6.3 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 18: Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T* + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 13 196 10 116 162 448 24 21 16 57 7 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 13 196 10 116 162 448 24 21 16 57 7 2 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 15 231 10 136 191 216 28 25 -2 67 8 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 21 1130 49 157 1330 1129 39 130 0 78 172 0 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.64 0.62 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1772 77 1774 1863 1581 1774 1863 0 1774 1863 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 15 0 241 136 191 216 28 23 0 67 8 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 0 1849 1774 1863 1581 1774 1863 0 1774 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.8 0.0 5.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.0 3.8 0.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.8 0.0 5.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.0 3.8 0.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 21 0 1179 157 1330 1129 39 130 0 78 172 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.20 0.87 0.14 0.19 0.72 0.18 0.00 0.86 0.05 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 124 0 1179 266 1330 1129 124 298 0 461 652 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 49.2 0.0 7.6 42.0 0.0 0.0 48.6 43.8 0.0 47.5 41.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 14.4 0.0 0.4 6.2 0.2 0.3 8.7 0.2 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.5 0.0 2.9 3.9 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.6 0.0 8.0 48.2 0.2 0.3 57.3 44.0 0.0 57.0 41.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A A E D E D Approach Vol,veh/h 256 543 51 75 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.2 12.3 51.3 55.3 Approach LOS B B D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t2.8 67.7 6.2 13.2 5.2 75.4 8.4 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmai$,.5 25.3 7.5 35.0 7.5 33.3 26.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l19,5s 7.4 3.6 2.4 2.8 2.0 5.8 3.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 27 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 19: Diaz Road & Rancho Way 03/30/2017 t i Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 43 50 186 569 240 167 Future Volume(veh/h) 43 50 186 569 240 167 Number 3 18 1 6 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 53 -33 230 702 296 94 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 513 236 300 2147 965 300 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.18 0.64 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 1500 1681 3441 2605 784 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 53 -33 230 702 195 195 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1500 1681 1676 1676 1624 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.6 0.0 5.8 4.2 3.6 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.6 0.0 5.8 4.2 3.6 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 513 236 300 2147 643 622 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 -0.14 0.77 0.33 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2199 1011 755 3014 1507 1460 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 16.1 0.0 17.4 3.6 9.6 9.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.3 0.0 2.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.1 0.0 19.0 3.8 10.0 10.0 LnGrp LOS B B A A B Approach Vol,veh/h 20 932 390 Approach Delay,s/veh 42.6 7.5 10.0 Approach LOS D A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),$1.4 22.1 33.5 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma2q,.9 40.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l J,8; 5.7 6.2 2.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 11.3 11.3 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 28 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 20: Diaz Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t )) t ) tt r )) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 1 68 18 735 431 333 23 103 243 104 32 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 1 68 18 735 431 333 23 103 243 104 32 5 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1 82 5 886 519 311 28 124 -2 125 39 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 1 1514 92 951 1547 925 37 338 151 167 435 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.45 0.44 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3391 205 3442 2132 1275 1774 3539 1583 3442 3632 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1 42 45 886 431 399 28 124 -2 125 39 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1827 1721 1770 1637 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.1 1.6 1.7 29.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.9 0.0 4.3 1.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.1 1.6 1.7 29.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.9 0.0 4.3 1.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 1 790 816 951 1284 1187 37 338 151 167 435 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.05 0.05 0.93 0.34 0.34 0.75 0.37 -0.01 0.75 0.09 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 103 790 816 1377 1284 1187 118 737 330 344 855 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 60.0 18.8 18.9 31.3 0.0 0.0 58.4 50.9 0.0 56.4 46.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 114.4 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.5 0.5 10.5 0.7 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.1 0.8 0.9 14.4 0.2 0.2 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.1 0.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 174.4 19.0 19.0 36.3 0.5 0.5 68.9 51.5 0.0 58.9 46.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS F B B D A A E D E D Approach Vol,veh/h 88 1716 150 164 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.7 19.0 55.5 56.0 Approach LOS C B E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),37.1 57.6 6.5 18.7 3.7 91.1 9.8 15.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma#,.S 18.5 8.5 28.0 7.5 59.5 12.5 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+UI,a 3.7 3.9 3.2 2.1 2.0 6.3 5.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 2.5 5.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.1 0.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 29 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 21: Jefferson Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 141 380 35 549 1127 483 127 358 197 306 432 390 Future Volume(veh/h) 141 380 35 549 1127 483 127 358 197 306 432 390 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 148 400 25 578 1186 308 134 377 125 322 455 239 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 760 2585 159 632 1296 575 175 564 619 371 766 340 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.42 0.41 0.37 0.73 0.73 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6217 382 3442 3539 1572 3442 3539 1562 3442 3539 1570 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 148 308 117 578 1186 308 134 377 125 322 455 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1793 1721 1770 1572 1721 1770 1562 1721 1770 1570 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.2 4.8 4.9 19.2 32.7 8.2 4.6 12.0 1.4 11.1 13.9 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.2 4.8 4.9 19.2 32.7 8.2 4.6 12.0 1.4 11.1 13.9 16.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 760 1998 746 632 1296 575 175 564 619 371 766 340 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.91 0.92 0.54 0.77 0.67 0.20 0.87 0.59 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 760 1998 746 803 1445 642 258 796 721 459 1003 445 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 38.1 21.9 22.0 37.1 14.6 7.2 56.3 47.5 11.1 52.7 42.3 43.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 0.1 0.4 10.2 9.6 2.9 3.4 1.8 0.2 13.1 0.3 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.0 2.1 2.5 9.9 16.9 3.8 2.3 6.0 1.8 6.0 6.8 7.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.1 22.0 22.4 47.3 24.2 10.1 59.7 49.2 11.3 65.8 42.6 45.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D C B E D B E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 573 2072 636 1016 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.2 28.5 44.0 50.6 Approach LOS C C D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),tO.1 30.0 26.0 53.9 16.9 23.1 32.0 47.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 *5 Max Green Setting(Gmax$,.S 33.0 28.5 32.0 16.5 26.0 12.5 *48 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lV,6; 18.9 21.2 6.9 13.1 14.0 6.2 34.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 4.4 1.3 1.9 0.4 4.1 1.1 8.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 35.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 30 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 22: 1-15 SIB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt r ttt r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 674 174 0 1338 873 0 0 0 918 4 822 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 674 174 0 1338 873 0 0 0 918 4 822 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 709 91 0 1408 0 966 0 835 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2670 831 0 2670 831 1449 0 1293 Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5253 1583 3548 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 709 91 0 1408 0 966 0 835 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1695 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 25.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 25.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2670 831 0 2670 831 1449 0 1293 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.27 0.11 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2670 831 0 2670 831 1449 0 1293 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 0.0 28.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 13.5 0.0 11.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 31.3 0.0 31.0 LnGrp LOS A A A C C Approach Vol,veh/h 800 1408 1801 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.2 0.6 31.2 Approach LOS A A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 67.0 53.0 67.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 61.0 48.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 28.6 2.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 8.4 6.5 8.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 32 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 23: 1-15 NB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt rr ttt rr r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1366 268 0 1676 558 431 2 549 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1366 268 0 1676 558 431 2 549 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1394 0 0 1710 373 612 0 331 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 2 0 3 2 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3485 1910 0 3485 1910 880 0 391 Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.25 0.00 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 2787 0 5253 2787 3548 0 1578 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1394 0 0 1710 373 612 0 331 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1393 0 1695 1393 1774 0 1578 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 5.8 18.8 0.0 24.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 5.8 18.8 0.0 24.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3485 1910 0 3485 1910 880 0 391 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.20 0.70 0.00 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3485 1910 0 3485 1910 1419 0 631 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 6.9 41.0 0.0 42.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.0 2.3 9.2 0.0 10.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.3 7.0 41.4 0.0 46.0 LnGrp LOS A A A D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1394 2083 943 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.3 8.9 43.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 86.2 86.2 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 62.0 62.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 21.1 26.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 20.3 18.2 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 34 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 24: Ynez Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) PH r )) f f tT+ ))) tt r )) t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 390 871 554 290 1556 74 245 177 75 85 309 469 Future Volume(veh/h) 390 871 554 290 1556 74 245 177 75 85 309 469 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 398 889 379 296 1588 71 250 181 20 87 315 479 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 2 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 452 2988 738 358 2782 124 330 910 406 140 414 700 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.78 0.78 0.10 0.44 0.42 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6408 1583 3442 6336 283 5003 3539 1580 3548 1863 3150 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 398 889 379 296 1204 455 250 181 20 87 315 479 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1583 1721 1602 1813 1668 1770 1580 1774 1863 1575 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 4.8 7.1 10.1 22.5 22.6 5.9 4.8 1.1 2.9 19.0 12.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 4.8 7.1 10.1 22.5 22.6 5.9 4.8 1.1 2.9 19.0 12.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 452 2988 738 358 2110 796 330 910 406 140 414 700 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.30 0.51 0.83 0.57 0.57 0.76 0.20 0.05 0.62 0.76 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 516 2988 738 488 2110 796 334 1121 500 207 574 971 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.9 7.6 3.7 52.7 25.2 25.3 55.1 34.9 33.5 56.8 43.7 22.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.2 0.2 2.2 6.2 1.1 3.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.0 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr7.1 2.1 3.4 5.1 10.1 11.9 3.0 2.3 0.5 1.5 10.4 5.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.2 7.8 6.0 58.9 26.3 28.3 63.7 34.9 33.6 58.4 48.7 24.2 LnGrp LOS E A A E C C E C C E D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1666 1955 451 881 Approach Delay,s/veh 19.4 31.7 50.8 36.3 Approach LOS B C D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t6.5 60.0 12.9 30.7 19.7 56.7 8.7 34.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 5.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1j,.9 40.0 8.0 *36 18.0 39.0 7.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+q,t 9.1 7.9 21.0 15.4 24.6 4.9 6.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.4 25.3 0.0 4.7 0.3 13.0 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 36 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P AM 25: 1-15 SIB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t'* )) tt 4 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 2 374 340 855 486 0 0 0 0 1126 2 162 Future Volume(veh/h) 2 374 340 855 486 0 0 0 0 1126 2 162 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 0 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 2 386 351 881 501 0 1162 0 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 37 300 229 946 1679 0 1400 0 625 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.17 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 2 1760 1343 3261 3441 0 3361 0 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 388 0 351 881 501 0 1162 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl763 0 1343 1630 1676 0 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.6 0.0 17.1 26.8 13.1 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.1 0.0 17.1 26.8 13.1 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 302 0 229 946 1679 0 1400 0 625 V/C Ratio(X) 1.29 0.00 1.53 0.93 0.30 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 302 0 229 946 1679 0 1479 0 660 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.64 0.64 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 41.5 0.0 42.5 44.2 26.3 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 151.1 0.0 259.5 11.0 0.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/52.7 0.0 22.8 13.6 6.2 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 192.6 0.0 302.0 55.2 26.6 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 739 1382 1162 Approach Delay,s/veh 244.6 44.8 30.0 Approach LOS F D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),W.0 21.1 45.9 54.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 10.3 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gma4,.g 12.7 38.0 45.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,8; 19.1 32.8 15.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 84.5 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 38 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip t tt r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 59 643 60 444 276 10 71 193 434 671 397 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 59 643 60 444 276 10 71 193 434 671 397 68 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 71 775 62 535 333 8 86 233 437 808 478 10 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 82 855 68 584 1345 32 101 566 530 826 1261 26 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.51 0.48 0.17 0.38 0.36 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3320 266 3442 3533 85 1774 3539 1583 3442 3545 74 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 71 413 424 535 167 174 86 233 437 808 238 250 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1816 1721 1770 1848 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 1850 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.9 21.2 21.3 15.3 6.4 6.5 4.8 5.9 16.0 23.3 10.0 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.9 21.2 21.3 15.3 6.4 6.5 4.8 5.9 16.0 23.3 10.0 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 82 455 467 584 674 703 101 566 530 826 630 658 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.25 0.25 0.85 0.41 0.82 0.98 0.38 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 160 460 472 619 674 703 213 566 530 826 630 658 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.1 23.2 23.4 40.8 21.2 21.2 46.7 37.8 30.6 37.7 24.0 24.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.8 18.1 17.8 14.7 0.7 0.7 7.2 0.2 9.7 25.8 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.1 12.4 12.7 8.5 3.3 3.4 2.6 2.9 12.4 14.1 4.9 5.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.8 41.3 41.3 55.5 21.9 21.9 53.9 37.9 40.2 63.6 24.1 24.1 LnGrp LOS D D D E C C D D D E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 908 876 756 1296 Approach Delay,s/veh 42.1 42.4 41.1 48.7 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.0 29.7 9.7 39.6 8.6 42.1 28.0 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.7 3.5 *5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.5 24.3 12.5 26.7 9.5 33.3 24.5 *16 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 17.3 23.3 6.8 12.0 5.9 8.5 25.3 18.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 343 1313 118 179 657 361 56 271 292 482 298 202 Future Volume(veh/h) 343 1313 118 179 657 361 56 271 292 482 298 202 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 394 1509 126 206 755 0 64 311 162 554 343 61 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 188 3059 255 269 1867 835 134 578 259 375 826 369 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.50 0.49 0.08 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6072 507 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1581 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 394 1194 441 206 755 0 64 311 162 554 343 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1773 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1581 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.0 18.0 18.1 6.5 14.1 0.0 2.0 8.9 10.5 12.0 9.0 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.0 18.0 18.1 6.5 14.1 0.0 2.0 8.9 10.5 12.0 9.0 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 188 2421 893 269 1867 835 134 578 259 375 826 369 V/C Ratio(X) 2.10 0.49 0.49 0.77 0.40 0.00 0.48 0.54 0.63 1.48 0.42 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 188 2421 893 375 1867 835 156 1223 547 375 1448 647 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.91 0.91 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 52.0 18.0 18.1 49.7 15.6 0.0 51.8 42.2 42.9 49.0 35.8 33.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 500.9 0.3 0.7 3.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.8 2.5 223.8 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir5.9 8.0 9.0 3.2 7.0 0.0 1.0 4.4 4.8 17.4 4.5 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 552.9 18.3 18.8 53.0 16.2 0.0 52.7 43.0 45.4 272.8 36.0 33.8 LnGrp LOS F B B D B D D D F D C Approach Vol,veh/h 2029 961 537 958 Approach Delay,s/veh 122.2 24.1 44.9 172.8 Approach LOS F C D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t6.0 22.0 12.6 59.4 8.3 29.7 10.0 62.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalq.9 37.0 12.0 31.0 5.0 44.0 6.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+[M,a 12.5 8.5 20.1 4.0 11.0 8.0 16.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.2 0.2 9.2 0.0 4.3 0.0 14.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 102.7 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: 1-15 SIB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt'* r )) ttt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1729 334 366 881 0 0 0 0 913 2 363 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1729 334 366 881 0 0 0 0 913 2 363 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1900 225 402 968 0 1111 0 231 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2063 584 505 2827 0 1292 0 576 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.37 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5588 1583 3442 5253 0 3548 0 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1900 225 402 968 0 1111 0 231 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1863 1583 1721 1695 0 1774 0 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 32.5 10.5 11.4 13.7 0.0 29.0 0.0 10.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 32.5 10.5 11.4 13.7 0.0 29.0 0.0 10.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2063 584 505 2827 0 1292 0 576 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.92 0.38 0.80 0.34 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2063 584 723 2827 0 1632 0 728 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.89 0.89 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 30.2 23.2 43.6 18.2 0.0 29.4 0.0 23.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 4.9 1.0 2.2 0.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 17.6 4.7 5.6 6.5 0.0 14.8 0.0 4.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 35.0 24.2 45.8 18.5 0.0 32.8 0.0 23.8 LnGrp LOS D C D B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 2125 1370 1342 Approach Delay,s/veh 33.9 26.5 31.3 Approach LOS C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t8.7 40.9 40.4 59.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gma21,.4 19.7 44.7 44.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+rt>j,4; 34.5 31.0 15.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.7 0.0 4.1 13.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-15 NB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt r f f t r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2088 523 0 1059 917 182 4 954 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2088 523 0 1059 917 182 4 954 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2221 0 0 1127 669 131 0 1063 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3102 966 0 3409 1932 550 0 982 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.31 0.00 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5588 3167 1774 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2221 0 0 1127 669 131 0 1063 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1863 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 9.9 10.4 5.5 0.0 31.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 9.9 10.4 5.5 0.0 31.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3102 966 0 3409 1932 550 0 982 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.35 0.24 0.00 1.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3102 966 0 3409 1932 550 0 982 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 9.5 9.6 25.7 0.0 34.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 53.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 5.1 4.6 2.7 0.0 20.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 10.0 25.8 0.0 88.4 LnGrp LOS A A B C F Approach Vol,veh/h 2221 1796 1194 Approach Delay,s/veh 5.7 9.8 81.5 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 65.0 65.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 59.7 59.7 29.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 21.7 12.4 33.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 22.8 25.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) ttt r Vii ttt r )) tt r )) tt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 803 1620 627 181 917 230 444 677 153 225 617 628 Future Volume(veh/h) 803 1620 627 181 917 230 444 677 153 225 617 628 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 836 1688 622 189 955 70 462 705 38 234 643 589 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 516 1997 886 212 1841 573 523 825 368 326 623 944 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5085 1582 3442 3539 1579 3442 3539 2749 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 836 1688 622 189 955 70 462 705 38 234 643 589 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1695 1583 1774 1695 1582 1721 1770 1579 1721 1770 1374 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.0 32.4 28.5 10.5 14.7 3.0 13.2 19.1 1.9 6.6 17.6 17.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.0 32.4 28.5 10.5 14.7 3.0 13.2 19.1 1.9 6.6 17.6 17.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 516 1997 886 212 1841 573 523 825 368 326 623 944 V/C Ratio(X) 1.62 0.85 0.70 0.89 0.52 0.12 0.88 0.85 0.10 0.72 1.03 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 516 1997 886 213 1841 573 723 956 426 344 623 944 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 47.5 40.5 22.9 43.4 25.0 21.3 41.5 36.7 30.1 44.0 41.2 27.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 283.2 2.4 2.3 33.2 1.0 0.4 7.7 6.5 0.1 7.3 44.5 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/27.5 15.7 13.1 7.1 7.1 1.3 6.8 10.1 0.8 3.5 12.4 6.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 330.7 42.9 25.2 76.6 26.1 21.7 49.2 43.3 30.2 51.3 85.7 28.8 LnGrp LOS F D C E C C D D C D F C Approach Vol,veh/h 3146 1214 1205 1466 Approach Delay,s/veh 115.9 33.7 45.1 57.4 Approach LOS F C D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t5.9 43.3 19.2 21.6 19.0 40.2 13.5 27.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalq.5 34.0 21.5 15.0 15.5 31.0 10.5 26.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+q,,% 34.4 15.2 19.6 17.0 16.7 8.6 21.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.2 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 77.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 E+P PM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 4.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 132 48 62 291 428 95 Future Vol,veh/h 132 48 62 291 428 95 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 200 - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 142 52 67 313 460 102 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 801 281 562 0 - 0 Stage 1 511 - - - - - Stage 2 290 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 322 716 1005 - - Stage 1 567 - - - - Stage 2 734 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 301 716 1005 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 301 - - - - Stage 1 567 - - Stage 2 685 - - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 22.7 1.6 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1005 - 301 716 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 - 0.472 0.072 - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.8 - 27.2 10.4 - HCM Lane LOS A - D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 2.4 0.2 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Western Bypass & A Street 03/30/2017 -*--- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r ti� t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 2 0 1 25 0 146 2 205 37 219 254 4 Future Volume(veh/h) 2 0 1 25 0 146 2 205 37 219 254 4 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 2 0 -1 27 0 -17 2 220 -33 235 273 4 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 532 478 0 353 0 18 8 820 0 307 1438 21 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow,veh/h NAN NAN NAN 1412 0 1500 1681 3441 0 1681 3383 50 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 0 27 0 -17 2 187 0 235 135 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 0 1412 0 1500 1681 1676 0 1681 1676 1756 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 1.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 1.1 Prop In Lane 2.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 0 353 0 18 8 820 0 307 713 746 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 -0.96 0.25 0.23 0.00 0.77 0.19 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 0 1392 0 1122 314 2508 0 864 1802 1888 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 10.6 6.5 0.0 8.3 3.8 3.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 26.8 6.6 0.0 12.3 4.0 4.0 LnGrp LOS B C A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 10 189 512 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 28.9 6.8 7.8 Approach LOS C A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 9.2 4.3 4.0 13.1 4.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 23.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 4.8 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.1 2.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Project Rd & Western Bypass 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t )) t Vii t r Vii Traffic Volume(veh/h) 37 223 20 51 193 346 19 8 48 329 9 32 Future Volume(veh/h) 37 223 20 51 193 346 19 8 48 329 9 32 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 40 240 -33 55 208 200 20 9 -180 354 10 12 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 532 1224 0 1277 612 548 614 454 386 698 188 226 Arrive On Green 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow,veh/h 974 3441 0 2270 1676 1500 1384 1765 1500 1681 732 878 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 40 207 0 55 208 200 20 9 -180 354 0 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 974 1676 0 1135 1676 1500 1384 1765 1500 1681 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.4 2.4 2.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.4 1.1 0.0 1.6 2.4 2.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 532 1224 0 1277 612 548 614 454 386 698 0 414 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.34 0.37 0.03 0.02 -0.47 0.51 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1096 3165 0 2592 1582 1416 1303 1333 1133 1535 0 1216 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 7.4 5.7 0.0 6.2 6.1 6.2 7.6 7.3 0.0 9.3 0.0 7.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.5 5.8 0.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 7.6 7.4 0.0 9.9 0.0 7.5 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 247 463 -151 376 Approach Delay,s/veh 6.0 6.5 -1.5 9.8 Approach LOS A A A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.8 14.7 11.8 14.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 20.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.6 5.4 7.4 4.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.2 4.3 1.1 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.0 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t Vii + rr Vii t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 28 695 5 36 708 490 3 33 67 203 5 18 Future Volume(veh/h) 28 695 5 36 708 490 3 33 67 203 5 18 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 30 747 5 39 761 372 3 35 2 218 5 3 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 41 2410 16 50 1255 1877 2 175 10 295 157 94 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.67 0.66 0.02 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3604 24 1774 1863 2787 1774 3405 193 3442 1089 653 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 30 367 385 39 761 372 3 18 19 218 0 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1858 1774 1863 1393 1774 1770 1828 1721 0 1742 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 8.7 8.7 2.2 30.9 8.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 6.2 0.0 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 8.7 8.7 2.2 30.9 8.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 6.2 0.0 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 41 1183 1243 50 1255 1877 2 91 94 295 0 251 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.31 0.31 0.78 0.61 0.20 1.69 0.20 0.20 0.74 0.00 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 195 1183 1243 195 1255 1877 142 336 347 723 0 558 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.74 0.74 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.99 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 48.5 6.9 6.9 48.8 17.4 11.2 50.0 45.4 45.4 44.6 0.0 36.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.8 0.6 0.6 7.2 1.6 0.2 448.6 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 142.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.9 4.4 4.6 1.2 16.5 3.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.0 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 7.5 7.5 56.0 19.1 11.3 640.6 45.8 45.8 46.0 0.0 36.9 LnGrp LOS E A A E B B F D D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 782 1172 40 226 Approach Delay,s/veh 9.4 17.8 90.4 45.7 Approach LOS A B F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.8 70.9 3.9 18.4 6.3 71.3 12.6 9.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6 4.0 *4.6 Max Green Setting(Gmat),.S 32.4 8.5 31.4 11.5 32.4 21.0 * 19 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,a 10.7 2.1 2.4 3.7 32.9 8.2 3.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tt r Vii rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 125 1908 0 0 1023 882 440 0 863 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 125 1908 0 0 1023 882 440 0 863 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 0 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 128 1947 0 0 1369 420 449 0 881 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 170 4889 0 0 6814 1931 286 0 449 Arrive On Green 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 0 5294 1500 1681 0 2640 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 128 1947 0 0 1369 420 449 0 881 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 0 0 1765 1500 1681 0 1320 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 17.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 17.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 170 4889 0 0 6814 1931 286 0 449 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.22 1.57 0.00 1.96 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 185 4889 0 0 6814 1931 286 0 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 41.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 273.5 0.0 441.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 29.6 0.0 33.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 315.0 0.0 482.9 LnGrp LOS D A A A F F Approach Vol,veh/h 2075 1789 1330 Approach Delay,s/veh 2.7 0.1 426.2 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 151.9 14.1 137.8 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 69.7 10.0 *58 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 9.3 2.0 19.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 21.5 0.0 20.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 110.2 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tt ) tt + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 156 2557 30 22 1823 326 11 7 18 310 14 67 Future Volume(veh/h) 156 2557 30 22 1823 326 11 7 18 310 14 67 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 166 2720 31 23 1939 320 12 7 0 330 15 1 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 124 3117 35 33 2426 394 80 47 0 266 279 237 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.80 0.77 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 5184 59 1774 4410 716 1140 665 0 1774 1863 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 166 1776 975 23 1483 776 19 0 0 330 15 1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1695 1852 1774 1695 1736 1806 0 0 1774 1863 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 34.6 35.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.7 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.0 34.6 35.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.7 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.41 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 124 2039 1114 33 1865 955 126 0 0 266 279 237 V/C Ratio(X) 1.34 0.87 0.88 0.70 0.80 0.81 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.05 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 124 2039 1114 124 1865 955 126 0 0 266 279 237 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.3 7.5 7.5 47.9 0.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 42.5 36.4 36.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 156.5 0.5 1.0 7.7 2.9 6.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 135.8 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr8.8 15.6 17.3 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 201.9 8.0 8.5 55.6 2.9 6.2 46.2 0.0 0.0 178.3 36.8 36.2 LnGrp LOS F A A E A A D F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 2917 2282 19 346 Approach Delay,s/veh 19.2 4.6 46.2 171.8 Approach LOS B A D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s5.9 64.1 19.0 11.0 59.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.5 53.0 14.4 7.5 53.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,3; 37.2 17.0 9.0 2.0 3.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 17 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A PH rr )) ttt ))) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1583 1270 349 983 1194 659 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1583 1270 349 983 1194 659 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1684 1349 371 1046 1270 700 Adj No.of Lanes 4 2 2 3 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 2337 2099 313 2510 1891 764 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.52 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow,veh/h 6318 2640 3261 4976 4739 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1684 1349 371 1046 1270 700 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1518 1320 1630 1606 1580 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 26.7 17.9 9.6 13.3 22.0 39.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 26.7 17.9 9.6 13.3 22.0 39.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2337 2099 313 2510 1891 764 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.64 1.19 0.42 0.67 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2337 2099 313 2510 1891 764 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.28 0.28 0.60 0.60 0.12 0.12 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 38.5 5.6 45.2 14.7 24.7 22.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.4 101.5 0.3 0.1 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.3 18.8 8.7 5.9 9.5 18.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.0 6.0 146.7 15.0 24.8 25.1 LnGrp LOS D A F B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 3033 1417 1970 Approach Delay,s/veh 24.3 49.4 24.9 Approach LOS C D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t3.6 42.5 56.1 43.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 6.0 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmalq,.$ 36.5 36.5 39.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+m1,6,� 28.7 15.3 41.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 7.7 20.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 18 E+P PM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Rainbow Canyon & Pechanga Parkway 03/30/2017 --I- 4--- Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r ) ttt Traffic Volume(vph) 0 1505 102 81 1369 589 333 Future Volume(vph) 0 1505 102 81 1369 589 333 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1619 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1619 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1536 104 84 1397 607 340 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 30 0 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1536 74 84 1397 925 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 35.8 35.8 12.0 51.3 29.2 Effective Green,g(s) 37.3 35.8 11.5 52.8 29.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.40 0.13 0.58 0.33 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1985 593 212 2810 531 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.05 c0.29 c0.57 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.12 0.40 0.50 1.74 Uniform Delay,d1 23.0 17.4 36.3 11.1 30.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 341.5 Delay(s) 26.0 17.8 36.8 11.7 371.9 Level of Service C B D B F Approach Delay(s) 25.5 13.1 371.9 Approach LOS C B F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 101.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.5 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) tt )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 459 1413 231 335 700 195 212 611 290 232 597 191 Future Volume(veh/h) 459 1413 231 335 700 195 212 611 290 232 597 191 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 499 1536 226 364 761 162 230 664 127 252 649 50 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 369 1733 254 311 1557 328 154 873 390 277 986 440 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.41 0.39 0.10 0.39 0.37 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4241 623 3261 3984 840 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1495 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 499 1163 599 364 612 311 230 664 127 252 649 50 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 1651 1630 1606 1612 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1495 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.0 35.6 35.8 10.1 15.2 15.6 5.0 19.4 7.3 8.1 18.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.0 35.6 35.8 10.1 15.2 15.6 5.0 19.4 7.3 8.1 18.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 369 1312 675 311 1255 630 154 873 390 277 986 440 V/C Ratio(X) 1.35 0.89 0.89 1.17 0.49 0.49 1.50 0.76 0.33 0.91 0.66 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 369 1312 675 311 1255 630 154 1120 500 277 1104 492 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 47.0 29.1 29.5 48.0 24.3 24.8 50.5 36.2 31.7 48.1 32.7 27.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 167.9 5.2 9.6 106.1 1.4 2.8 254.0 2.0 0.4 31.1 1.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/54.0 16.6 18.0 9.1 7.0 7.4 7.7 9.2 3.1 4.9 8.4 1.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 214.9 34.3 39.1 154.0 25.7 27.6 304.5 38.2 32.0 79.2 33.8 27.4 LnGrp LOS F C D F C C F D C E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 2261 1287 1021 951 Approach Delay,s/veh 75.4 62.4 97.4 45.5 Approach LOS E E F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.1 47.3 9.0 35.6 16.0 45.4 13.0 31.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmalq,.t 34.0 5.0 *34 12.0 28.0 9.0 34.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+q,t 37.8 7.0 20.0 14.0 17.6 10.1 21.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 71.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 21 E+P PM HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 15.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 31 0 47 44 141 0 113 30 269 193 7 Future Vol,veh/h 5 31 0 47 44 141 0 113 30 269 193 7 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 - 105 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 39 0 59 55 176 0 141 38 336 241 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1106 1097 246 1098 1083 160 250 0 0 179 0 0 Stage 1 918 918 - 160 160 - - - - - - - Stage 2 188 179 - 938 923 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 188 213 793 190 217 885 1316 - 1397 - Stage 1 326 350 - 842 766 - - - Stage 2 814 751 - 317 349 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 92 162 793 127 165 885 1316 1397 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 92 162 - 127 165 - - - Stage 1 326 266 842 766 - Stage 2 605 751 206 265 - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 39.9 41.3 0 4.8 HCM LOS E E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1316 - 147 143 885 1397 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.306 0.795 0.199 0.241 - HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - 39.9 0 89.6 10.1 8.4 - HCM Lane LOS A - E A F B A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - 5 0.7 0.9 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 23 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 16: Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road 03/30/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 38 245 53 70 160 127 64 288 214 199 116 21 Future Volume(veh/h) 38 245 53 70 160 127 64 288 214 199 116 21 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 41 263 11 75 172 27 69 310 46 214 125 9 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 147 381 322 147 381 322 147 407 345 284 1047 75 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1493 1681 1765 1493 1681 1765 1493 1681 3174 226 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 41 263 11 75 172 27 69 310 46 214 65 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1493 1681 1765 1493 1681 1765 1493 1681 1676 1724 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.3 7.9 0.3 2.4 4.8 0.5 2.2 9.4 1.0 6.9 1.6 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.3 7.9 0.3 2.4 4.8 0.5 2.2 9.4 1.0 6.9 1.6 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 147 381 322 147 381 322 147 407 345 284 553 569 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.69 0.03 0.51 0.45 0.08 0.47 0.76 0.13 0.75 0.12 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 587 647 548 587 647 548 587 709 600 587 674 693 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 24.4 20.7 17.7 25.0 19.5 6.1 24.9 20.5 8.7 22.6 13.4 13.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 2.7 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.9 3.6 0.2 1.5 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 4.1 0.1 1.2 2.4 0.3 1.1 5.0 0.6 3.3 0.7 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 23.4 17.8 26.0 20.5 6.2 25.7 24.1 8.9 24.2 13.5 13.5 LnGrp LOS C C B C C A C C A C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 315 274 425 348 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.4 20.6 22.7 20.1 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 16.9 14.2 17.7 8.5 16.9 8.5 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 4.5 *4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 20.0 21.0 20.0 *23 20.0 21.0 20.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.3 6.8 8.9 11.4 4.4 9.9 4.2 3.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.7 0.7 1.7 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 24 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Vii + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 404 51 358 3 48 14 181 543 1 6 579 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 404 51 358 3 48 14 181 543 1 6 579 190 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 439 55 275 3 52 8 197 590 1 7 629 141 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 464 58 462 5 93 14 206 802 1 66 657 557 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 1502 188 1495 82 1418 218 1681 1761 3 1681 1765 1496 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 494 0 275 63 0 0 197 0 591 7 629 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl690 0 1495 1718 0 0 1681 0 1764 1681 1765 1496 Q Serve(g_s),s 36.1 0.0 19.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 34.7 0.5 44.0 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 36.1 0.0 19.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 34.7 0.5 44.0 8.3 Prop In Lane 0.89 1.00 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 522 0 462 113 0 0 206 0 803 66 657 557 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.00 0.59 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.74 0.11 0.96 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 534 0 472 231 0 0 206 0 803 73 662 561 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.7 0.0 37.0 57.3 0.0 0.0 55.2 0.0 28.2 58.6 38.7 27.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 26.0 0.0 2.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 50.3 0.0 3.8 0.3 24.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehO.7 0.0 8.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 17.8 0.2 25.9 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.7 0.0 39.4 61.6 0.0 0.0 105.5 0.0 32.1 58.9 63.7 27.9 LnGrp LOS E D E F C E E C Approach Vol,veh/h 769 63 788 777 Approach Delay,s/veh 58.2 61.6 50.4 57.1 Approach LOS E E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t9.0 52.1 12.3 8.5 62.6 43.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1$,.5 47.5 17.0 5.5 57.5 40.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+rffl,� 46.0 6.5 2.5 36.7 38.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 11.3 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 26 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T* + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 4 296 23 18 215 183 10 11 105 370 32 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 4 296 23 18 215 183 10 11 105 370 32 2 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 5 348 23 21 253 88 12 13 -1 435 38 1 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 3 857 57 30 953 809 16 130 0 456 574 15 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.50 0.48 0.03 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.26 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1728 114 1774 1863 1580 1774 1863 0 1774 1807 48 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 5 0 371 21 253 88 12 12 0 435 0 39 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 0 1843 1774 1863 1580 1774 1863 0 1774 0 1854 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.1 0.0 12.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 24.1 0.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.1 0.0 12.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 24.1 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 3 0 914 30 953 809 16 130 0 456 0 589 V/C Ratio(X) 1.90 0.00 0.41 0.69 0.27 0.11 0.74 0.09 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 124 0 914 266 953 809 124 298 0 461 0 649 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 49.9 0.0 15.9 48.0 0.0 0.0 49.4 43.5 0.0 36.6 0.0 23.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 498.5 0.0 1.3 9.6 0.7 0.3 21.1 0.1 0.0 30.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(0),s/v0230.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 0.0 6.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 778.8 0.0 17.3 57.7 0.7 0.3 70.5 43.6 0.0 66.7 0.0 23.8 LnGrp LOS F B E A A E D E C Approach Vol,veh/h 376 362 24 474 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.4 3.9 57.1 63.2 Approach LOS C A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s5.7 53.6 4.9 35.8 4.1 55.2 29.7 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1$,.5 25.3 7.5 35.0 7.5 33.3 26.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,a 14.7 2.7 3.5 2.1 2.0 26.1 2.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 27 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Diaz Road & Rancho Way 03/30/2017 t i Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 163 121 64 358 845 81 Future Volume(veh/h) 163 121 64 358 845 81 Number 3 18 1 6 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 201 -11 79 442 1043 94 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 422 194 155 2361 1701 153 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.70 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 1500 1681 3441 3199 280 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 201 -11 79 442 562 575 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1500 1681 1676 1676 1715 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.1 0.0 2.4 2.4 12.4 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.1 0.0 2.4 2.4 12.4 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 422 194 155 2361 917 938 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 -0.06 0.51 0.19 0.61 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1809 832 622 2481 1240 1269 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 21.8 0.0 23.4 2.7 8.4 8.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.4 0.0 1.2 1.1 5.9 6.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.1 0.0 24.3 2.8 9.3 9.3 LnGrp LOS C C A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 190 521 1137 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.4 6.0 9.3 Approach LOS C A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s8.5 34.6 43.1 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma2q,.9 40.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,4; 14.4 4.4 5.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 15.2 18.3 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 28 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Diaz Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t )) t ) tt r )) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 3 424 68 363 78 112 19 74 730 395 139 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 3 424 68 363 78 112 19 74 730 395 139 2 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 3 476 64 408 88 69 21 83 778 444 156 1 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 1 568 76 1037 967 693 30 824 865 492 1295 8 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.36 0.35 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3138 420 3442 1969 1412 1774 3539 1579 3442 3605 23 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 3 267 273 408 78 79 21 83 778 444 77 80 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1789 1721 1770 1611 1774 1770 1579 1721 1770 1859 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.1 17.5 17.7 11.3 2.8 3.2 1.4 2.2 19.6 15.2 3.5 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.1 17.5 17.7 11.3 2.8 3.2 1.4 2.2 19.6 15.2 3.5 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 1 320 324 1037 869 791 30 824 865 492 635 667 V/C Ratio(X) 2.03 0.83 0.84 0.39 0.09 0.10 0.70 0.10 0.90 0.90 0.12 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 103 383 388 1037 869 791 103 1386 1115 574 885 929 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 60.0 47.4 47.5 33.2 16.3 16.5 58.7 36.2 8.3 50.6 25.8 25.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 609.5 21.9 22.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 10.7 0.1 8.3 14.7 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(0),s/v0270.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.5 10.5 10.7 5.4 1.4 1.5 0.8 1.1 12.1 8.2 1.7 1.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 939.7 69.3 70.0 33.3 16.4 16.7 69.4 36.2 16.6 65.3 25.8 25.8 LnGrp LOS F E E C B B E D B E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 543 565 882 601 Approach Delay,s/veh 74.4 28.7 19.7 55.0 Approach LOS E C B E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),41.2 25.7 6.0 47.1 4.0 62.9 21.2 31.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 *4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmat),.S *26 7.5 59.0 7.5 29.5 20.5 46.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,3; 19.7 3.4 5.5 2.1 5.2 17.2 21.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.9 0.0 1.9 0.4 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 29 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: Jefferson Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 571 1036 73 331 460 401 43 669 381 568 726 161 Future Volume(veh/h) 571 1036 73 331 460 401 43 669 381 568 726 161 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 601 1091 77 348 484 422 45 704 401 598 764 169 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 722 2421 170 408 1025 454 97 784 699 459 1156 514 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.39 0.38 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6157 432 3442 3539 1569 3442 3539 1568 3442 3539 1575 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 601 850 318 348 484 422 45 704 401 598 764 169 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1784 1721 1770 1569 1721 1770 1568 1721 1770 1575 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.1 15.7 15.8 11.7 11.0 25.5 1.5 23.2 6.5 16.0 22.2 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.1 15.7 15.8 11.7 11.0 25.5 1.5 23.2 6.5 16.0 22.2 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 722 1890 701 408 1025 454 97 784 699 459 1156 514 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.45 0.45 0.85 0.47 0.93 0.46 0.90 0.57 1.30 0.66 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 722 1890 701 803 1445 641 258 796 705 459 1156 514 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.4 26.8 27.0 47.1 24.8 21.2 57.4 45.4 10.0 52.0 34.7 30.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.1 0.2 3.7 1.5 27.0 1.1 11.5 1.2 151.6 1.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir9.6 6.9 7.8 5.8 5.5 14.2 0.8 12.6 5.7 17.2 11.0 4.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.2 26.9 27.2 50.8 26.3 48.2 58.5 56.9 11.1 203.6 35.8 30.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C D E E B F D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1769 1254 1150 1531 Approach Delay,s/veh 33.5 40.5 41.0 100.8 Approach LOS C D D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s7.4 43.2 18.2 51.2 20.0 30.6 30.7 38.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 *5 Max Green Setting(Gmax$,.S 33.0 28.5 32.0 16.5 26.0 12.5 *48 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,,Es 24.2 13.7 17.8 18.0 25.2 22.1 27.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.0 1.0 5.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 6.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 31 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 22: 1-15 SIB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt r ttt r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1741 224 0 778 491 0 0 0 1119 3 408 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1741 224 0 778 491 0 0 0 1119 3 408 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1833 118 0 819 0 1178 0 265 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2670 831 0 2670 831 1449 0 1293 Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5253 1583 3548 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1833 118 0 819 0 1178 0 265 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1695 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 6.5 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2670 831 0 2670 831 1449 0 1293 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.69 0.14 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2670 831 0 2670 831 1449 0 1293 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.93 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 22.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 18.2 0.0 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 36.5 0.0 23.3 LnGrp LOS A A A D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1951 819 1443 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.9 0.3 34.1 Approach LOS A A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 67.0 53.0 67.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 61.0 48.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 37.3 2.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 12.9 3.9 12.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.1 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 33 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 23: 1-15 NB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt rr ttt rr Vii r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2065 764 0 1169 1239 92 1 806 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2065 764 0 1169 1239 92 1 806 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2107 0 0 1193 749 63 0 834 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 2 0 3 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3219 1764 0 3219 1764 533 0 948 Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.30 0.00 0.30 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 2787 0 5253 2787 1774 0 3157 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2107 0 0 1193 749 63 0 834 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1393 0 1695 1393 1774 0 1579 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 16.2 3.1 0.0 30.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 16.2 3.1 0.0 30.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3219 1764 0 3219 1764 533 0 948 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.42 0.12 0.00 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3219 1764 0 3219 1764 710 0 1263 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 11.0 30.5 0.0 39.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.2 1.5 0.0 13.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.7 11.5 30.5 0.0 44.7 LnGrp LOS A B B C D Approach Vol,veh/h 2107 1942 897 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.6 11.0 43.7 Approach LOS A B D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 80.0 80.0 40.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 62.0 62.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 18.2 32.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 28.6 24.7 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 35 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Ynez Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --I. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) PH r )) f f tT+ ))) tt r )) t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 448 1753 668 280 1293 88 726 663 354 125 377 328 Future Volume(veh/h) 448 1753 668 280 1293 88 726 663 354 125 377 328 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 457 1789 505 286 1319 81 741 677 152 128 528 240 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 527 2630 650 341 2217 136 843 1081 483 183 672 284 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.36 0.34 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6408 1583 3442 6220 381 5003 3539 1580 3548 3725 1573 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 457 1789 505 286 1018 382 741 677 152 128 528 240 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1583 1721 1602 1795 1668 1770 1580 1774 1863 1573 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.8 31.9 19.6 9.8 20.8 20.9 17.3 19.7 8.9 4.3 16.2 12.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.8 31.9 19.6 9.8 20.8 20.9 17.3 19.7 8.9 4.3 16.2 12.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 527 2630 650 341 1713 640 843 1081 483 183 672 284 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.68 0.78 0.84 0.59 0.60 0.88 0.63 0.32 0.70 0.79 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 631 2630 650 373 1713 640 875 1121 500 237 776 328 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 55.8 44.4 13.1 53.1 31.5 31.7 48.7 35.8 32.0 56.0 47.0 24.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.3 0.9 5.8 13.2 1.5 4.1 9.5 0.8 0.1 3.4 5.2 17.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr8.0 14.3 9.6 5.3 9.4 11.0 8.7 9.7 3.9 2.2 8.8 6.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.1 45.3 18.9 66.3 33.1 35.8 58.2 36.6 32.2 59.4 52.2 41.7 LnGrp LOS E D B E C D E D C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 2751 1686 1570 896 Approach Delay,s/veh 43.2 39.3 46.3 50.4 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t5.9 53.3 25.2 25.6 22.4 46.8 10.2 40.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 5.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmai�,.g 43.0 21.0 *24 22.0 34.0 8.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+Ml,8; 33.9 19.3 18.2 17.8 22.9 6.3 21.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 8.9 0.9 2.4 0.6 10.8 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 43.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 37 E+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 25: 1-15 SIB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t'* )) tt 4 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 717 245 406 1059 0 0 0 0 1313 1 175 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 717 245 406 1059 0 0 0 0 1313 1 175 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1765 1800 1765 1765 0 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 739 216 419 1092 0 1355 0 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 679 198 558 1599 0 1479 0 660 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 2642 747 3261 3441 0 3361 0 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 485 470 419 1092 0 1355 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1676 1624 1630 1676 0 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 26.6 26.6 12.7 30.7 0.0 37.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 26.6 26.6 12.7 30.7 0.0 37.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.46 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 446 432 558 1599 0 1479 0 660 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.75 0.68 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 446 432 946 1599 0 1479 0 660 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.51 0.51 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 45.6 45.8 45.1 35.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 67.1 67.7 1.1 1.2 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 20.7 20.1 5.8 14.5 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 112.7 113.5 46.1 36.2 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 955 1511 1355 Approach Delay,s/veh 113.1 39.0 35.5 Approach LOS F D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),21.1 30.6 48.3 51.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 10.3 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gma4,.g 12.7 38.0 45.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+fM,t 28.6 39.8 32.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 56.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 39 APPENDIX C: CUMULATIVE OPENING YEAR (2025) CONDITIONS (WITH PROJECT) LOS REPORTS C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip t tt r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 40 243 36 311 731 60 64 199 370 240 108 50 Future Volume(veh/h) 40 243 36 311 731 60 64 199 370 240 108 50 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 48 293 13 375 881 64 77 240 359 289 130 11 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 59 1257 56 442 1537 112 90 756 551 350 923 77 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.36 0.35 0.13 0.46 0.44 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3453 153 3442 3346 243 1774 3539 1583 3442 3306 277 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 48 150 156 375 466 479 77 240 359 289 69 72 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1836 1721 1770 1820 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 1813 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.4 5.3 5.3 9.6 17.4 17.4 3.9 5.1 17.2 7.4 2.6 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.4 5.3 5.3 9.6 17.4 17.4 3.9 5.1 17.2 7.4 2.6 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 59 644 668 442 813 836 90 756 551 350 494 506 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.23 0.23 0.85 0.57 0.57 0.86 0.32 0.65 0.83 0.14 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 118 644 668 765 813 836 177 759 552 459 494 506 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.53 0.53 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 43.2 19.9 19.9 38.4 17.9 18.0 42.4 29.8 24.8 39.7 24.3 24.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.5 8.7 0.1 2.2 7.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.3 2.7 2.8 4.6 8.8 9.0 2.1 2.5 7.8 3.9 1.3 1.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.4 20.7 20.7 39.3 19.4 19.5 51.1 29.9 26.9 46.8 24.4 24.4 LnGrp LOS D C C D B B D C C D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 354 1320 676 430 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.0 25.1 30.7 39.5 Approach LOS C C C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 15.6 36.8 8.5 29.1 7.0 45.3 13.1 24.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.7 3.5 *5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 20.5 21.0 9.5 21.0 6.5 35.0 12.5 *19 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 11.6 7.3 5.9 4.7 4.4 19.4 9.4 19.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.5 6.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 6.7 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf'* )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 198 594 63 348 1290 570 111 172 135 330 239 211 Future Volume(veh/h) 198 594 63 348 1290 570 111 172 135 330 239 211 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 228 683 63 400 1483 0 128 198 1 379 275 107 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 166 3200 290 427 2148 961 175 339 152 453 650 290 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.53 0.52 0.12 0.61 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6024 547 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1581 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 228 543 203 400 1483 0 128 198 1 379 275 107 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1765 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1581 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 8.7 8.9 16.7 41.1 0.0 5.3 7.8 0.1 15.6 10.0 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.0 8.7 8.9 16.7 41.1 0.0 5.3 7.8 0.1 15.6 10.0 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 166 2553 938 427 2148 961 175 339 152 453 650 290 V/C Ratio(X) 1.37 0.21 0.22 0.94 0.69 0.00 0.73 0.58 0.01 0.84 0.42 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 166 2553 938 427 2148 961 261 928 415 807 1513 676 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.54 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 69.0 18.0 18.1 62.9 19.3 0.0 67.8 62.8 59.3 61.4 52.4 51.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 195.3 0.2 0.4 18.2 1.0 0.0 2.2 1.6 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr7.8 3.9 4.4 9.0 20.3 0.0 2.6 3.9 0.0 7.5 4.9 3.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 264.3 18.1 18.5 81.1 20.3 0.0 70.1 64.4 59.3 63.2 52.6 52.2 LnGrp LOS F B B F C E E E E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 974 1883 327 761 Approach Delay,s/veh 75.8 33.2 66.6 57.8 Approach LOS E C E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),24.1 17.9 22.0 81.0 11.4 30.6 11.0 92.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaa4,.g 37.0 18.0 37.0 11.0 61.0 7.0 48.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+R,6,� 9.8 18.7 10.9 7.3 12.0 9.0 43.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 2.6 0.0 18.5 0.1 2.7 0.0 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: 1-15 SIB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W* r )) ttt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 825 254 620 1533 0 0 0 0 1140 10 716 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 825 254 620 1533 0 0 0 0 1140 10 716 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 907 42 681 1685 0 1486 0 492 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 1094 310 762 2347 0 1595 0 711 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.46 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5588 1583 3442 5253 0 3548 0 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 907 42 681 1685 0 1486 0 492 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1863 1583 1721 1695 0 1774 0 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 14.0 2.0 17.3 24.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 22.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 14.0 2.0 17.3 24.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 22.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 1094 310 762 2347 0 1595 0 711 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.83 0.14 0.89 0.72 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 1094 310 765 2347 0 1616 0 721 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 34.7 29.9 34.0 19.5 0.0 23.5 0.0 19.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 6.7 0.8 9.3 1.4 0.0 9.9 0.0 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 7.9 0.9 9.2 11.5 0.0 19.5 0.0 10.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 41.4 30.7 43.4 20.9 0.0 33.4 0.0 22.1 LnGrp LOS D C D C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 949 2366 1978 Approach Delay,s/veh 40.9 27.3 30.6 Approach LOS D C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),23.9 21.6 44.5 45.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmall,.4 15.7 39.7 39.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,3; 16.0 37.7 26.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-15 NB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt r ttm r Vii r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1743 257 0 1560 1020 533 0 410 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1743 257 0 1560 1020 533 0 410 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1854 0 0 2004 472 681 0 244 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 4 1 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3006 936 0 4405 936 934 0 417 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.26 0.00 0.26 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 7451 1583 3548 0 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1854 0 0 2004 472 681 0 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1863 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 9.5 9.6 0.0 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 9.5 9.6 0.0 7.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3006 936 0 4405 936 934 0 417 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.50 0.73 0.00 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3006 936 0 4405 936 1161 0 518 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.5 18.5 0.0 17.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 4.9 0.0 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.4 7.1 19.7 0.0 18.1 LnGrp LOS A A A B B Approach Vol,veh/h 1854 2476 925 Approach Delay,s/veh 7.4 6.5 19.3 Approach LOS A A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 36.5 36.5 18.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 27.7 27.7 16.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 14.9 11.5 11.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 10.8 13.1 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.1 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) +tt r Vii ttt r )) tt r )) tt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 537 1097 510 140 1485 190 750 560 140 130 330 345 Future Volume(veh/h) 537 1097 510 140 1485 190 750 560 140 130 330 345 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 559 1143 455 146 1547 68 781 583 37 135 344 290 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 516 1904 981 169 1625 506 792 983 439 319 497 844 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5085 1582 3442 3539 1580 3442 3539 2739 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 559 1143 455 146 1547 68 781 583 37 135 344 290 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1695 1583 1774 1695 1582 1721 1770 1580 1721 1770 1370 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.0 18.1 15.3 8.1 29.7 3.1 22.6 14.2 1.7 3.7 9.3 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.0 18.1 15.3 8.1 29.7 3.1 22.6 14.2 1.7 3.7 9.3 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 516 1904 981 169 1625 506 792 983 439 319 497 844 V/C Ratio(X) 1.08 0.60 0.46 0.86 0.95 0.13 0.99 0.59 0.08 0.42 0.69 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 516 1904 981 266 1625 506 792 1026 458 344 566 898 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.5 25.2 10.2 44.6 33.3 24.2 38.3 31.2 26.7 42.8 40.9 27.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 58.1 1.0 1.1 9.9 13.5 0.6 28.5 0.7 0.1 1.3 2.7 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/H.3 8.6 6.9 4.4 15.9 1.4 13.9 7.1 0.8 1.8 4.7 3.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 100.6 26.3 11.3 54.5 46.8 24.7 66.9 32.0 26.8 44.1 43.6 27.2 LnGrp LOS F C B D D C E C C D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 2157 1761 1401 769 Approach Delay,s/veh 42.4 46.6 51.3 37.5 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t3.5 41.4 27.0 18.0 19.0 36.0 13.3 31.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmai$,.5 29.0 23.5 15.0 15.5 29.0 10.5 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,t 20.1 24.6 11.3 17.0 31.7 5.7 16.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 7.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 C+P AM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 3.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 119 59 47 443 246 119 Future Vol,veh/h 119 59 47 443 246 119 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 200 - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 128 63 51 476 265 128 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 667 196 392 0 - 0 Stage 1 328 - - - - - Stage 2 339 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 392 812 1163 - - Stage 1 702 - - - - Stage 2 693 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 375 812 1163 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 375 - - - - Stage 1 702 - - Stage 2 663 - - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 16.3 0.8 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1163 - 375 812 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - 0.341 0.078 - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.2 - 19.5 9.8 - HCM Lane LOS A - C A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.5 0.3 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Western Bypass & A Street 03/30/2017 -*--- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 4 0 2 40 0 247 1 239 22 146 168 1 Future Volume(veh/h) 4 0 2 40 0 247 1 239 22 146 168 1 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 4 0 -1 43 0 111 1 257 -6 157 181 1 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 0 771 474 0 336 7 817 0 193 1222 7 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.11 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 1765 0 1412 0 1500 1681 3441 0 1681 3419 19 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 -1 -1 43 0 111 1 251 0 157 89 93 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1765 1500 1412 0 1500 1681 1676 0 1681 1676 1761 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 0.8 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 0.8 0.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 0 474 0 336 7 817 0 193 599 629 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.33 0.13 0.31 0.00 0.81 0.15 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 0 1321 0 1237 298 2379 0 447 1338 1406 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 7.3 11.2 7.0 0.0 9.7 4.9 4.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 7.9 0.2 0.0 8.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 7.9 19.1 7.2 0.0 17.8 5.0 5.0 LnGrp LOS A A B A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h -2 154 252 339 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 8.3 7.2 11.0 Approach LOS A A A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.6 9.5 6.5 4.0 12.1 0.0 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.0 16.0 36.0 4.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 4.1 3.4 0.0 2.0 2.8 0.0 3.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.2 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Project Rd & Western Bypass 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) t Vii t r Vii Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 177 12 30 197 204 13 6 35 374 5 52 Future Volume(veh/h) 23 177 12 30 197 204 13 6 35 374 5 52 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 25 190 -121 32 212 145 14 6 -100 402 5 21 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 42 747 0 100 445 291 24 5 4 499 61 254 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 3261 1945 1272 1681 1765 1500 1681 297 1248 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 25 69 0 32 181 176 14 6 -100 402 0 26 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 0 1630 1676 1540 1681 1765 1500 1681 0 1545 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.2 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.2 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 42 747 0 100 383 352 24 5 4 499 0 315 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.09 0.00 0.32 0.47 0.50 0.57 1.16 -22.72 0.81 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 197 2459 0 383 1230 1130 197 828 704 838 0 1314 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 16.5 10.5 0.0 16.2 11.4 11.4 16.7 17.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.1 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.9 1.1 19.3 236.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 10.6 0.0 18.0 12.3 12.5 36.0 264.3 0.0 14.2 0.0 11.1 LnGrp LOS C B B B B D F B B Approach Vol,veh/h 94 389 -80 428 Approach Delay,s/veh 15.6 12.9 -26.1 14.0 Approach LOS B B A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.1 2.3 5.0 12.6 4.5 12.0 4.8 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1j,.9 16.0 4.0 25.0 4.0 29.0 4.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1q,,% 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 5.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.8 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: 1-15 SB/Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) tt r Vii + r Vii t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 346 289 1110 405 226 115 90 1420 95 68 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 346 289 1110 405 226 115 90 1420 95 68 20 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 10 357 139 1144 418 117 119 93 0 98 70 21 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 17 619 237 1257 2136 920 119 291 124 198 332 96 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.26 0.24 0.39 0.64 0.61 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 2365 906 3261 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 1681 2569 740 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 10 251 245 1144 418 117 119 93 0 98 45 46 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 1594 1630 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 1681 1676 1632 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.5 11.1 11.5 28.2 4.4 2.8 6.0 2.1 0.0 4.6 2.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 11.1 11.5 28.2 4.4 2.8 6.0 2.1 0.0 4.6 2.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 17 439 417 1257 2136 920 119 291 124 198 217 211 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.57 0.59 0.91 0.20 0.13 1.00 0.32 0.00 0.50 0.21 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 79 439 417 1304 2136 920 119 789 335 198 467 455 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.39 0.39 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 41.9 27.3 27.9 24.7 6.4 6.9 39.5 36.8 0.0 35.1 33.1 33.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 27.4 4.8 5.3 4.2 0.1 0.1 83.4 0.6 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 5.7 5.7 13.4 2.1 1.2 5.5 1.1 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.3 32.1 33.2 28.9 6.5 7.0 123.0 37.4 0.0 37.1 33.6 33.7 LnGrp LOS E C C C A A F D D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 506 1679 212 189 Approach Delay,s/veh 33.4 21.8 85.4 35.4 Approach LOS C C F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),36.8 26.2 11.0 11.0 4.8 58.2 9.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 5.0 *6 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaa�,.g 7.0 6.0 *18 4.0 37.0 4.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+BQ,a 13.5 8.0 4.2 2.5 6.4 6.6 4.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) tt tt r Vii 4 rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 148 1703 0 0 1437 1780 244 0 610 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 148 1703 0 0 1437 1780 244 0 610 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 151 1738 0 0 1466 1418 249 0 622 Adj No.of Lanes 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 247 2505 0 0 2122 1804 571 0 510 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.17 0.00 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 3441 0 0 3529 3000 3361 0 3000 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 151 1738 0 0 1466 1418 249 0 622 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1676 0 0 1765 1500 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.5 27.2 0.0 0.0 28.3 35.7 6.6 0.0 17.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.5 27.2 0.0 0.0 28.3 35.7 6.6 0.0 17.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 247 2505 0 0 2122 1804 571 0 510 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.79 0.44 0.00 1.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 359 2505 0 0 2122 1804 571 0 510 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 44.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 13.6 15.1 37.2 0.0 41.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 115.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 14.7 3.1 0.0 15.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 13.8 15.4 37.9 0.0 157.1 LnGrp LOS D A B B D F Approach Vol,veh/h 1889 2884 871 Approach Delay,s/veh 10.2 14.6 123.0 Approach LOS B B F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 78.7 11.6 67.1 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 69.7 10.0 *58 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 29.2 6.5 37.7 19.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 26.8 0.2 16.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) W ) tt + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 113 2259 10 30 3034 370 40 10 30 300 10 232 Future Volume(veh/h) 113 2259 10 30 3034 370 40 10 30 300 10 232 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 120 2403 11 32 3228 383 43 11 17 319 11 160 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 95 3512 16 38 2963 339 49 13 19 272 286 242 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.67 0.66 0.02 0.64 0.63 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 5225 24 1774 4630 529 1052 269 416 1774 1863 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 120 1559 855 32 2331 1280 71 0 0 319 11 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1695 1859 1774 1695 1769 1737 0 0 1774 1863 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.0 41.9 41.9 2.7 96.0 96.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.8 14.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.0 41.9 41.9 2.7 96.0 96.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.8 14.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.30 0.61 0.24 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 95 2279 1249 38 2170 1132 81 0 0 272 286 242 V/C Ratio(X) 1.27 0.68 0.68 0.85 1.07 1.13 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.04 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 95 2279 1249 83 2170 1132 81 0 0 272 286 242 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 71.0 14.9 14.9 73.2 27.0 27.3 71.1 0.0 0.0 63.5 54.1 59.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 147.3 0.6 1.1 7.2 37.3 63.5 69.7 0.0 0.0 109.6 0.3 13.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr7.8 19.7 21.8 1.4 55.8 66.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.4 7.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 218.3 15.5 16.1 80.4 64.3 90.8 140.8 0.0 0.0 173.1 54.3 73.1 LnGrp LOS F B B F F F F F D E Approach Vol,veh/h 2534 3643 71 490 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.3 73.7 140.8 137.8 Approach LOS C E F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s7.2 104.8 27.0 12.0 100.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.5 95.0 22.4 8.5 94.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I�,t 43.9 25.0 10.0 98.0 8.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 60.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 17 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -4. 4--- Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A f tf f rr )) ttt ))) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1321 1199 380 1694 1791 350 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1321 1199 380 1694 1791 350 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1405 1270 404 1802 1905 370 Adj No.of Lanes 4 2 2 3 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 2185 2009 424 2553 1848 801 Arrive On Green 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.53 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow,veh/h 6318 2640 3261 4976 4739 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1405 1270 404 1802 1905 370 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1518 1320 1630 1606 1580 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 19.3 22.2 12.3 28.1 39.0 15.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 19.3 22.2 12.3 28.1 39.0 15.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2185 2009 424 2553 1848 801 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.63 0.95 0.71 1.03 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2185 2009 424 2553 1848 801 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.57 0.57 0.43 0.43 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 26.6 5.5 43.2 17.6 30.5 14.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.9 18.1 0.7 26.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.1 17.7 6.6 12.5 21.4 6.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.5 6.4 61.3 18.4 56.6 14.8 LnGrp LOS C A E B F B Approach Vol,veh/h 2675 2206 2275 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.5 26.2 49.8 Approach LOS B C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.0 40.0 57.0 43.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 6.0 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 34.0 42.5 38.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 14.3 24.2 30.1 41.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 9.7 12.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P AM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Rainbow Canyon & Pechanga Parkway 03/30/2017 --I- 4--- Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r ) ttt Traffic Volume(vph) 0 1329 370 400 1721 330 90 Future Volume(vph) 0 1329 370 400 1721 330 90 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow(prot) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1644 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow(perm) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1644 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1370 381 412 1774 340 93 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 128 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1370 253 412 1774 421 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 25.4 25.4 24.5 53.4 26.6 Effective Green,g(s) 26.9 25.4 24.0 54.9 27.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.61 0.30 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1440 423 446 2938 495 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 c0.25 0.37 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.60 0.92 0.60 0.85 Uniform Delay,d1 30.9 27.9 32.1 10.8 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 14.7 6.1 24.4 0.9 13.2 Delay(s) 45.6 34.0 56.6 11.8 42.7 Level of Service D C E B D Approach Delay(s) 43.0 20.2 42.7 Approach LOS D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) W )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 330 869 211 270 1111 100 447 470 210 130 440 290 Future Volume(veh/h) 330 869 211 270 1111 100 447 470 210 130 440 290 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 359 945 189 293 1208 100 486 511 46 141 478 143 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 385 1770 353 267 1827 151 415 915 409 197 679 302 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.44 0.42 0.08 0.40 0.38 0.13 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4028 803 3261 4533 375 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1493 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 359 753 381 293 856 452 486 511 46 141 478 143 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 1619 1630 1606 1697 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1493 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.0 18.9 19.2 9.0 23.8 23.9 14.0 14.4 2.5 4.7 14.6 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.0 18.9 19.2 9.0 23.8 23.9 14.0 14.4 2.5 4.7 14.6 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 385 1411 711 267 1295 684 415 915 409 197 679 302 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.53 0.54 1.10 0.66 0.66 1.17 0.56 0.11 0.71 0.70 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 385 1411 711 267 1295 684 415 1216 543 267 1064 474 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 48.1 22.6 23.0 50.5 26.7 26.9 48.0 34.3 30.0 50.7 40.8 38.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 24.1 1.1 2.2 84.0 2.7 5.0 99.9 0.4 0.1 3.0 1.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr6.7 8.6 9.0 7.1 11.1 12.2 12.0 6.7 1.1 2.2 6.9 3.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.2 23.7 25.2 134.5 29.4 31.9 147.9 34.7 30.1 53.7 41.8 39.6 LnGrp LOS E C C F C C F C C D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1493 1601 1043 762 Approach Delay,s/veh 35.7 49.3 87.3 43.6 Approach LOS D D F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t3.0 52.3 18.0 26.7 17.0 48.3 10.7 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax$,.9 34.1 14.0 *34 13.0 30.1 9.0 38.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ml,a 21.2 16.0 16.6 14.0 25.9 6.7 16.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 10.6 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.8 0.1 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 22 C+P AM HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/31/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 7.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 49 20 40 31 108 40 72 70 74 67 30 Future Vol,veh/h 20 49 20 40 31 108 40 72 70 74 67 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 - 105 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 61 25 50 39 135 50 90 88 93 84 38 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 541 566 103 552 540 134 121 0 0 178 0 0 Stage 1 288 288 - 234 234 - - - - - - - Stage 2 253 278 - 318 306 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 452 434 952 444 449 915 1467 - 1398 - Stage 1 720 674 - 769 711 - - - Stage 2 751 680 - 693 662 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 330 390 952 351 403 915 1467 1398 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 330 390 - 351 403 - - - Stage 1 693 629 740 684 - Stage 2 581 654 569 618 - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 15.7 12.8 1.7 3.4 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1467 - 370 952 372 915 1398 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - 0.233 0.026 0.239 0.148 0.066 HCM Control Delay(s) 7.5 0 17.7 8.9 17.7 9.6 7.8 - HCM Lane LOS A A C A C A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 16: Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road 03/30/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 40 129 24 120 121 210 28 127 70 80 90 30 Future Volume(veh/h) 40 129 24 120 121 210 28 127 70 80 90 30 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 43 139 4 129 130 44 30 137 10 86 97 5 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 193 330 280 203 341 288 193 331 280 193 684 35 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1495 1681 1765 1492 1681 1765 1492 1681 3245 166 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 43 139 4 129 130 44 30 137 10 86 50 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1495 1681 1765 1492 1681 1765 1492 1681 1676 1735 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.0 3.0 0.1 3.2 2.8 0.6 0.7 3.0 0.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.0 3.0 0.1 3.2 2.8 0.6 0.7 3.0 0.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 193 330 280 203 341 288 193 331 280 193 353 365 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 0.01 0.64 0.38 0.15 0.16 0.41 0.04 0.45 0.14 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 328 1072 909 675 1437 1215 443 1113 941 482 1096 1134 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 17.5 15.6 14.4 18.3 15.3 5.3 17.4 15.6 5.7 18.0 14.0 14.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 1.6 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.8 16.7 14.5 19.5 16.2 5.6 17.5 16.6 5.7 18.6 14.2 14.2 LnGrp LOS B B B B B A B B A B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 186 303 177 188 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.9 16.0 16.1 16.2 Approach LOS B B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 12.9 9.5 12.7 8.8 12.7 8.5 13.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 4.5 *4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 35.5 12.5 *28 17.5 26.5 11.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.0 4.8 4.1 5.0 5.2 5.0 2.7 3.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 25 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Vii + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 59 170 10 71 30 270 330 10 20 330 390 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 59 170 10 71 30 270 330 10 20 330 390 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 261 64 87 11 77 23 293 359 10 22 359 153 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 315 77 345 16 115 34 334 708 20 100 486 411 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1362 334 1494 168 1173 350 1681 1709 48 1681 1765 1495 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 325 0 87 111 0 0 293 0 369 22 359 153 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl697 0 1494 1690 0 0 1681 0 1756 1681 1765 1495 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.3 0.0 4.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 13.1 1.0 15.5 6.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.3 0.0 4.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 13.1 1.0 15.5 6.9 Prop In Lane 0.80 1.00 0.10 0.21 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 392 0 345 166 0 0 334 0 727 100 486 411 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.25 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.51 0.22 0.74 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 547 0 481 343 0 0 552 0 1132 110 674 571 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 30.6 0.0 26.3 36.5 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 18.2 37.5 27.6 24.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.8 0.4 3.6 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr8.1 0.0 1.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 6.4 0.5 8.1 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.4 0.0 26.8 41.1 0.0 0.0 39.8 0.0 19.0 37.9 31.2 25.3 LnGrp LOS D C D D B D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 412 111 662 534 Approach Delay,s/veh 36.7 41.1 28.2 29.8 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),20.1 28.1 12.2 8.5 39.7 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma2j,.5 32.0 17.0 5.5 54.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+rM,a 17.5 7.3 3.0 15.1 17.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.5 5.6 0.3 0.0 7.9 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 27 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T* + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 20 233 17 130 201 498 33 27 20 66 15 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 20 233 17 130 201 498 33 27 20 66 15 10 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 24 274 18 153 236 370 39 32 -2 78 18 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 34 1070 70 176 1301 1105 50 130 0 92 175 0 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.62 0.60 0.10 0.70 0.70 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1729 114 1774 1863 1581 1774 1863 0 1774 1863 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 24 0 292 153 236 370 39 30 0 78 18 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 0 1843 1774 1863 1581 1774 1863 0 1774 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.3 0.0 7.2 8.5 4.4 9.2 2.2 1.5 0.0 4.4 0.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.3 0.0 7.2 8.5 4.4 9.2 2.2 1.5 0.0 4.4 0.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 34 0 1140 176 1301 1105 50 130 0 92 175 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.26 0.87 0.18 0.33 0.78 0.23 0.00 0.84 0.10 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 89 0 1140 284 1301 1105 89 298 0 461 689 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 48.7 0.0 8.7 44.4 5.2 5.9 48.3 44.0 0.0 47.0 41.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.2 0.0 0.5 7.8 0.3 0.7 9.5 0.3 0.0 7.6 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.7 0.0 3.8 4.5 2.3 4.1 1.2 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.5 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.9 0.0 9.2 52.2 5.5 6.6 57.8 44.3 0.0 54.6 41.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A A E D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 316 759 69 96 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.9 15.5 51.9 52.2 Approach LOS B B D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t3.9 65.9 6.8 13.4 5.9 73.9 9.2 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalo,.S 24.3 5.5 37.0 5.5 35.3 26.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,,rs 9.2 4.2 2.9 3.3 11.2 6.4 3.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 4.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.8 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 28 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Diaz Road & Rancho Way 03/30/2017 t i Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 50 61 209 632 267 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 50 61 209 632 267 190 Number 3 18 1 6 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 62 -34 258 780 330 121 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 477 220 323 2231 966 348 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.67 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 1500 1681 3441 2503 870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 62 -34 258 780 227 224 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1500 1681 1676 1676 1609 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.8 0.0 7.0 4.9 4.5 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.8 0.0 7.0 4.9 4.5 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 477 220 323 2231 670 643 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 -0.15 0.80 0.35 0.34 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1432 659 1143 5085 1280 1228 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 17.8 0.0 18.4 3.5 10.0 10.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.4 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 0.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.8 0.0 20.2 3.6 10.4 10.5 LnGrp LOS B C A B B Approach Vol,veh/h 28 1038 451 Approach Delay,s/veh 39.4 7.7 10.4 Approach LOS D A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t2.7 24.1 36.8 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gman.5 36.5 72.5 21.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l19,a 6.6 6.9 2.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 12.5 15.5 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.1 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 29 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Diaz Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) t ) tt r )) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 80 20 815 480 380 30 123 268 130 52 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 80 20 815 480 380 30 123 268 130 52 10 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 12 96 6 982 578 359 36 148 115 157 63 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 17 1387 86 1044 1476 917 44 338 651 200 455 0 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.41 0.41 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.13 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3385 210 3442 2098 1303 1774 3539 1573 3442 3632 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 12 50 52 982 487 450 36 148 115 157 63 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1826 1721 1770 1631 1774 1770 1573 1721 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.8 2.1 2.1 32.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.7 5.6 5.4 1.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.8 2.1 2.1 32.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.7 5.6 5.4 1.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 17 725 748 1044 1245 1148 44 338 651 200 455 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.07 0.07 0.94 0.39 0.39 0.81 0.44 0.18 0.79 0.14 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 103 725 748 1377 1245 1148 103 796 854 287 885 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 59.3 21.5 21.5 28.6 0.0 0.0 58.2 51.2 22.4 55.8 46.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 18.0 0.2 0.2 5.5 0.5 0.5 12.4 0.9 0.1 5.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.5 1.0 1.1 15.8 0.2 0.2 1.3 2.4 2.4 2.7 0.9 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.3 21.7 21.7 34.0 0.5 0.5 70.6 52.1 22.5 61.1 46.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C C C A A E D C E D Approach Vol,veh/h 114 1919 299 220 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.6 17.7 43.0 56.9 Approach LOS C B D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),40.4 53.2 7.0 19.4 5.1 88.4 11.0 15.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma#,.S 18.5 7.5 29.0 7.5 59.5 10.5 26.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+B4,3; 4.1 4.4 3.9 2.8 2.0 7.4 7.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 2.6 5.8 0.0 1.3 0.0 8.6 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 30 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: Jefferson Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf'* )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 160 428 50 840 1245 540 150 530 440 340 720 440 Future Volume(veh/h) 160 428 50 840 1245 540 150 530 440 340 720 440 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 168 451 36 884 1311 381 158 558 406 358 758 347 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 382 1636 128 953 1521 676 199 779 541 407 994 442 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.27 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6103 477 3442 3539 1573 3442 3539 1568 3442 3539 1573 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 168 353 134 884 1311 381 158 558 406 358 758 347 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1774 1721 1770 1573 1721 1770 1568 1721 1770 1573 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.5 7.0 7.2 30.6 43.5 20.8 5.4 17.5 9.7 12.3 23.5 24.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.5 7.0 7.2 30.6 43.5 20.8 5.4 17.5 9.7 12.3 23.5 24.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 382 1288 475 953 1521 676 199 779 541 407 994 442 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.27 0.28 0.93 0.86 0.56 0.79 0.72 0.75 0.88 0.76 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 382 1288 475 1004 1563 695 229 826 561 488 1091 485 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 49.9 34.7 34.9 53.3 48.0 24.1 55.8 43.3 19.8 52.1 39.5 39.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.5 1.4 7.1 3.2 1.5 10.6 2.5 4.7 14.1 2.5 6.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.6 3.1 3.7 15.6 22.0 9.3 2.9 8.8 4.9 6.7 11.8 11.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.4 35.2 36.3 60.5 51.2 25.7 66.4 45.8 24.5 66.2 42.0 46.5 LnGrp LOS D D D E D C E D C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 655 2576 1122 1463 Approach Delay,s/veh 39.3 50.6 41.0 49.0 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t0.9 36.7 37.2 35.2 18.2 29.4 17.8 54.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 *4 Max Green Setting(Gma4,.S 36.0 35.5 25.0 17.5 27.0 8.5 *52 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l J,Ao 26.4 32.6 9.2 14.3 19.5 7.5 45.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.3 1.1 2.0 0.4 5.2 0.2 5.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 31 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 22: 1-15 SIB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt r ttt r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 958 200 0 1615 970 0 0 0 1020 10 1000 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 958 200 0 1615 970 0 0 0 1020 10 1000 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1008 77 0 1700 0 1074 0 1008 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2034 633 0 2034 633 1419 0 1267 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5253 1583 3548 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1008 77 0 1700 0 1074 0 1008 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1695 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 5.9 1.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 10.4 0.0 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 5.9 1.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 10.4 0.0 11.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2034 633 0 2034 633 1419 0 1267 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.50 0.12 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2034 633 0 2034 633 1419 0 1267 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.61 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 9.0 7.6 0.0 10.8 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 5.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 2.8 0.6 0.0 6.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.7 7.9 0.0 13.5 0.0 14.1 0.0 15.8 LnGrp LOS A A B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 1085 1700 2082 Approach Delay,s/veh 9.6 13.5 14.9 Approach LOS A B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.0 20.0 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 14.0 15.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 7.9 13.2 14.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 4.4 1.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 33 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 23: 1-15 NB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt rr ttt rr Vii r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1607 410 0 1995 620 480 10 610 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1607 410 0 1995 620 480 10 610 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1640 0 0 2036 344 683 0 369 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 2 0 3 2 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2859 1567 0 2859 1567 1037 0 461 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.29 0.00 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 2787 0 5253 2787 3548 0 1578 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1640 0 0 2036 344 683 0 369 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1393 0 1695 1393 1774 0 1578 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 16.1 3.4 9.3 0.0 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 16.1 3.4 9.3 0.0 11.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2859 1567 0 2859 1567 1037 0 461 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.22 0.66 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2859 1567 0 2859 1567 1161 0 517 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 6.0 17.1 0.0 18.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.0 6.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 7.6 1.3 4.7 0.0 6.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 9.6 6.2 17.9 0.0 24.8 LnGrp LOS A A A B C Approach Vol,veh/h 1640 2380 1052 Approach Delay,s/veh 8.4 9.1 20.3 Approach LOS A A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 34.9 34.9 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 27.0 27.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 13.5 18.1 13.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 10.8 7.6 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 35 C+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Ynez Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --I. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) PH r )) f f tT+ ))) tt r )) t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 450 1047 620 330 1855 90 280 200 90 100 350 530 Future Volume(veh/h) 450 1047 620 330 1855 90 280 200 90 100 350 530 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 459 1068 467 337 1893 87 286 204 24 102 357 541 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 2 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 514 2802 692 390 2539 117 366 964 430 155 437 739 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.40 0.38 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6408 1583 3442 6327 291 5003 3539 1580 3548 1863 3150 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 459 1068 467 337 1438 542 286 204 24 102 357 541 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1583 1721 1602 1811 1668 1770 1580 1774 1863 1575 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.7 13.5 19.1 11.5 30.7 30.7 6.7 5.3 1.3 3.4 21.8 13.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.7 13.5 19.1 11.5 30.7 30.7 6.7 5.3 1.3 3.4 21.8 13.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 514 2802 692 390 1929 727 366 964 430 155 437 739 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.38 0.67 0.86 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.21 0.06 0.66 0.82 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 545 2802 692 402 1929 727 375 1003 448 207 497 840 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 50.1 22.8 12.4 52.3 30.7 30.8 54.7 33.7 32.3 56.5 43.5 20.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.5 0.3 4.0 16.3 2.7 6.8 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 10.0 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr8.3 6.0 9.0 6.4 14.1 16.8 3.4 2.6 0.6 1.7 12.4 6.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.6 23.1 16.3 68.6 33.4 37.7 63.7 33.8 32.3 58.3 53.5 23.9 LnGrp LOS E C B E C D E C C E D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1994 2317 514 1000 Approach Delay,s/veh 30.6 39.5 50.3 38.0 Approach LOS C D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t7.6 56.5 13.8 32.1 21.9 52.2 9.2 36.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 5.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma14,.9 47.0 9.0 *31 19.0 42.0 7.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,,% 21.1 8.7 23.8 17.7 32.7 5.4 7.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 23.9 0.0 3.4 0.2 9.0 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 37 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip t tt r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 70 723 67 470 320 20 72 196 437 750 430 80 Future Volume(veh/h) 70 723 67 470 320 20 72 196 437 750 430 80 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 831 71 540 368 20 83 225 448 862 494 29 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 94 1260 108 584 1703 92 98 566 530 860 1250 73 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.51 0.49 0.17 0.50 0.48 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3301 282 3442 3415 185 1774 3539 1583 3442 3398 199 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 80 446 456 540 190 198 83 225 448 862 257 266 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1813 1721 1770 1830 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 1827 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.5 18.6 18.7 15.5 6.0 6.1 4.6 5.7 16.0 25.0 10.7 10.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.5 18.6 18.7 15.5 6.0 6.1 4.6 5.7 16.0 25.0 10.7 10.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 94 676 692 584 882 913 98 566 530 860 651 672 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.66 0.66 0.93 0.22 0.22 0.85 0.40 0.85 1.00 0.39 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 177 676 692 585 882 913 213 566 530 860 651 672 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 46.1 19.8 20.0 40.9 14.1 14.1 46.8 37.7 30.9 37.5 23.4 23.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.4 3.3 3.2 17.4 0.5 0.4 7.4 0.2 11.4 31.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 9.7 9.9 8.8 3.1 3.2 2.5 2.8 13.1 15.6 5.2 5.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.5 23.1 23.2 58.3 14.5 14.6 54.3 37.8 42.3 68.6 23.5 23.5 LnGrp LOS D C C E B B D D D F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 982 928 756 1385 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.4 40.0 42.3 51.6 Approach LOS C D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.0 42.2 9.5 40.8 9.3 53.9 29.0 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.7 3.5 *5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.5 24.3 12.5 27.7 10.5 31.3 25.5 *16 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 17.5 20.7 6.6 12.8 6.5 8.1 27.0 18.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 385 1444 143 226 717 410 70 315 344 540 337 223 Future Volume(veh/h) 385 1444 143 226 717 410 70 315 344 540 337 223 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 410 1536 141 240 763 0 74 335 168 574 359 63 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 344 2754 253 300 1574 704 131 579 259 545 1004 449 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.45 0.09 0.44 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6018 552 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 410 1226 451 240 763 0 74 335 168 574 359 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1764 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.0 22.3 22.4 8.2 18.3 0.0 2.5 10.5 11.9 19.0 9.7 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.0 22.3 22.4 8.2 18.3 0.0 2.5 10.5 11.9 19.0 9.7 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 344 2199 807 300 1574 704 131 579 259 545 1004 449 V/C Ratio(X) 1.19 0.56 0.56 0.80 0.48 0.00 0.56 0.58 0.65 1.05 0.36 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 344 2199 807 430 1574 704 172 1121 501 545 1504 672 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.91 0.91 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 54.0 23.7 23.8 53.7 23.6 0.0 56.7 46.4 47.0 50.5 34.3 32.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 94.5 0.3 0.8 3.9 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.9 2.7 48.6 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/tW.2 9.9 11.1 4.1 9.1 0.0 1.2 5.2 5.4 12.7 4.8 1.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 148.5 24.0 24.6 57.6 24.5 0.0 58.1 47.3 49.7 99.1 34.4 32.2 LnGrp LOS F C C E C E D D F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 2087 1003 577 996 Approach Delay,s/veh 48.6 32.5 49.4 71.6 Approach LOS D C D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),23.0 23.6 14.5 58.9 8.6 38.0 16.0 57.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1j,.9 37.0 15.0 31.0 6.0 50.0 12.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+01,a 13.9 10.2 24.4 4.5 11.7 14.0 20.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.4 0.3 5.9 0.0 4.7 0.0 11.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: 1-15 SIB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W* r )) ttt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1923 385 410 991 0 0 0 0 1020 10 412 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1923 385 410 991 0 0 0 0 1020 10 412 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1923 229 414 991 0 1138 0 226 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2403 681 447 3051 0 1135 0 506 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.13 0.60 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5588 1583 3442 5253 0 3548 0 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1923 229 414 991 0 1138 0 226 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1863 1583 1721 1695 0 1774 0 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 29.9 9.6 11.9 9.7 0.0 32.0 0.0 11.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 29.9 9.6 11.9 9.7 0.0 32.0 0.0 11.3 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2403 681 447 3051 0 1135 0 506 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.80 0.34 0.93 0.32 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2403 681 447 3051 0 1135 0 506 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.81 0.81 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 24.8 19.0 43.0 9.9 0.0 34.0 0.0 27.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.7 0.8 21.4 0.2 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 15.7 4.3 7.0 4.6 0.0 19.9 0.0 5.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 26.5 19.8 64.4 10.2 0.0 61.3 0.0 27.2 LnGrp LOS C B E B F C Approach Vol,veh/h 2152 1405 1364 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.8 26.1 55.6 Approach LOS C C E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t7.0 47.0 36.0 64.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmalq.4 41.7 30.7 58.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,9; 31.9 34.0 11.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 7.0 0.0 15.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-15 NB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt r f f t r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2321 589 0 1179 1020 212 10 1060 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2321 589 0 1179 1020 212 10 1060 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2368 0 0 1183 665 147 0 1137 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2504 779 0 2751 1559 682 0 1218 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.38 0.00 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5588 3167 1774 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2368 0 0 1183 665 147 0 1137 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1863 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 8.9 8.8 3.6 0.0 22.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 8.9 8.8 3.6 0.0 22.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2504 779 0 2751 1559 682 0 1218 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.22 0.00 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2504 779 0 2751 1559 682 0 1218 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 10.6 10.6 13.4 0.0 19.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 12.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 4.6 3.9 1.8 0.0 11.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 10.9 11.0 13.5 0.0 32.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 2368 1848 1284 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.7 10.9 29.9 Approach LOS B B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 36.0 36.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 30.7 30.7 23.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 30.8 10.9 24.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 15.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) +tt r Vii ttt r )) tt r )) tt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 901 1801 700 200 1024 260 500 750 170 260 690 704 Future Volume(veh/h) 901 1801 700 200 1024 260 500 750 170 260 690 704 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 948 1896 709 211 1078 95 526 789 52 274 726 685 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 860 1983 863 213 1322 411 482 832 371 327 672 1261 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5085 1582 3442 3539 1579 3442 3539 2751 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 948 1896 709 211 1078 95 526 789 52 274 726 685 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1695 1583 1774 1695 1582 1721 1770 1579 1721 1770 1376 Q Serve(g_s),s 25.0 36.3 36.9 11.9 19.9 4.7 14.0 21.9 2.6 7.8 19.0 18.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 25.0 36.3 36.9 11.9 19.9 4.7 14.0 21.9 2.6 7.8 19.0 18.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 860 1983 863 213 1322 411 482 832 371 327 672 1261 V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.96 0.82 0.99 0.82 0.23 1.09 0.95 0.14 0.84 1.08 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 860 1983 863 213 1322 411 482 832 371 344 672 1261 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 37.5 29.7 18.7 43.9 34.7 29.1 43.0 37.7 30.3 44.5 40.5 19.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 50.5 3.8 2.1 58.9 5.6 1.3 68.2 19.7 0.1 16.7 58.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ih'.9 17.5 16.6 9.3 10.0 2.2 11.2 13.0 1.1 4.5 14.7 6.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.0 33.4 20.9 102.9 40.4 30.4 111.2 57.3 30.4 61.2 98.7 20.2 LnGrp LOS F C C F D C F E C E F C Approach Vol,veh/h 3553 1384 1367 1685 Approach Delay,s/veh 45.5 49.2 77.0 60.7 Approach LOS D D E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t6.0 43.0 18.0 23.0 29.0 30.0 13.5 27.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalq.5 38.0 14.5 18.0 25.5 25.0 10.5 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,9; 38.9 16.0 21.0 27.0 21.9 9.8 23.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 C+P PM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 5.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 150 48 62 301 448 108 Future Vol,veh/h 150 48 62 301 448 108 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 200 - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 161 52 67 324 482 116 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 835 299 598 0 - 0 Stage 1 540 - - - - - Stage 2 295 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 306 697 975 - - Stage 1 548 - - - - Stage 2 730 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 285 697 975 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 285 - - - - Stage 1 548 - - Stage 2 680 - - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 27.5 1.5 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 975 - 285 697 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - 0.566 0.074 - HCM Control Delay(s) 9 - 32.9 10.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3.2 0.2 - Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Western Bypass & A Street 03/30/2017 -*--- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r ti� t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 2 0 1 25 0 156 2 215 37 229 264 4 Future Volume(veh/h) 2 0 1 25 0 156 2 215 37 229 264 4 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 2 0 -1 27 0 34 2 231 -12 246 284 4 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 472 423 0 383 0 379 7 812 0 329 1476 21 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.20 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 1699 0 -849 1412 0 1500 1681 3441 0 1681 3385 48 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 0 27 0 34 2 219 0 246 140 148 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 0 1412 0 1500 1681 1676 0 1681 1676 1756 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.3 1.2 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.3 1.2 1.2 Prop In Lane 2.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 0 383 0 379 7 812 0 329 731 766 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.28 0.27 0.00 0.75 0.19 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 0 1254 0 1304 283 2259 0 1132 1977 2071 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 6.8 11.8 7.3 0.0 9.0 4.1 4.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 20.4 0.2 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 6.9 32.2 7.5 0.0 12.4 4.2 4.2 LnGrp LOS B A C A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 61 221 534 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 8.6 7.7 8.0 Approach LOS A A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.7 9.8 5.3 4.1 14.4 5.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 28.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 5.3 3.3 0.0 2.0 3.2 2.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Project Rd & Western Bypass 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) t Vii t r Vii Traffic Volume(veh/h) 37 223 20 51 193 386 19 8 48 359 9 32 Future Volume(veh/h) 37 223 20 51 193 386 19 8 48 359 9 32 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 40 240 -33 55 208 212 20 9 -175 386 10 14 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 497 1205 0 1224 602 539 638 512 435 734 194 271 Arrive On Green 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 963 3441 0 2270 1676 1500 1381 1765 1500 1681 667 933 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 40 207 0 55 208 212 20 9 -175 386 0 24 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 963 1676 0 1135 1676 1500 1381 1765 1500 1681 0 1600 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.5 2.6 3.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.9 1.2 0.0 1.7 2.6 3.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 497 1205 0 1224 602 539 638 512 435 734 0 465 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.39 0.03 0.02 -0.40 0.53 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 994 2937 0 2398 1469 1314 1448 1546 1314 1719 0 1402 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 8.3 6.2 0.0 6.8 6.7 6.8 7.5 7.2 0.0 9.4 0.0 7.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.4 6.3 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 7.3 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A B A Approach Vol,veh/h 247 475 -146 410 Approach Delay,s/veh 6.6 7.1 -1.5 9.9 Approach LOS A A A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 13.3 15.3 13.3 15.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.6 5.9 8.2 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 4.4 1.3 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: 1-15 SB/Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) tt r Vii + r Vii t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 40 530 220 640 635 491 136 112 1720 220 57 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 40 530 220 640 635 491 136 112 1720 220 57 20 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 41 541 176 653 648 172 139 114 0 224 58 20 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 51 1281 415 595 2236 974 167 270 115 205 246 81 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.51 0.50 0.18 0.67 0.65 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 2488 806 3261 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 1681 2480 815 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 41 364 353 653 648 172 139 114 0 224 38 40 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 1618 1630 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 1681 1676 1618 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.8 15.5 15.8 21.0 9.2 5.2 9.3 3.5 0.0 14.0 2.4 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.8 15.5 15.8 21.0 9.2 5.2 9.3 3.5 0.0 14.0 2.4 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 51 863 833 595 2236 974 167 270 115 205 166 160 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.42 0.42 1.10 0.29 0.18 0.83 0.42 0.00 1.09 0.23 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 73 863 833 595 2236 974 248 1350 574 205 608 587 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 55.4 17.3 17.7 47.0 7.9 8.0 50.9 50.7 0.0 50.5 47.8 47.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 29.2 1.3 1.4 55.0 0.1 0.2 14.1 1.0 0.0 90.5 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.7 7.4 7.4 14.0 4.3 2.2 5.0 1.8 0.0 11.6 1.2 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.6 18.6 19.1 102.0 8.0 8.1 65.0 51.7 0.0 141.0 48.5 48.6 LnGrp LOS F B B F A A E D F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 758 1473 253 302 Approach Delay,s/veh 22.4 49.7 59.0 117.1 Approach LOS C D E F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),25.0 63.2 15.4 11.4 7.5 80.7 12.0 14.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 4.0 *6 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gma2q,.9 22.0 17.0 *36 5.0 38.0 8.0 44.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+2p,a 17.8 11.3 4.6 4.8 11.2 16.0 5.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/31/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 4 rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 143 2297 0 0 1276 1120 481 0 1130 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 143 2297 0 0 1276 1120 481 0 1130 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 151 2418 0 0 1343 0 506 0 1189 Adj No.of Lanes 2 2 0 0 3 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 214 3355 0 0 4702 1332 1226 0 1094 Arrive On Green 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 3441 0 0 5294 1500 3361 0 3000 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 151 2418 0 0 1343 0 506 0 1189 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1630 1676 0 0 1765 1500 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 16.9 0.0 54.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 16.9 0.0 54.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 214 3355 0 0 4702 1332 1226 0 1094 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.41 0.00 1.09 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 239 3355 0 0 4702 1332 1226 0 1094 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 68.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 35.6 0.0 47.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 54.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 7.9 0.0 30.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 36.0 0.0 101.6 LnGrp LOS E A A D F Approach Vol,veh/h 2569 1343 1695 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.2 1.3 82.0 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 155.9 13.9 142.1 59.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 82.0 10.0 *70 53.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 8.8 7.7 56.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 26.0 0.1 24.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) W ) tt + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 175 3252 40 30 2373 440 20 10 20 430 20 72 Future Volume(veh/h) 175 3252 40 30 2373 440 20 10 20 430 20 72 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 182 3388 41 31 2472 433 21 10 1 448 21 6 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 161 2987 36 41 2237 371 86 41 4 323 339 287 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.58 0.56 0.05 1.00 0.98 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 5179 62 1774 4395 730 1177 561 56 1774 1863 1581 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 182 2213 1216 31 1876 1029 32 0 0 448 21 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1695 1852 1774 1695 1734 1794 0 0 1774 1863 1581 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.0 63.4 63.4 1.9 0.0 56.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.0 63.4 63.4 1.9 0.0 56.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.42 0.66 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 161 1955 1068 41 1726 883 130 0 0 323 339 287 V/C Ratio(X) 1.13 1.13 1.14 0.75 1.09 1.17 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.06 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 161 1955 1068 113 1726 883 130 0 0 323 339 287 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 50.0 23.3 23.3 52.1 0.0 0.4 48.1 0.0 0.0 45.0 37.2 37.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 65.6 60.0 63.6 5.8 45.6 82.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 193.1 0.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr7.8 45.6 50.9 1.0 10.9 20.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.6 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 115.6 83.3 86.9 57.9 45.6 82.6 52.6 0.0 0.0 238.1 37.6 37.1 LnGrp LOS F F F E F F D F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 3611 2936 32 475 Approach Delay,s/veh 86.2 58.7 52.6 226.7 Approach LOS F E D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.6 67.4 24.0 14.0 60.0 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 57.0 19.4 10.5 54.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,9; 65.4 22.0 12.0 58.0 3.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 84.0 HCM 2010 LOS F Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A PH rr )) ttt ))) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1856 1815 510 1216 1617 810 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1856 1815 510 1216 1617 810 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1875 1806 515 1228 1633 818 Adj No.of Lanes 4 2 2 3 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 2236 1925 572 2794 1663 808 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.58 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow,veh/h 6318 2640 3261 4976 4739 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1875 1806 515 1228 1633 818 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1518 1320 1630 1606 1580 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 32.3 40.5 17.0 15.8 37.5 38.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 32.3 40.5 17.0 15.8 37.5 38.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2236 1925 572 2794 1663 808 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.94 0.90 0.44 0.98 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2236 1925 732 2794 1663 808 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.09 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 38.3 11.3 44.4 13.0 35.4 25.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 1.2 7.1 0.3 3.6 12.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.6 27.8 8.2 7.0 16.9 27.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 12.6 51.5 13.3 38.9 37.9 LnGrp LOS D B D B D F Approach Vol,veh/h 3681 1743 2451 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.9 24.6 38.6 Approach LOS C C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),23.3 44.5 67.8 42.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 6.0 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gma2$,.2 33.1 53.3 37.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,a 42.5 17.8 40.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.8 0.0 35.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 17 C+P PM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Rainbow Canyon & Pechanga Parkway 03/30/2017 --I- 4--- Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r ) ttt Traffic Volume(vph) 0 1935 370 130 1747 800 400 Future Volume(vph) 0 1935 370 130 1747 800 400 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1623 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(perm) 4818 1500 1676 4818 1623 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 2037 385 135 1839 833 417 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 88 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 2037 297 135 1839 1230 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 31.9 31.9 15.1 50.5 29.5 Effective Green,g(s) 33.4 31.9 14.6 52.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.35 0.16 0.58 0.33 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1788 531 271 2783 541 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.08 c0.38 c0.76 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 v/c Ratio 1.14 0.56 0.50 0.66 2.27 Uniform Delay,d1 28.3 23.4 34.4 13.0 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 70.0 4.2 0.5 1.2 579.0 Delay(s) 98.3 27.6 34.9 14.2 609.0 Level of Service F C C B F Approach Delay(s) 87.1 15.6 609.0 Approach LOS F B F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 177.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.50 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 134.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) W )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 530 1625 300 380 857 230 290 680 330 270 670 260 Future Volume(veh/h) 530 1625 300 380 857 230 290 680 330 270 670 260 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 546 1675 288 392 884 204 299 701 285 278 691 58 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 609 1703 291 401 1361 313 301 839 574 301 828 369 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.41 0.40 0.12 0.35 0.33 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4141 707 3261 3914 899 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1495 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 546 1297 666 392 725 363 299 701 285 278 691 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 1636 1630 1606 1601 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1495 Q Serve(g_s),s 21.3 51.8 52.6 15.6 24.7 25.0 11.9 25.8 18.8 11.0 25.4 4.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 21.3 51.8 52.6 15.6 24.7 25.0 11.9 25.8 18.8 11.0 25.4 4.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 609 1321 673 401 1117 557 301 839 574 301 828 369 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.65 0.65 0.99 0.84 0.50 0.92 0.83 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 727 1321 673 401 1117 557 301 898 601 301 898 400 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 51.6 37.8 38.4 56.8 35.7 36.3 59.0 46.2 30.5 58.5 46.4 38.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.5 8.8 15.2 38.6 2.9 5.9 49.9 6.4 0.5 32.1 6.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir9.8 24.5 26.5 9.2 11.4 12.0 7.4 12.7 7.9 6.3 12.5 1.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.1 46.6 53.6 95.4 38.6 42.2 108.9 52.6 31.0 90.7 52.6 38.5 LnGrp LOS E D D F D D F D C F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 2509 1480 1285 1027 Approach Delay,s/veh 50.3 54.5 60.9 62.1 Approach LOS D D E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),20.0 57.5 16.0 36.5 28.3 49.2 16.0 36.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gma14,.9 49.2 12.0 *34 29.0 36.2 12.0 33.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+R,6,� 54.6 13.9 27.4 23.3 27.0 13.0 27.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 8.5 0.0 3.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 21 C+P PM HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 70.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 35 20 90 47 175 20 115 40 321 199 30 Future Vol,veh/h 20 35 20 90 47 175 20 115 40 321 199 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 - 105 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 42 24 108 57 211 24 139 48 387 240 36 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1270 1266 258 1263 1260 163 276 0 0 187 0 0 Stage 1 1031 1031 - 211 211 - - - - - - - Stage 2 239 235 - 1052 1049 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 145 169 781 147 170 882 1287 - 1387 - Stage 1 281 310 - 791 728 - - - Stage 2 764 710 - 274 304 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 55 119 781 -81 120 882 1287 - 1387 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 55 119 - -81 120 - - - Stage 1 275 224 774 713 - Stage 2 524 695 155 219 - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 99.8 218.4 0.9 5 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1287 - 84 781 91 882 1387 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.789 0.031 1.814 0.239 0.279 HCM Control Delay(s) 7.9 0 132.5 9.8$484.2 10.4 8.6 - HCM Lane LOS A A F A F B A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4 0.1 13.8 0.9 1.1 - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 23 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 16: Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road 03/30/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r t r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 50 275 81 80 177 150 85 339 240 230 156 30 Future Volume(veh/h) 50 275 81 80 177 150 85 339 240 230 156 30 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 53 293 17 85 188 32 90 361 61 245 166 10 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 132 408 346 135 412 348 518 464 393 294 417 25 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1496 1681 1765 1494 1681 1765 1494 1681 3214 192 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 53 293 17 85 188 32 90 361 61 245 86 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1496 1681 1765 1494 1681 1765 1494 1681 1676 1730 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.9 9.8 0.2 3.1 5.8 0.7 2.5 12.1 1.4 9.0 3.0 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.9 9.8 0.2 3.1 5.8 0.7 2.5 12.1 1.4 9.0 3.0 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 132 408 346 135 412 348 518 464 393 294 217 224 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.72 0.05 0.63 0.46 0.09 0.17 0.78 0.16 0.83 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 198 678 575 198 678 574 518 927 785 487 854 881 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 28.0 22.6 3.6 28.4 21.0 7.1 16.1 21.8 9.4 25.4 25.5 25.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.7 2.9 0.1 1.8 1.0 0.1 0.1 3.4 0.2 2.5 1.4 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 5.0 0.2 1.5 2.9 0.4 1.2 6.3 0.8 4.4 1.5 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 25.5 3.7 30.2 21.9 7.2 16.2 25.2 9.6 28.0 26.9 26.9 LnGrp LOS C C A C C A B C A C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 363 305 512 421 Approach Delay,s/veh 24.9 22.7 21.8 27.5 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 19.4 14.6 21.3 8.6 19.2 23.1 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 24.5 18.5 33.5 7.5 24.5 19.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.9 7.8 11.0 14.1 5.1 11.8 4.5 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.3 0.2 2.6 0.0 2.9 0.3 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 24 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Vii + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 450 65 400 10 57 20 200 600 10 10 640 210 Future Volume(veh/h) 450 65 400 10 57 20 200 600 10 10 640 210 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 469 68 317 10 59 15 208 625 9 10 667 130 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 456 66 462 13 79 20 218 822 12 59 669 567 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.47 0.47 0.04 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 1477 214 1495 202 1191 303 1681 1735 25 1681 1765 1496 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 537 0 317 84 0 0 208 0 634 10 667 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl691 0 1495 1696 0 0 1681 0 1760 1681 1765 1496 Q Serve(g_s),s 44.0 0.0 26.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 42.2 0.8 53.7 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 44.0 0.0 26.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 42.2 0.8 53.7 8.4 Prop In Lane 0.87 1.00 0.12 0.18 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 522 0 462 112 0 0 218 0 834 59 669 567 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.00 0.69 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.76 0.17 1.00 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 522 0 462 202 0 0 218 0 834 65 669 567 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 49.2 0.0 43.2 65.3 0.0 0.0 61.5 0.0 30.8 66.7 44.1 30.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 46.7 0.0 4.7 9.5 0.0 0.0 47.4 0.0 6.4 0.5 34.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/27.2 0.0 11.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 21.9 0.4 32.5 3.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 95.9 0.0 47.8 74.9 0.0 0.0 108.9 0.0 37.2 67.2 78.2 31.0 LnGrp LOS F D E F D E E C Approach Vol,veh/h 854 84 842 807 Approach Delay,s/veh 78.1 74.9 55.0 70.4 Approach LOS E E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),22.0 59.0 13.4 8.5 72.5 48.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalo,.S 54.0 17.0 5.5 67.0 44.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,,rs 55.7 8.9 2.8 44.2 46.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 12.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 68.1 HCM 2010 LOS E Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 25 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T* + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 343 27 20 250 209 18 18 120 407 40 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 343 27 20 250 209 18 18 120 407 40 10 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 11 381 27 22 278 99 20 20 -1 452 44 3 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 14 830 59 32 917 778 29 130 0 478 557 38 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.48 0.47 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.27 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 1719 122 1774 1863 1580 1774 1863 0 1774 1724 118 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 11 0 408 22 278 99 20 19 0 452 0 47 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 0 1841 1774 1863 1580 1774 1863 0 1774 0 1842 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.6 0.0 14.7 1.2 8.9 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.6 0.0 14.7 1.2 8.9 3.4 1.1 1.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 14 0 889 32 917 778 29 130 0 478 0 595 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.46 0.69 0.30 0.13 0.69 0.15 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 89 0 889 89 917 778 89 298 0 568 0 792 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 49.5 0.0 17.2 48.8 15.1 13.7 48.9 43.7 0.0 35.8 0.0 23.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.4 0.0 1.7 9.3 0.8 0.3 10.4 0.2 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 0.0 7.9 0.7 4.8 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.9 0.0 18.9 58.1 15.9 14.1 59.3 43.9 0.0 57.6 0.0 23.5 LnGrp LOS E B E B B E D E C Approach Vol,veh/h 419 399 39 499 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.4 17.8 51.8 54.4 Approach LOS C B D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s5.8 52.3 5.6 36.3 4.8 53.3 30.9 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax$,.S 29.3 5.5 43.0 5.5 29.3 32.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,a 16.7 3.1 3.8 2.6 10.9 27.0 3.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.4 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 26 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Diaz Road & Rancho Way 03/30/2017 t i Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 190 137 75 398 933 90 Future Volume(veh/h) 190 137 75 398 933 90 Number 3 18 1 6 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 -4 85 452 1060 93 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 384 177 141 2450 1833 161 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.73 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 1500 1681 3441 3207 273 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 -4 85 452 570 583 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1500 1681 1676 1676 1716 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.7 0.0 2.9 2.5 12.6 12.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.7 0.0 2.9 2.5 12.6 12.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 384 177 141 2450 985 1008 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 -0.02 0.60 0.18 0.58 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1262 581 297 3979 1595 1632 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 24.8 0.0 26.2 2.5 7.7 7.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.7 0.0 1.4 1.1 5.9 6.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.2 0.0 27.8 2.5 8.4 8.4 LnGrp LOS C C A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 212 537 1153 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.7 6.5 8.4 Approach LOS C A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s8.5 39.9 48.4 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalq,.S 56.5 70.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,9; 14.6 4.5 5.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 20.3 24.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 27 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Diaz Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) t ) tt r )) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 470 80 401 90 130 30 85 813 440 162 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 470 80 401 90 130 30 85 813 440 162 10 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 11 495 71 422 95 76 32 89 762 463 171 5 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 14 586 84 865 864 633 44 784 774 516 1217 35 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.35 0.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3110 444 3442 1950 1428 1774 3539 1579 3442 3512 102 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 11 281 285 422 85 86 32 89 762 463 86 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1784 1721 1770 1608 1774 1770 1579 1721 1770 1845 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.6 13.8 13.9 9.4 2.5 2.8 1.6 1.8 15.4 11.9 3.0 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.6 13.8 13.9 9.4 2.5 2.8 1.6 1.8 15.4 11.9 3.0 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 14 333 336 865 784 712 44 784 774 516 613 639 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.49 0.11 0.12 0.72 0.11 0.98 0.90 0.14 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 256 354 357 865 784 712 177 865 810 535 613 639 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 44.6 35.2 35.3 28.8 14.7 14.9 43.6 28.0 7.2 37.6 20.2 20.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 30.4 22.0 22.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 7.9 0.1 27.3 16.8 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 8.7 8.9 4.5 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.9 13.7 6.9 1.5 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.0 57.2 57.9 28.9 14.9 15.2 51.4 28.0 34.4 54.4 20.3 20.3 LnGrp LOS E E E C B B D C C D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 577 593 883 639 Approach Delay,s/veh 57.9 24.9 34.4 45.0 Approach LOS E C C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),27.6 21.0 6.3 35.2 4.7 43.9 17.5 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 *4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma2q,.5 * 18 9.5 26.0 13.5 24.5 14.5 21.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ml,-+o 15.9 3.6 5.0 2.6 4.8 13.9 17.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.1 0.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.0 0.1 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 28 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: Jefferson Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 640 1143 90 370 511 450 50 750 430 630 810 180 Future Volume(veh/h) 640 1143 90 370 511 450 50 750 430 630 810 180 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 653 1155 81 378 521 200 51 765 375 643 827 78 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 697 1429 100 695 835 369 105 847 717 689 1448 645 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6158 430 3442 3539 1565 3442 3539 1569 3442 3539 1576 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 653 900 336 378 521 200 51 765 375 643 827 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1782 1721 1770 1565 1721 1770 1569 1721 1770 1576 Q Serve(g_s),s 21.5 20.4 20.5 11.3 15.2 12.9 1.7 24.1 19.7 21.1 20.7 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 21.5 20.4 20.5 11.3 15.2 12.9 1.7 24.1 19.7 21.1 20.7 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 697 1116 414 695 835 369 105 847 717 689 1448 645 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.62 0.54 0.48 0.90 0.52 0.93 0.57 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 718 1379 511 695 835 369 209 862 723 718 1448 645 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.1 41.7 41.9 41.1 39.4 38.5 54.8 42.4 22.4 45.2 26.2 5.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.9 1.4 3.9 0.7 3.2 5.2 1.0 10.7 0.7 18.5 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/tW.8 9.2 10.5 5.5 7.8 6.1 0.8 13.1 8.7 11.8 10.2 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.0 43.2 45.8 41.8 42.6 43.7 55.9 53.1 23.2 63.7 26.5 5.7 LnGrp LOS D D D D D D E D C E C A Approach Vol,veh/h 1889 1099 1191 1548 Approach Delay,s/veh 46.3 42.5 43.8 40.9 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s7.5 50.1 27.7 29.7 27.0 30.5 27.3 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.0 4.0 *4 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 44.0 16.5 *32 24.5 27.0 24.5 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+Iq,t 22.7 13.3 22.5 23.1 26.1 23.5 17.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 11.1 1.8 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 3.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 43.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 30 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 22: 1-15 SIB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt r ttt r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1933 250 0 864 550 0 0 0 1240 10 456 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1933 250 0 864 550 0 0 0 1240 10 456 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1993 109 0 891 0 1278 0 394 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2219 691 0 2219 691 1484 0 1324 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5253 1583 3548 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1993 109 0 891 0 1278 0 394 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1695 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 20.0 2.3 0.0 6.6 0.0 18.0 0.0 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 20.0 2.3 0.0 6.6 0.0 18.0 0.0 4.5 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2219 691 0 2219 691 1484 0 1324 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.90 0.16 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2219 691 0 2219 691 1484 0 1324 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.87 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 14.4 9.4 0.0 10.6 0.0 14.5 0.0 10.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 3.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 10.0 1.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 10.1 0.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.1 9.7 0.0 11.1 0.0 21.3 0.0 11.2 LnGrp LOS B A B C B Approach Vol,veh/h 2102 891 1672 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.7 11.1 19.0 Approach LOS B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.0 27.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 22.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 22.0 20.0 8.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 8.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 32 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 23: 1-15 NB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt rr ttt rr r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2291 850 0 1294 1370 110 10 900 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2291 850 0 1294 1370 110 10 900 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2338 0 0 1320 699 78 0 924 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 2 0 3 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2673 1465 0 2673 1465 605 0 1077 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.34 0.00 0.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 2787 0 5253 2787 1774 0 3158 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2338 0 0 1320 699 78 0 924 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1393 0 1695 1393 1774 0 1579 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 24.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.5 1.8 0.0 16.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 24.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.5 1.8 0.0 16.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2673 1465 0 2673 1465 605 0 1077 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.48 0.13 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2673 1465 0 2673 1465 650 0 1158 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 9.1 9.0 13.6 0.0 18.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.7 0.9 0.0 7.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.5 13.7 0.0 24.2 LnGrp LOS B A A B C Approach Vol,veh/h 2338 2019 1002 Approach Delay,s/veh 14.0 9.5 23.4 Approach LOS B A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 35.5 35.5 24.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 28.0 28.0 21.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 26.2 12.0 18.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.7 13.3 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 34 C+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Ynez Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --I. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) PH r )) f f tT+ ))) tt r )) t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 500 1941 740 310 1434 100 810 740 400 140 420 370 Future Volume(veh/h) 500 1941 740 310 1434 100 810 740 400 140 420 370 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 521 2022 478 323 1494 95 844 771 234 146 604 274 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 567 2505 619 377 2084 132 914 1095 489 201 652 275 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.78 0.78 0.11 0.34 0.32 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6408 1583 3442 6205 394 5003 3539 1580 3548 3725 1572 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 521 2022 478 323 1157 432 844 771 234 146 604 274 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1583 1721 1602 1793 1668 1770 1580 1774 1863 1572 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.5 22.4 10.4 11.1 25.3 25.4 19.9 23.1 14.4 4.9 19.2 14.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.5 22.4 10.4 11.1 25.3 25.4 19.9 23.1 14.4 4.9 19.2 14.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 567 2505 619 377 1614 602 914 1095 489 201 652 275 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.81 0.77 0.86 0.72 0.72 0.92 0.70 0.48 0.73 0.93 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 602 2510 620 402 1614 602 917 1095 489 207 652 275 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.34 0.34 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 39.5 10.4 2.8 52.5 34.8 35.1 48.2 36.6 33.6 55.7 48.7 24.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.6 1.0 3.2 14.8 2.8 7.2 14.3 1.8 0.3 10.0 19.6 53.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr8.8 9.4 4.5 6.0 11.6 13.7 10.4 11.5 6.3 2.7 11.6 10.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0 11.4 6.0 67.2 37.6 42.3 62.5 38.4 33.9 65.7 68.4 77.2 LnGrp LOS D B A E D D E D C E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 3021 1912 1849 1024 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.7 43.7 48.8 70.3 Approach LOS B D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t7.2 50.9 26.9 25.0 23.8 44.3 10.8 41.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 5.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma14,.9 45.0 22.0 *20 21.0 38.0 7.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,t 24.4 21.9 21.2 19.5 27.4 6.9 25.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 10.5 0.0 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 36 APPENDIX D: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) CONDITIONS (WITH PROJECT) LOS REPORTS BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip )) tt tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 130 280 106 358 610 50 148 880 469 220 218 60 Future Volume(veh/h) 130 280 106 358 610 50 148 880 469 220 218 60 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 130 280 55 358 610 41 148 880 400 220 218 21 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 153 630 122 453 1258 84 173 1084 705 290 1106 494 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.26 0.23 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 2958 573 3442 4870 325 1774 3539 1583 3442 3539 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 130 166 169 358 423 228 148 880 400 220 218 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1762 1721 1695 1805 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.7 5.3 5.5 6.6 6.9 7.0 5.4 15.0 12.2 4.1 2.9 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.7 5.3 5.5 6.6 6.9 7.0 5.4 15.0 12.2 4.1 2.9 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 153 377 375 453 875 466 173 1084 705 290 1106 494 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.44 0.45 0.79 0.48 0.49 0.85 0.81 0.57 0.76 0.20 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 353 588 585 1159 1593 849 217 1317 810 316 1208 540 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 29.4 22.3 22.6 27.5 20.5 20.7 29.0 20.9 13.4 29.3 16.4 15.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.1 19.3 2.7 0.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.6 7.7 5.3 2.2 1.4 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.3 23.5 23.8 28.7 21.1 21.8 48.3 23.6 13.7 37.3 16.5 15.7 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C D C B D B B Approach Vol,veh/h 465 1009 1428 459 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.6 24.0 23.4 26.4 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.6 17.9 10.4 24.4 9.6 20.9 9.5 25.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.7 3.5 *5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.5 20.0 8.5 21.0 13.5 29.0 6.5 *24 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 8.6 7.5 7.4 4.9 6.7 9.0 6.1 17.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.5 4.7 0.0 4.3 0.1 5.9 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf'* )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 110 759 50 140 1298 650 20 170 380 340 120 80 Future Volume(veh/h) 110 759 50 140 1298 650 20 170 380 340 120 80 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 110 759 45 140 1298 0 20 170 246 340 120 29 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 174 2594 152 210 2168 0 75 737 330 456 1166 521 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.41 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6237 366 3442 5253 0 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 110 583 221 140 1298 0 20 170 246 340 120 29 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1797 1721 1695 0 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.9 7.5 7.6 3.7 18.3 0.0 0.5 3.7 13.6 8.9 2.2 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 7.5 7.6 3.7 18.3 0.0 0.5 3.7 13.6 8.9 2.2 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 174 1999 748 210 2168 0 75 737 330 456 1166 521 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.29 0.30 0.67 0.60 0.00 0.27 0.23 0.75 0.75 0.10 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 185 2323 869 407 2786 0 185 1445 646 1257 2585 1156 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 43.3 18.1 18.2 42.8 20.6 0.0 44.8 30.7 34.6 38.9 21.7 21.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.4 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 3.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.5 3.3 3.8 1.8 8.6 0.0 0.3 1.8 6.2 4.4 1.1 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.7 18.2 18.5 44.1 20.9 0.0 45.5 30.8 37.9 41.3 21.7 21.4 LnGrp LOS D B B D C D C D D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 914 1438 436 489 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.8 23.2 35.5 35.3 Approach LOS C C D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t7.3 23.4 9.7 42.7 6.0 34.7 8.7 43.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaa4,.g 37.0 11.0 44.0 5.0 67.0 5.0 50.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,9; 15.6 5.7 9.6 2.5 4.2 4.9 20.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 2.6 0.1 20.1 0.0 2.8 0.0 18.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: 1-15 SIB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W* r )) ttt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1235 234 620 1563 0 0 0 0 1180 0 526 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1235 234 620 1563 0 0 0 0 1180 0 526 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1235 101 620 1563 0 1319 0 297 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 1565 443 642 2712 0 1183 0 527 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.53 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5588 1583 3442 5253 0 3548 0 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1235 101 620 1563 0 1319 0 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1863 1583 1721 1695 0 1774 0 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 12.3 2.9 10.7 12.4 0.0 20.0 0.0 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 12.3 2.9 10.7 12.4 0.0 20.0 0.0 9.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 1565 443 642 2712 0 1183 0 527 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.79 0.23 0.97 0.58 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 1565 443 642 2712 0 1183 0 527 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.74 0.74 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 20.0 16.6 24.2 9.4 0.0 20.0 0.0 16.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 3.5 1.0 22.3 0.7 0.0 63.8 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 6.8 1.4 7.1 5.8 0.0 20.2 0.0 4.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 23.5 17.6 46.5 10.1 0.0 83.8 0.0 17.3 LnGrp LOS C B D B F B Approach Vol,veh/h 1336 2183 1616 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.0 20.4 71.6 Approach LOS C C E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t5.2 20.8 24.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmalq,.6 15.5 18.7 30.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+qjt 14.3 22.0 14.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.1 0.0 9.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-15 NB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt r ttm r Vii r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2143 237 0 1710 1020 483 0 370 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2143 237 0 1710 1020 483 0 370 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2143 0 0 2068 487 577 0 201 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 4 1 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3237 1008 0 4742 1008 817 0 364 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.23 0.00 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 7451 1583 3548 0 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2143 0 0 2068 487 577 0 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1863 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 8.4 9.7 9.0 0.0 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 8.4 9.7 9.0 0.0 6.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3237 1008 0 4742 1008 817 0 364 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.48 0.71 0.00 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3237 1008 0 4742 1008 1124 0 501 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.7 21.2 0.0 20.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 4.4 0.0 3.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.9 21.8 0.0 20.8 LnGrp LOS B A A C C Approach Vol,veh/h 2143 2555 778 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 5.6 21.5 Approach LOS B A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 42.2 42.2 17.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 31.7 31.7 17.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 22.2 11.7 11.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 8.6 16.7 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) +tt r Vii f f t )) +tt r )) ttt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 707 1337 470 220 1635 170 890 720 290 120 300 315 Future Volume(veh/h) 707 1337 470 220 1635 170 890 720 290 120 300 315 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 707 1337 159 220 1635 155 890 720 82 120 300 7 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 4 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 687 1687 525 244 1617 153 893 1423 442 314 567 304 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5999 569 3442 5085 1580 3442 5085 2727 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 707 1337 159 220 1310 480 890 720 82 120 300 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1695 1583 1774 1602 1762 1721 1695 1580 1721 1695 1363 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.0 23.9 7.5 12.2 27.0 27.0 25.9 11.9 3.9 3.3 5.6 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.0 23.9 7.5 12.2 27.0 27.0 25.9 11.9 3.9 3.3 5.6 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 687 1687 525 244 1295 475 893 1423 442 314 567 304 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.79 0.30 0.90 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.51 0.19 0.38 0.53 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 687 1687 525 283 1295 475 893 1625 505 344 812 436 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 40.1 30.3 24.9 42.5 36.6 36.6 37.0 30.3 27.4 42.9 42.0 39.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 41.9 3.9 1.5 25.4 27.8 44.2 29.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/n.4 11.8 3.5 7.7 15.2 18.9 15.9 5.6 1.7 1.6 2.6 0.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 82.0 34.3 26.3 67.9 64.3 80.8 66.2 30.5 27.6 43.9 42.6 39.7 LnGrp LOS F C C E F F E C C D D D Approach Vol,veh/h 2203 2010 1692 427 Approach Delay,s/veh 49.0 68.7 49.1 42.9 Approach LOS D E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t7.8 37.2 30.0 15.2 24.0 31.0 13.1 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalo,.S 30.0 26.5 15.0 20.5 26.0 10.5 31.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+[M,a 25.9 27.9 7.6 22.0 29.0 5.3 13.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 3.8 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 BO+P AM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 9.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 109 132 88 1299 633 39 Future Vol,veh/h 109 132 88 1299 633 39 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 200 - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 109 132 88 1299 633 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1479 336 672 0 - 0 Stage 1 653 - - - - - Stage 2 826 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 116 660 915 - - Stage 1 480 - - - - Stage 2 390 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver — 105 660 915 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver — 105 - - - Stage 1 480 - - Stage 2 352 - - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 85.5 0.6 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 915 - 105 660 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.096 - 1.038 0.2 - HCM Control Delay(s) 9.4 - 174.7 11.8 - HCM Lane LOS A - F B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 6.6 0.7 - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Western Bypass & A Street 03/30/2017 -*--- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r t t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 4 6 2 90 1 237 3 1146 42 236 528 1 Future Volume(veh/h) 4 6 2 90 1 237 3 1146 42 236 528 1 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 4 6 -1 90 1 66 3 1146 36 236 528 1 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 176 0 284 2 411 5 1602 50 293 2246 4 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.17 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 1765 0 1400 16 1500 1681 3319 104 1681 3434 7 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 5 0 91 0 66 3 579 603 236 258 271 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1765 0 1416 0 1500 1681 1676 1746 1681 1676 1764 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.6 0.1 13.5 13.5 6.7 3.1 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 13.5 13.5 6.7 3.1 3.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 176 0 286 0 411 5 809 843 293 1096 1153 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.16 0.55 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.24 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 1288 0 603 0 748 136 951 991 477 1291 1358 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 20.1 0.0 21.4 0.0 13.6 24.6 10.1 10.1 19.6 3.5 3.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 64.8 2.1 2.0 5.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 6.6 6.8 3.5 1.5 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 20.1 0.0 22.0 0.0 13.8 89.4 12.2 12.1 24.7 3.6 3.6 LnGrp LOS C C B F B B C A A Approach Vol,veh/h 5 157 1185 765 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.1 18.5 12.4 10.1 Approach LOS C B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.6 27.8 8.9 4.2 36.3 0.0 8.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 14.0 28.0 36.0 4.0 38.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 8.7 15.5 2.1 2.1 5.1 0.0 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 8.3 0.7 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Project Rd & Western Bypass 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + Vii t Vii t r Vii Traffic Volume(veh/h) 63 427 22 40 944 252 33 16 65 297 15 72 Future Volume(veh/h) 63 427 22 40 944 252 33 16 65 297 15 72 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 63 427 -11 40 944 238 33 16 -59 297 15 42 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 78 1515 0 52 1159 292 46 61 52 348 94 263 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.45 0.00 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 1681 2655 668 1681 1765 1500 1681 411 1151 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 63 416 0 40 595 587 33 16 -59 297 0 57 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 0 1681 1676 1647 1681 1765 1500 1681 0 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.6 5.4 0.0 1.6 21.4 21.5 1.3 0.6 0.0 11.7 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.6 5.4 0.0 1.6 21.4 21.5 1.3 0.6 0.0 11.7 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 78 1515 0 52 732 719 46 61 52 348 0 358 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.27 0.00 0.77 0.81 0.82 0.72 0.26 -1.14 0.85 0.00 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 98 1556 0 122 802 788 146 410 348 463 0 657 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 32.6 11.8 0.0 33.2 17.0 17.0 33.3 32.4 0.0 26.3 0.0 21.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 31.8 0.1 0.0 20.5 6.0 6.2 19.2 2.3 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.9 2.5 0.0 1.1 11.0 10.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.3 11.9 0.0 53.6 22.9 23.2 52.5 34.7 0.0 37.5 0.0 21.5 LnGrp LOS E B D C C D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 479 1222 -10 354 Approach Delay,s/veh 18.8 24.1 -228.7 34.9 Approach LOS B C A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t9.3 7.4 6.1 36.1 5.9 20.8 7.2 35.1 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 *5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1j,.9 * 16 5.0 32.0 6.0 29.0 4.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+q,� 2.6 3.6 7.4 3.3 4.0 4.6 23.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 6.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: 1-15 SB/Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) tt r Vii + r Vii t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 20 361 317 860 1041 570 225 30 1200 100 310 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 20 361 317 860 1041 570 225 30 1200 100 310 20 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 20 361 196 860 1041 299 225 30 0 100 310 20 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 26 403 215 1015 1554 660 258 789 335 200 592 38 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.19 0.17 0.31 0.46 0.44 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 2103 1121 3261 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 1681 3199 205 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 20 286 271 860 1041 299 225 30 0 100 162 168 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 1548 1630 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 1681 1676 1728 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.0 14.0 14.4 20.8 20.3 8.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 4.7 7.3 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.0 14.0 14.4 20.8 20.3 8.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 4.7 7.3 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 26 322 297 1015 1554 660 258 789 335 200 310 320 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.89 0.91 0.85 0.67 0.45 0.87 0.04 0.00 0.50 0.52 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 80 322 297 1201 1554 660 260 797 339 200 333 343 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 41.2 33.1 34.0 27.1 17.6 7.7 34.8 25.6 0.0 34.7 30.9 30.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 35.0 28.8 33.7 5.1 2.3 2.2 25.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.4 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.7 9.0 9.0 10.0 9.9 4.2 7.0 0.3 0.0 2.3 3.5 3.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.2 61.9 67.7 32.2 19.9 9.9 60.5 25.6 0.0 36.7 32.3 32.3 LnGrp LOS E E E C B A E C D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 577 2200 255 430 Approach Delay,s/veh 65.1 23.3 56.4 33.3 Approach LOS E C E C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),30.2 20.1 18.9 14.9 7.3 43.0 9.0 24.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 6.0 *5.3 6.0 *6 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaal,.9 10.0 13.0 * 11 4.0 *37 4.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,8; 16.4 13.0 9.4 3.0 22.3 6.7 2.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) +tt ttt r Vii 4 W Traffic Volume(veh/h) 128 1533 0 0 1447 1560 1034 0 590 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 128 1533 0 0 1447 1560 1034 0 590 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 128 1533 0 0 1447 0 1034 0 590 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 0 3 1 2 0 3 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 240 2598 0 0 1808 563 1188 0 1590 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4976 0 0 4976 1500 3361 0 4500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 128 1533 0 0 1447 0 1034 0 590 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 0 0 1606 1500 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.9 16.6 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 22.2 0.0 7.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 16.6 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 22.2 0.0 7.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 240 2598 0 0 1808 563 1188 0 1590 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 253 2598 0 0 1808 563 1205 0 1613 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 34.5 12.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 23.3 0.0 18.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Irn.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 11.4 0.0 3.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.8 13.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 30.6 0.0 18.8 LnGrp LOS D B C C B Approach Vol,veh/h 1661 1447 1624 Approach Delay,s/veh 14.9 25.4 26.3 Approach LOS B C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 45.7 9.7 36.0 31.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 34.0 5.0 *27 26.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 18.6 4.9 22.7 24.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 8.4 0.0 3.3 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) f tf'* ) f f t ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 223 1889 10 30 2734 290 40 10 30 220 10 232 Future Volume(veh/h) 223 1889 10 30 2734 290 40 10 30 220 10 232 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 223 1889 10 30 2734 275 40 10 10 220 10 26 Adj No.of Lanes 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 217 3891 21 42 2918 290 91 23 23 237 236 211 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.59 0.56 0.02 0.49 0.47 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 6627 35 1774 5972 593 1169 292 292 1774 1770 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 223 1370 529 30 2193 816 60 0 0 220 10 26 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1602 1857 1774 1602 1758 1753 0 0 1774 1770 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 14.8 14.8 1.5 38.6 39.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.4 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.0 14.8 14.8 1.5 38.6 39.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.4 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.34 0.67 0.17 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 217 2822 1090 42 2348 859 136 0 0 237 236 211 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.49 0.49 0.71 0.93 0.95 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.04 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 217 2822 1090 138 2351 860 136 0 0 237 236 211 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 39.5 10.7 10.7 43.6 21.6 22.3 39.6 0.0 0.0 38.6 34.0 34.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 68.6 0.2 0.5 8.0 7.8 19.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 42.8 0.3 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir9.5 6.5 7.6 0.8 18.5 24.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.2 0.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 108.2 10.9 11.2 51.6 29.4 42.0 49.6 0.0 0.0 81.3 34.3 35.5 LnGrp LOS F B B D C D D F C D Approach Vol,veh/h 2122 3039 60 256 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.2 33.0 49.6 74.8 Approach LOS C C D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.1 56.8 16.0 15.0 48.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 46.0 11.4 11.5 42.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,,% 16.8 13.0 13.0 41.9 4.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 18 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A PH rr )) ttt ))) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1621 489 60 1574 1471 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1621 489 60 1574 1471 190 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1621 417 60 1574 1471 187 Adj No.of Lanes 4 2 2 3 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 2603 2200 126 2478 1856 670 Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.51 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow,veh/h 6318 2640 3261 4976 4739 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1621 417 60 1574 1471 187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1518 1320 1630 1606 1580 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.7 2.7 1.5 20.1 23.3 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.7 2.7 1.5 20.1 23.3 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2603 2200 126 2478 1856 670 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.19 0.48 0.64 0.79 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2603 2200 211 2478 2004 717 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 19.0 1.4 40.1 14.9 22.8 14.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.1 0.2 1.0 1.3 2.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.6 3.4 0.7 9.2 10.5 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.1 1.6 41.1 16.2 25.1 15.2 LnGrp LOS C A D B C B Approach Vol,veh/h 2038 1634 1658 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.3 17.1 24.0 Approach LOS B B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s7.3 40.5 47.8 37.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 6.0 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax0,.9 34.5 35.5 35.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lq,,% 19.7 22.1 25.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 14.1 12.9 7.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 19 BO+P AM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Rainbow Canyon & Pechanga Parkway 03/30/2017 --I- 4--- Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r ) ttt rr Traffic Volume(vph) 0 509 20 100 1581 60 30 Future Volume(vph) 0 509 20 100 1581 60 30 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4818 1500 1676 4818 3252 2606 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4818 1500 1676 4818 3252 2606 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 509 20 100 1581 60 30 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 509 10 100 1581 60 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green,G(s) 23.9 23.9 4.4 31.8 7.7 7.7 Effective Green,g(s) 25.4 23.9 3.9 33.3 8.2 8.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.48 0.08 0.67 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2472 724 132 3241 538 431 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.06 c0.33 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.01 0.76 0.49 0.11 0.01 Uniform Delay,d1 6.6 6.7 22.3 3.9 17.6 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.0 19.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 Delay(s) 6.6 6.7 41.9 4.1 17.6 17.3 Level of Service A A D A B B Approach Delay(s) 6.6 6.4 17.5 Approach LOS A A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 49.5 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) W )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 290 1009 261 250 921 350 357 970 460 150 630 250 Future Volume(veh/h) 290 1009 261 250 921 350 357 970 460 150 630 250 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 290 1009 214 250 921 284 357 970 352 150 630 103 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 402 1542 327 168 1152 354 201 1157 517 168 1108 494 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.39 0.37 0.05 0.32 0.29 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 3980 843 3261 3650 1122 3261 3353 1499 3261 3353 1496 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 290 814 409 250 810 395 357 970 352 150 630 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 1611 1630 1606 1560 1630 1676 1499 1630 1676 1496 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.3 20.2 20.4 5.0 22.4 22.7 6.0 25.9 19.5 4.4 15.1 4.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.3 20.2 20.4 5.0 22.4 22.7 6.0 25.9 19.5 4.4 15.1 4.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 402 1245 624 168 1013 492 201 1157 517 168 1108 494 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.65 0.66 1.49 0.80 0.80 1.77 0.84 0.68 0.89 0.57 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 403 1259 632 168 1028 499 201 1239 554 168 1204 537 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 41.0 24.4 24.9 46.1 30.4 31.2 45.6 29.3 27.3 45.8 26.8 23.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.8 1.4 2.8 249.5 4.8 9.5 367.5 4.8 2.8 39.8 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr4.1 9.2 9.5 8.0 10.6 11.0 13.0 12.8 8.5 2.9 7.0 2.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.8 25.8 27.7 295.6 35.2 40.7 413.0 34.2 30.1 85.6 27.2 23.5 LnGrp LOS D C C F D D F C C F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 1513 1455 1679 883 Approach Delay,s/veh 30.3 81.4 113.9 36.7 Approach LOS C F F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s9.0 41.7 10.0 36.5 16.0 34.7 9.0 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax$,.g 36.1 6.0 *34 12.0 29.1 5.0 34.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l J,a 22.4 8.0 17.1 10.3 24.7 6.4 27.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 11.1 0.0 7.8 0.2 4.0 0.0 4.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 70.2 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 23 BO+P AM HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 15.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 90 219 90 130 191 130 30 60 30 30 40 20 Future Vol,veh/h 90 219 90 130 191 130 30 60 30 30 40 20 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 - 105 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 90 219 90 130 191 130 30 60 30 30 40 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 341 260 50 355 255 75 60 0 0 90 0 0 Stage 1 110 110 - 135 135 - - - - - - - Stage 2 231 150 - 220 120 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 613 645 1018 600 649 986 1544 - 1505 - Stage 1 895 804 - 868 785 - - - Stage 2 772 773 - 782 796 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 394 619 1018 385 623 986 1544 1505 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 394 619 - 385 623 - - - Stage 1 876 788 850 769 - Stage 2 493 757 504 780 - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 18.1 20 1.8 2.5 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1544 - 531 1018 498 986 1505 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.582 0.088 0.645 0.132 0.02 HCM Control Delay(s) 7.4 0 20.8 8.9 24.4 9.2 7.4 - HCM Lane LOS A A C A C A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 3.7 0.3 4.5 0.5 0.1 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 25 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 16: Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road 03/30/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t t r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 50 289 90 130 321 200 70 170 60 70 120 40 Future Volume(veh/h) 50 289 90 130 321 200 70 170 60 70 120 40 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 50 289 24 130 321 88 70 170 12 70 120 8 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 171 475 403 194 738 199 171 295 250 171 599 40 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1497 1681 2610 704 1681 1765 1495 1681 3192 211 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 50 289 24 130 204 205 70 170 12 70 63 65 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1497 1681 1676 1637 1681 1765 1495 1681 1676 1727 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.4 7.0 0.6 3.6 4.9 5.0 1.9 4.4 0.2 1.9 1.5 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.4 7.0 0.6 3.6 4.9 5.0 1.9 4.4 0.2 1.9 1.5 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 171 475 403 194 474 463 171 295 250 171 314 324 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.61 0.06 0.67 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.58 0.05 0.41 0.20 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 222 791 671 291 819 800 188 827 700 188 785 809 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 20.4 15.7 13.3 20.8 14.4 14.4 20.7 18.8 7.6 20.7 16.8 16.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 2.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 3.6 0.2 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.9 2.3 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 17.2 13.4 22.3 15.1 15.2 21.2 21.0 7.7 21.2 17.2 17.2 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C C A C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 363 539 252 198 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.4 16.9 20.4 18.6 Approach LOS B B C B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 18.4 9.5 12.7 9.2 17.7 8.5 13.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 4.5 *4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 24.0 5.5 *23 8.5 22.0 5.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.4 7.0 3.9 6.4 5.6 9.0 3.9 3.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.9 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 26 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *TT* Vii + ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 89 160 20 61 90 240 720 30 60 330 350 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 89 160 20 61 90 240 720 30 60 330 350 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 89 91 20 61 12 240 720 27 60 330 110 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 322 153 157 92 292 59 281 1109 42 134 618 203 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 800 818 709 2246 457 1681 3296 124 1681 2482 813 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 0 180 49 0 44 240 366 381 60 221 219 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 0 1617 1729 0 1682 1681 1676 1743 1681 1676 1619 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.5 0.0 6.4 1.6 0.0 1.5 8.7 11.6 11.7 2.1 7.2 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.5 0.0 6.4 1.6 0.0 1.5 8.7 11.6 11.7 2.1 7.2 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 0.41 0.27 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.50 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 322 0 310 224 0 218 281 564 587 134 418 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.58 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.45 0.53 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 428 0 412 468 0 455 281 667 693 147 533 515 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 24.0 0.0 23.1 24.5 0.0 24.4 25.4 17.7 17.7 27.6 20.4 20.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.1 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 21.5 2.2 2.1 0.9 1.5 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr4.5 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.0 0.7 5.7 5.7 6.0 1.0 3.5 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 0.0 25.6 25.0 0.0 24.9 46.9 19.9 19.8 28.5 21.9 22.1 LnGrp LOS C C C C D B B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 420 93 987 500 Approach Delay,s/veh 28.1 24.9 26.4 22.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.0 20.7 12.2 8.5 26.2 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1q,.5 20.0 17.0 5.5 25.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+T,� 9.4 3.6 4.1 13.7 10.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.2 0.3 0.0 6.5 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 28 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 30 410 50 120 270 448 120 81 20 76 15 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 30 410 50 120 270 448 120 81 20 76 15 10 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 30 410 44 120 270 306 120 81 10 76 15 1 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 41 989 106 137 638 569 137 298 37 103 283 19 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.31 0.27 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3227 345 1774 1770 1579 1774 1627 201 1774 1727 115 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 30 224 230 120 270 306 120 0 91 76 0 16 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1802 1774 1770 1579 1774 0 1827 1774 0 1842 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.7 4.3 4.4 2.9 4.9 6.6 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.7 4.3 4.4 2.9 4.9 6.6 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 41 542 552 137 638 569 137 0 335 103 0 302 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.41 0.42 0.88 0.42 0.54 0.88 0.00 0.27 0.74 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 871 887 249 913 814 499 0 685 1081 0 1296 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 20.7 11.7 11.9 19.5 10.3 10.8 19.5 0.0 15.0 19.8 0.0 15.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.5 0.7 0.7 6.6 0.6 1.1 6.6 0.0 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.5 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 12.5 12.6 26.1 10.9 12.0 26.1 0.0 15.1 23.7 0.0 15.1 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B C B Approach Vol,veh/h 484 696 211 92 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.6 14.0 21.4 22.2 Approach LOS B B C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s7.3 17.1 7.3 11.0 5.0 19.4 6.5 11.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxo,.S 19.3 12.5 30.0 5.5 20.3 26.5 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,9; 6.4 4.9 2.3 2.7 8.6 3.8 3.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 29 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Diaz Road & Rancho Way 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '* ) tt ) tt ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 50 20 51 30 30 80 189 1112 150 100 287 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 50 20 51 30 30 80 189 1112 150 100 287 170 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 50 20 -11 30 30 11 189 1112 140 100 287 110 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 360 344 0 44 270 94 238 1307 164 125 899 337 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 1765 0 1681 2443 848 1681 2998 377 1681 2386 894 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 50 9 0 30 20 21 189 621 631 100 200 197 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1765 0 1681 1676 1615 1681 1676 1698 1681 1676 1604 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.9 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 6.9 21.0 21.1 3.7 5.3 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.9 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 6.9 21.0 21.1 3.7 5.3 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.56 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 360 344 0 44 185 179 238 731 740 125 632 604 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.69 0.11 0.12 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.32 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 978 892 0 159 503 485 411 794 804 133 632 604 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 25.4 20.6 0.0 30.6 25.4 25.4 26.3 16.0 16.0 28.8 14.0 14.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.1 0.1 2.3 8.6 8.7 26.8 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.3 3.4 11.4 11.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.5 20.6 0.0 48.2 25.4 25.5 28.6 24.6 24.7 55.6 14.4 14.5 LnGrp LOS C C D C C C C C E B B Approach Vol,veh/h 59 71 1441 497 Approach Delay,s/veh 24.8 35.1 25.2 22.7 Approach LOS C D C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t2.5 28.9 5.6 16.4 8.7 32.6 11.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1$,.5 20.0 6.0 32.0 5.0 30.0 19.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1�,9; 7.5 3.1 2.3 5.7 23.1 2.9 2.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 9.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 30 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Diaz Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) t ) tt r )) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 80 20 735 440 350 30 383 428 190 32 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 80 20 735 440 350 30 383 428 190 32 20 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 10 80 4 735 440 203 30 383 207 190 32 6 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 7 646 32 846 1016 464 43 712 749 268 762 139 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.43 0.42 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.25 0.24 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3432 170 3442 2361 1079 1774 3539 1579 3442 2991 545 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 10 41 43 735 329 314 30 383 207 190 19 19 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1833 1721 1770 1670 1774 1770 1579 1721 1770 1767 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.2 1.1 1.1 11.4 7.3 7.4 0.9 5.4 4.4 3.0 0.4 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.2 1.1 1.1 11.4 7.3 7.4 0.9 5.4 4.4 3.0 0.4 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 7 333 345 846 761 719 43 712 749 268 451 450 V/C Ratio(X) 1.44 0.12 0.12 0.87 0.43 0.44 0.69 0.54 0.28 0.71 0.04 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 223 508 526 987 793 749 223 1587 1139 432 793 792 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 27.8 18.8 18.8 20.2 11.1 11.3 27.0 20.0 8.9 25.1 15.7 15.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 253.7 0.2 0.2 6.7 0.6 0.6 7.2 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 72.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.6 0.5 0.6 6.2 3.6 3.5 0.5 2.7 2.0 1.5 0.2 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 353.5 19.0 19.1 26.9 11.7 11.9 34.2 20.6 9.1 26.4 15.7 15.8 LnGrp LOS F B B C B B C C A C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 94 1378 620 228 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.6 19.8 17.4 24.6 Approach LOS D B B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),$7.7 14.5 5.4 18.2 4.2 28.0 8.3 15.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalo,.S 15.5 7.5 24.0 7.5 24.5 7.5 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,4; 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.2 9.4 5.0 7.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.8 3.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.9 0.1 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 31 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: Jefferson Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf'* )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 468 50 830 1145 490 140 710 410 310 720 390 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 468 50 830 1145 490 140 710 410 310 720 390 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 468 34 830 1145 350 140 710 342 310 720 251 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 299 1646 117 741 1342 596 191 867 549 312 992 441 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6149 438 3442 3539 1572 3442 3539 1570 3442 3539 1573 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 364 138 830 1145 350 140 710 342 310 720 251 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1781 1721 1770 1572 1721 1770 1570 1721 1770 1573 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.0 5.3 5.5 19.0 26.2 11.4 3.5 16.7 3.9 7.9 16.2 12.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.0 5.3 5.5 19.0 26.2 11.4 3.5 16.7 3.9 7.9 16.2 12.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 299 1287 477 741 1342 596 191 867 549 312 992 441 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.28 0.29 1.12 0.85 0.59 0.73 0.82 0.62 0.99 0.73 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 312 1307 484 741 1404 623 273 922 574 312 992 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 39.5 25.6 25.8 34.6 25.1 11.6 41.0 31.5 11.0 40.1 28.7 27.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.0 0.1 0.2 71.2 5.4 1.7 2.6 6.0 2.4 49.1 2.3 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.4 2.3 2.7 16.3 13.7 5.4 1.7 8.9 6.5 5.9 8.2 5.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.5 25.7 26.0 105.9 30.5 13.3 43.7 37.4 13.3 89.2 31.0 28.3 LnGrp LOS D C C F C B D D B F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 742 2325 1192 1281 Approach Delay,s/veh 34.4 54.8 31.2 44.6 Approach LOS C D C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s8.9 28.7 23.0 27.6 12.0 25.6 13.2 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 *5 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 23.0 19.5 23.0 8.5 22.0 8.5 *34 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l15,,% 18.2 21.0 7.5 9.9 18.7 8.0 28.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.9 0.2 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 32 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 22: 1-15 SIB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations PH r tttt r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 888 220 0 1485 1170 0 0 0 1180 0 930 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 888 220 0 1485 1170 0 0 0 1180 0 930 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 888 120 0 1485 0 1180 0 892 Adj No.of Lanes 0 4 1 0 4 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3204 792 0 3204 792 1301 0 1161 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 6669 1583 0 6669 1583 3548 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 888 120 0 1485 0 1180 0 892 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1602 1583 0 1602 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 4.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 14.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 4.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 14.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3204 792 0 3204 792 1301 0 1161 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.28 0.15 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3204 792 0 3204 792 1301 0 1161 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.69 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 8.7 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 16.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 10.7 0.0 4.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 7.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.9 8.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 28.8 0.0 21.7 LnGrp LOS A A A C C Approach Vol,veh/h 1008 1485 2072 Approach Delay,s/veh 8.8 0.3 25.7 Approach LOS A A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 34.0 26.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 28.0 21.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 6.8 20.9 2.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 8.5 0.1 9.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 34 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 23: 1-15 NB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations PH rr tttt rr Vii r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1737 430 0 2165 560 440 0 950 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1737 430 0 2165 560 440 0 950 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1737 0 0 2165 295 293 0 1071 Adj No.of Lanes 0 4 2 0 4 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3133 1363 0 3133 1363 670 0 1193 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.38 0.00 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 6669 2787 0 6669 2787 1774 0 3159 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1737 0 0 2165 295 293 0 1071 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1602 1393 0 1602 1393 1774 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.6 3.6 7.4 0.0 19.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.6 3.6 7.4 0.0 19.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3133 1363 0 3133 1363 670 0 1193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.22 0.44 0.00 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3133 1363 0 3133 1363 680 0 1211 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 11.8 8.8 13.9 0.0 17.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 8.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 1.4 3.6 0.0 9.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 12.2 8.9 14.1 0.0 26.3 LnGrp LOS A B A B C Approach Vol,veh/h 1737 2460 1364 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.9 11.8 23.7 Approach LOS A B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 33.3 33.3 26.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 27.0 27.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.8 17.6 21.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 17.8 8.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 36 BO+P AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Ynez Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --I. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) PH r )) f f tT+ ))) tt r )) t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 400 1617 670 340 1905 140 380 550 260 120 630 480 Future Volume(veh/h) 400 1617 670 340 1905 140 380 550 260 120 630 480 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 400 1617 531 340 1905 130 380 550 92 120 795 370 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 437 2377 587 336 2109 144 477 1146 512 182 1006 426 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.34 0.32 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6408 1583 3442 6173 421 5003 3539 1580 3548 3725 1576 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 400 1617 531 340 1483 552 380 550 92 120 795 370 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1583 1721 1602 1788 1668 1770 1580 1774 1863 1576 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.8 21.7 21.0 10.0 30.1 30.1 7.6 12.7 4.3 3.4 20.3 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.8 21.7 21.0 10.0 30.1 30.1 7.6 12.7 4.3 3.4 20.3 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 437 2377 587 336 1642 611 477 1146 512 182 1006 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.68 0.90 1.01 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.48 0.18 0.66 0.79 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 437 2377 587 336 1642 611 488 1175 525 242 1128 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 44.2 27.1 12.7 46.2 32.1 32.3 45.4 27.7 24.9 47.7 34.7 17.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 23.4 0.9 17.7 52.1 7.5 17.1 8.0 0.1 0.1 1.5 3.8 15.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr7.0 9.7 12.2 7.1 14.5 17.8 3.9 6.2 1.9 1.7 10.9 9.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.6 28.0 30.5 98.4 39.6 49.4 53.4 27.8 24.9 49.2 38.5 32.5 LnGrp LOS E C C F D D D C C D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 2548 2375 1022 1285 Approach Delay,s/veh 34.7 50.3 37.1 37.8 Approach LOS C D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.0 42.0 14.8 31.7 17.0 39.0 9.2 37.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 5.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1q,.9 36.0 10.0 *30 13.0 33.0 7.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+q,a 23.7 9.6 22.3 13.8 32.1 5.4 14.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 12.0 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 38 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip )) tt tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 80 660 227 413 300 10 179 293 578 680 880 230 Future Volume(veh/h) 80 660 227 413 300 10 179 293 578 680 880 230 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 660 197 413 300 7 179 293 332 680 880 64 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 93 789 235 470 1930 45 197 629 506 688 995 445 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.29 0.27 0.14 0.38 0.36 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 2689 802 3442 5113 119 1774 3539 1583 3442 3539 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 80 434 423 413 198 109 179 293 332 680 880 64 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1721 1721 1695 1842 1774 1770 1583 1721 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.0 20.7 20.8 10.6 3.5 3.5 9.0 6.7 16.0 17.7 21.4 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.0 20.7 20.8 10.6 3.5 3.5 9.0 6.7 16.0 17.7 21.4 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 93 519 505 470 1280 695 197 629 506 688 995 445 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.16 0.16 0.91 0.47 0.66 0.99 0.88 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 177 519 505 535 1280 695 197 629 506 688 995 445 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.3 29.8 30.2 38.1 18.5 18.6 39.5 33.2 26.3 35.9 31.0 24.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.0 12.5 12.9 9.8 0.2 0.3 38.7 0.2 2.4 31.1 9.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 11.8 11.7 5.7 1.7 1.8 6.5 3.3 7.4 11.4 11.7 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3 42.3 43.1 47.9 18.7 18.9 78.3 33.4 28.8 67.0 40.2 24.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D B B E C C E D C Approach Vol,veh/h 937 720 804 1624 Approach Delay,s/veh 43.2 35.5 41.5 50.8 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 16.3 30.4 14.0 29.3 8.7 38.0 22.0 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.7 3.5 *5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 14.5 24.3 10.5 22.7 9.5 29.3 18.5 *16 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 12.6 22.8 11.0 23.4 6.0 5.5 19.7 18.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 220 1578 120 180 893 420 50 310 230 740 280 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 220 1578 120 180 893 420 50 310 230 740 280 10 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 220 1578 112 180 893 0 50 310 120 740 280 3 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 201 2840 201 229 2389 0 116 491 219 688 1079 482 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.46 0.45 0.04 0.31 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6154 437 3442 5253 0 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 220 1232 458 180 893 0 50 310 120 740 280 3 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1785 1721 1695 0 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 22.3 22.4 6.2 16.4 0.0 1.7 9.9 8.5 24.0 7.2 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.0 22.3 22.4 6.2 16.4 0.0 1.7 9.9 8.5 24.0 7.2 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 201 2217 824 229 2389 0 116 491 219 688 1079 482 V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.56 0.56 0.78 0.37 0.00 0.43 0.63 0.55 1.08 0.26 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 201 2217 824 229 2389 0 143 1121 501 688 1681 751 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.91 0.91 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 56.5 23.4 23.5 56.5 27.4 0.0 56.8 48.8 48.2 48.0 31.5 29.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 65.7 0.3 0.9 13.8 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.4 2.1 52.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir5.1 9.9 11.2 3.4 7.7 0.0 0.8 5.0 3.8 16.4 3.5 0.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 122.2 23.7 24.4 70.3 27.8 0.0 57.8 50.1 50.3 100.2 31.6 29.1 LnGrp LOS F C C E C E D D F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 1910 1073 480 1023 Approach Delay,s/veh 35.2 34.9 51.0 81.2 Approach LOS D C D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),28.0 20.6 12.0 59.4 8.1 40.6 11.0 60.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma24,.g 37.0 8.0 33.0 5.0 56.0 7.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,a 11.9 8.2 24.4 3.7 9.2 9.0 18.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.3 0.0 7.7 0.0 3.5 0.0 13.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: 1-15 SIB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W* r )) ttt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2213 335 690 1121 0 0 0 0 1030 0 372 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2213 335 690 1121 0 0 0 0 1030 0 372 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2213 237 690 1121 0 1109 0 170 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2319 657 665 3263 0 1035 0 461 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.64 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5588 1583 3442 5253 0 3548 0 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2213 237 690 1121 0 1109 0 170 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1863 1583 1721 1695 0 1774 0 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 46.7 14.4 23.2 12.2 0.0 35.0 0.0 10.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 46.7 14.4 23.2 12.2 0.0 35.0 0.0 10.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2319 657 665 3263 0 1035 0 461 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.95 0.36 1.04 0.34 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2319 657 665 3263 0 1035 0 461 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.77 0.77 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 42.2 30.5 48.4 9.9 0.0 42.5 0.0 33.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 6.9 0.9 40.5 0.2 0.0 49.3 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 25.5 6.5 14.7 5.7 0.0 24.2 0.0 4.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 49.1 31.4 88.9 10.1 0.0 91.8 0.0 33.9 LnGrp LOS D C F B F C Approach Vol,veh/h 2450 1811 1279 Approach Delay,s/veh 47.4 40.1 84.1 Approach LOS D D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),27.2 53.8 39.0 81.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gma4.6 48.5 33.7 75.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,a 48.7 37.0 14.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-15 NB & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +tt r f f t r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2681 539 0 1599 1130 212 0 1060 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2681 539 0 1599 1130 212 0 1060 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2681 0 0 1541 866 141 0 1110 Adj No.of Lanes 0 3 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3000 934 0 3297 1868 585 0 1045 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.33 0.00 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 5253 1583 0 5588 3167 1774 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2681 0 0 1541 866 141 0 1110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1695 1583 0 1863 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 45.7 0.0 0.0 15.6 15.4 5.8 0.0 33.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 45.7 0.0 0.0 15.6 15.4 5.8 0.0 33.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3000 934 0 3297 1868 585 0 1045 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.46 0.24 0.00 1.06 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3000 934 0 3297 1868 585 0 1045 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 11.6 24.4 0.0 33.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 45.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 8.0 6.8 2.8 0.0 21.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 11.8 11.9 24.5 0.0 79.4 LnGrp LOS B B B C F Approach Vol,veh/h 2681 2407 1251 Approach Delay,s/veh 18.2 11.8 73.2 Approach LOS B B E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 63.0 63.0 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 57.7 57.7 31.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 47.7 17.6 35.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 9.3 32.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) +tt r Vii f f t )) +tt r )) ttt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 811 1921 1010 320 1294 230 630 740 290 230 620 804 Future Volume(veh/h) 811 1921 1010 320 1294 230 630 740 290 230 620 804 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 811 1921 806 320 1294 204 630 740 116 230 620 204 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 4 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 858 2161 673 266 1833 288 516 1076 334 275 720 388 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5628 884 3442 5085 1579 3442 5085 2739 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 811 1921 806 320 1104 394 630 740 116 230 620 204 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1695 1583 1774 1602 1706 1721 1695 1579 1721 1695 1370 Q Serve(g_s),s 27.8 41.9 51.0 18.0 24.1 24.3 18.0 16.1 7.5 7.9 14.3 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 27.8 41.9 51.0 18.0 24.1 24.3 18.0 16.1 7.5 7.9 14.3 8.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 858 2161 673 266 1566 556 516 1076 334 275 720 388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.89 1.20 1.20 0.71 0.71 1.22 0.69 0.35 0.84 0.86 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 918 2161 673 266 1566 556 516 1076 334 315 720 388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.27 0.27 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 44.2 31.9 34.5 51.0 35.4 35.5 51.0 43.6 40.2 54.4 50.3 47.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.1 1.7 93.1 121.3 2.7 7.4 115.7 1.7 0.5 16.9 10.2 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/h.9 19.9 39.6 17.8 11.0 12.6 16.8 7.7 3.3 4.4 7.4 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.3 33.6 127.6 172.3 38.1 42.9 166.7 45.4 40.7 71.3 60.5 48.8 LnGrp LOS D C F F D D F D D E E D Approach Vol,veh/h 3538 1818 1486 1054 Approach Delay,s/veh 58.8 62.8 96.4 60.6 Approach LOS E E F E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),22.0 55.0 22.0 21.0 33.9 43.1 13.6 29.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalo,.S 50.0 18.5 16.0 32.5 36.0 11.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,a 53.0 20.0 16.3 29.8 26.3 9.9 18.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 9.3 0.2 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 67.1 HCM 2010 LOS E Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 BO+P PM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 66.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ) tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 120 101 122 910 1321 178 Future Vol,veh/h 120 101 122 910 1321 178 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 200 - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 120 101 122 910 1321 178 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2109 750 1499 0 - 0 Stage 1 1410 - - - - - Stage 2 699 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —44 354 443 - - Stage 1 191 - - - - Stage 2 454 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —32 354 443 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —32 - - - - Stage 1 191 - - Stage 2 329 - - Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s $819.5 1.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 443 - 32 354 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.275 - 3.75 0.285 - HCM Control Delay(s) 16.2 -$ 1493 19.2 - HCM Lane LOS C - F C - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 14.2 1.2 - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Western Bypass & A Street 03/30/2017 -*--- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r ti� t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 2 0 1 95 0 166 2 864 47 259 1160 4 Future Volume(veh/h) 2 0 1 95 0 166 2 864 47 259 1160 4 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 2 0 -1 95 0 135 2 864 29 259 1160 4 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 395 381 0 335 0 468 4 1374 46 320 2068 7 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow,veh/h 975 2333 -1654 1412 0 1500 1681 3310 111 1681 3427 12 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 0 95 0 135 2 438 455 259 567 597 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 0 1412 0 1500 1681 1676 1745 1681 1676 1763 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 9.1 9.1 6.5 8.9 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 9.1 9.1 6.5 8.9 8.9 Prop In Lane 2.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 0 335 0 468 4 696 724 320 1011 1063 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.29 0.52 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.56 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 0 678 0 832 153 764 795 459 1069 1124 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 11.4 21.9 10.2 10.2 17.0 5.2 5.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 80.8 1.4 1.4 7.0 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 4.4 4.6 3.6 4.1 4.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 11.8 102.7 11.6 11.5 24.0 5.8 5.8 LnGrp LOS B B F B B C A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 230 895 1423 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 14.6 11.8 9.1 Approach LOS B B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.4 22.2 9.3 4.1 30.5 9.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 20.0 16.0 4.0 28.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 8.5 11.1 0.0 2.1 10.9 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Project Rd & Western Bypass 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + Vii t Vii t r Vii Traffic Volume(veh/h) 57 829 40 81 772 281 29 18 68 190 19 182 Future Volume(veh/h) 57 829 40 81 772 281 29 18 68 190 19 182 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 57 829 23 81 772 255 29 18 -34 190 19 114 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 256 1564 43 320 1163 384 490 615 523 614 76 458 Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow,veh/h 547 3332 92 645 2478 818 1252 1765 1500 1412 219 1314 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 57 417 435 81 522 505 29 18 -34 190 0 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 547 1676 1748 645 1676 1620 1252 1765 1500 1412 0 1533 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.9 9.7 9.7 5.6 13.2 13.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 5.6 0.0 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.1 9.7 9.7 15.2 13.2 13.2 4.3 0.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 256 787 821 320 787 761 490 615 523 614 0 535 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.53 0.53 0.25 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.03 -0.07 0.31 0.00 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 268 823 858 334 823 795 490 615 523 614 0 535 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.43 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 18.2 10.3 10.3 15.7 11.2 11.2 14.3 11.8 0.0 13.8 0.0 12.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.8 4.5 4.7 1.0 6.1 5.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.7 10.9 10.9 15.9 12.1 12.1 14.5 11.9 0.0 15.1 0.0 13.9 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B B B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 909 1108 13 323 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.4 12.4 48.9 14.6 Approach LOS B B D B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 24.2 30.8 24.2 30.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.0 27.0 18.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 6.3 20.1 8.0 17.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.2 5.7 1.1 7.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: 1-15 SB/Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) tt r Vii + r Vii t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 20 560 507 240 1026 150 88 30 1320 310 320 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 20 560 507 240 1026 150 88 30 1320 310 320 20 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 20 560 381 240 1026 50 88 30 0 310 320 20 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 537 1102 750 299 1118 475 84 138 58 322 579 36 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.58 0.56 0.03 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1908 1298 3261 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 1681 3206 199 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 20 492 449 240 1026 50 88 30 0 310 167 173 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 1676 1529 1630 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 1681 1676 1729 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.0 21.1 21.5 8.8 36.4 2.4 6.0 1.0 0.0 21.9 10.9 11.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.0 21.1 21.5 8.8 36.4 2.4 6.0 1.0 0.0 21.9 10.9 11.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 537 968 883 299 1118 475 84 138 58 322 303 312 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.80 0.92 0.11 1.05 0.22 0.00 0.96 0.55 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 537 968 883 299 1118 475 84 1206 513 322 820 846 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 28.1 15.1 15.8 57.1 51.8 17.2 57.0 55.9 0.0 48.1 44.7 44.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.6 1.7 13.4 12.3 0.4 111.6 0.8 0.0 40.0 1.6 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.5 10.1 9.4 4.5 18.8 1.1 5.4 0.5 0.0 13.7 5.2 5.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.2 16.7 17.5 70.5 64.1 17.7 169.6 56.7 0.0 88.1 46.3 46.3 LnGrp LOS C B B E E B F E F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 961 1316 118 650 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.3 63.5 140.9 66.2 Approach LOS B E F E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t5.0 73.3 10.0 21.7 44.3 44.0 21.0 10.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 4.0 *6 6.0 *6 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmalq,.g 31.0 6.0 *53 4.0 *38 17.0 41.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,8; 23.5 8.0 13.0 3.0 38.4 23.9 3.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) +tt ttt r Vii 4 W Traffic Volume(veh/h) 133 2057 0 0 926 900 491 0 990 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 133 2057 0 0 926 900 491 0 990 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 133 2057 0 0 926 0 491 0 990 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 0 3 1 2 0 3 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 190 2956 0 0 2394 745 1067 0 1428 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4976 0 0 4976 1500 3361 0 4500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 133 2057 0 0 926 0 491 0 990 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 1606 0 0 1606 1500 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.8 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 14.0 0.0 23.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.8 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 14.0 0.0 23.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 190 2956 0 0 2394 745 1067 0 1428 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 190 2956 0 0 2394 745 1336 0 1789 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 56.6 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 32.7 0.0 35.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.2 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.5 0.0 9.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.7 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 33.2 0.0 36.9 LnGrp LOS E C A C D Approach Vol,veh/h 2190 926 1481 Approach Delay,s/veh 28.1 0.4 35.7 Approach LOS C A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 77.6 11.0 66.6 42.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 59.0 6.0 *51 46.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 44.3 6.8 2.2 25.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 8.4 0.0 13.1 12.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 --I. -*--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) f tf ) f f t ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 295 2752 30 30 1693 330 30 10 20 320 20 102 Future Volume(veh/h) 295 2752 30 30 1693 330 30 10 20 320 20 102 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 295 2752 29 30 1693 302 30 10 6 320 20 28 Adj No.of Lanes 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 313 3663 39 39 2216 395 352 115 63 539 569 509 Arrive On Green 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 6587 69 1774 5512 983 955 363 198 1469 1770 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 295 2007 774 30 1476 519 46 0 0 320 20 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1602 1850 1774 1602 1689 1515 0 0 1469 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 19.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 35.6 35.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.9 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 19.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 35.6 35.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.9 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.58 0.65 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 313 2673 1029 39 1932 679 529 0 0 539 569 509 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.04 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 399 2673 1029 103 1932 679 529 0 0 539 569 509 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 38.3 0.0 0.0 59.2 46.5 46.7 28.9 0.0 0.0 34.8 27.9 28.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.5 1.1 2.8 9.3 2.5 6.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/tW.8 0.3 0.8 1.1 16.3 18.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.5 0.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.8 1.1 2.8 68.6 49.1 53.6 29.2 0.0 0.0 39.6 28.0 28.3 LnGrp LOS D A A E D D C D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 3076 2025 46 368 Approach Delay,s/veh 6.7 50.5 29.2 38.1 Approach LOS A D C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.7 70.7 42.6 25.2 52.2 42.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 *4.6 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 61.0 37.4 27.5 41.0 *38 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,a 2.0 23.9 21.4 37.6 4.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 56.8 0.9 0.3 3.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway 03/30/2017 Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A PH rr )) ttt ))) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2036 975 350 1166 887 510 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2036 975 350 1166 887 510 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 2036 912 350 1166 887 510 Adj No.of Lanes 4 2 2 3 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 2997 2074 403 3135 1339 627 Arrive On Green 0.99 0.99 0.12 0.65 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 6318 2640 3261 4976 4739 1500 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 2036 912 350 1166 887 510 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1518 1320 1630 1606 1580 1500 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.5 0.7 12.6 13.4 19.8 33.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.5 0.7 12.6 13.4 19.8 33.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2997 2074 403 3135 1339 627 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.44 0.87 0.37 0.66 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2997 2074 761 3135 1339 627 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.55 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.95 0.95 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.4 0.1 51.6 9.7 38.0 30.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.3 8.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 0.3 5.8 5.9 8.8 16.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.1 0.4 52.9 9.8 39.3 38.9 LnGrp LOS A A D A D D Approach Vol,veh/h 2948 1516 1397 Approach Delay,s/veh 0.9 19.8 39.1 Approach LOS A B D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t8.8 63.3 82.1 37.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 6.0 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gma4,.S 44.1 67.6 33.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+1M,6,� 3.5 15.4 35.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.7 38.4 48.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 18 BO+P PM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Rainbow Canyon & Pechanga Parkway 03/30/2017 --I- 4--- Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r ) ttt rr Traffic Volume(vph) 0 1225 20 60 1147 250 120 Future Volume(vph) 0 1225 20 60 1147 250 120 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4818 1500 1676 4818 3252 2602 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4818 1500 1676 4818 3252 2602 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1225 20 60 1147 250 120 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 4 0 0 0 103 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1225 16 60 1147 250 17 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green,G(s) 77.6 77.6 12.0 93.1 16.9 16.9 Effective Green,g(s) 79.1 77.6 11.5 94.6 17.4 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.10 0.79 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 3175 970 160 3798 471 377 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 c0.04 0.24 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.02 0.38 0.30 0.53 0.05 Uniform Delay,d1 9.3 7.6 50.9 3.5 47.5 44.2 Progression Factor 0.49 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.1 Delay(s) 4.9 3.5 51.4 3.7 48.7 44.2 Level of Service A A D A D D Approach Delay(s) 4.9 6.1 47.2 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary BO + P PM 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) tt )) tt tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 510 1315 300 740 707 270 300 940 330 380 1110 200 Future Volume(veh/h) 510 1315 300 740 707 270 300 940 330 380 1110 200 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 510 1315 269 740 707 220 300 940 127 380 1110 136 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 571 1257 257 593 1169 359 247 937 419 346 1029 459 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.31 0.30 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4007 819 3261 3651 1121 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1496 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 510 1054 530 740 621 306 300 940 127 380 1110 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1630 1606 1614 1630 1606 1560 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1496 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.2 41.4 41.4 24.0 21.5 22.1 10.0 36.9 8.8 14.0 40.5 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.2 41.4 41.4 24.0 21.5 22.1 10.0 36.9 8.8 14.0 40.5 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 571 1007 506 593 1029 500 247 937 419 346 1029 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 1.05 1.05 1.25 0.60 0.61 1.21 1.00 0.30 1.10 1.08 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 692 1007 506 593 1029 500 247 937 419 346 1029 459 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 53.2 45.3 45.8 54.0 37.8 38.6 61.0 47.6 37.4 59.0 45.8 34.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.8 41.2 52.8 125.3 1.2 2.6 127.7 30.1 0.3 77.6 51.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.0 24.1 25.9 21.1 9.7 9.9 8.9 21.0 3.7 10.0 26.1 3.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.0 86.5 98.6 179.3 39.0 41.2 188.7 77.6 37.7 136.6 97.7 35.1 LnGrp LOS E F F F D D F F D F F D Approach Vol,veh/h 2094 1667 1367 1626 Approach Delay,s/veh 84.4 101.7 98.3 101.5 Approach LOS F F F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.0 45.4 14.0 44.6 27.1 46.3 18.0 40.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 24.0 39.4 10.0 *40 28.0 35.4 14.0 34.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 26.0 43.4 12.0 42.5 22.2 24.1 16.0 38.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 9.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 95.5 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P PM HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 297 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 180 375 170 190 287 180 80 120 90 80 90 20 Future Vol,veh/h 180 375 170 190 287 180 80 120 90 80 90 20 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 - 105 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 180 375 170 190 287 180 80 120 90 80 90 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 729 630 100 773 595 165 110 0 0 210 0 0 Stage 1 260 260 - 325 325 - - - - - - - Stage 2 469 370 - 448 270 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 338 399 956 316 417 879 1480 - 1361 - Stage 1 745 693 - 687 649 - - - - Stage 2 575 620 - 590 686 - - - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —89 —352 956 - 368 879 1480 1361 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —89 —352 - - 368 - - - - Stage 1 699 652 644 609 - Stage 2 227 582 194 646 - Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s $761 2.1 3.3 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1480 - 180 956 - 879 1361 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - 3.083 0.178 - 0.205 0.059 - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.6 0 $991.2 9.6 - 10.1 7.8 - HCM Lane LOS A A F A - B A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 51 0.6 - 0.8 0.2 - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 24 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 16: Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road 03/30/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t t r t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 60 405 300 70 387 130 200 300 220 200 220 30 Future Volume(veh/h) 60 405 300 70 387 130 200 300 220 200 220 30 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 60 405 87 70 387 88 200 300 55 200 220 13 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 135 519 440 135 799 180 395 389 330 248 428 25 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1497 1681 2719 612 1681 1765 1496 1681 3218 189 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 60 405 87 70 237 238 200 300 55 200 114 119 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1497 1681 1676 1654 1681 1765 1496 1681 1676 1730 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.1 13.1 1.3 2.5 7.2 7.4 6.4 9.9 1.4 7.1 3.9 4.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.1 13.1 1.3 2.5 7.2 7.4 6.4 9.9 1.4 7.1 3.9 4.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 135 519 440 135 493 486 395 389 330 248 223 230 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.78 0.20 0.52 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.77 0.17 0.81 0.51 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 149 597 506 149 567 560 395 654 554 257 621 641 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 27.2 20.1 3.9 27.4 18.0 18.1 20.6 22.7 10.5 25.6 25.0 25.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 6.1 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.4 3.9 0.3 15.2 2.2 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 7.2 1.0 1.2 3.4 3.5 3.0 5.3 0.7 4.4 1.9 2.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 26.2 4.1 28.5 18.9 19.0 21.1 26.7 10.8 40.8 27.2 27.2 LnGrp LOS C C A C B B C C B D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 552 545 555 433 Approach Delay,s/veh 22.9 20.2 23.1 33.5 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 22.8 12.7 18.2 8.5 22.8 18.1 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 21.0 9.5 23.0 5.5 21.0 9.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 4.1 9.4 9.1 11.9 4.5 15.1 8.4 6.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.1 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 25 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *T* Vii + ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 410 55 360 10 87 150 190 700 20 120 580 310 Future Volume(veh/h) 410 55 360 10 87 150 190 700 20 120 580 310 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 410 55 215 10 87 17 190 700 18 120 580 235 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 396 74 290 30 265 53 227 1213 31 159 752 304 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 315 1230 292 2602 525 1681 3340 86 1681 2330 942 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 410 0 270 60 0 54 190 351 367 120 417 398 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681 0 1544 1750 0 1668 1681 1676 1750 1681 1676 1596 Q Serve(g_s),s 19.0 0.0 13.1 2.6 0.0 2.4 8.9 13.6 13.6 5.6 18.1 18.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 19.0 0.0 13.1 2.6 0.0 2.4 8.9 13.6 13.6 5.6 18.1 18.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.80 0.17 0.31 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.59 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 396 0 364 178 0 170 227 609 635 159 541 515 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.00 0.74 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.84 0.58 0.58 0.75 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 396 0 364 369 0 352 240 609 635 198 541 515 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 30.8 0.0 28.5 33.7 0.0 33.6 34.0 20.7 20.7 35.6 24.6 24.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 54.6 0.0 8.5 1.1 0.0 1.1 20.5 3.9 3.8 8.8 10.2 10.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/54.7 0.0 6.4 1.3 0.0 1.2 5.4 6.9 7.2 3.0 9.9 9.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.4 0.0 37.0 34.8 0.0 34.7 54.5 24.6 24.5 44.4 34.8 35.4 LnGrp LOS F D C C D C C D C D Approach Vol,veh/h 680 114 908 935 Approach Delay,s/veh 66.2 34.7 30.8 36.3 Approach LOS E C C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.4 31.0 12.2 11.1 34.3 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmat),.S 26.0 17.0 9.5 28.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,9; 20.1 4.6 7.6 15.6 21.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.6 0.4 0.0 8.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 26 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 480 120 30 430 239 40 16 110 377 120 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 480 120 30 430 239 40 16 110 377 120 20 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 10 480 107 30 430 203 40 16 7 377 120 13 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 14 1614 358 39 1346 629 47 72 31 401 426 46 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.56 0.55 0.02 0.57 0.57 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 2881 639 1774 2342 1095 1774 1230 538 1774 1652 179 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 10 294 293 30 324 309 40 0 23 377 0 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1750 1774 1770 1667 1774 0 1768 1774 0 1831 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.7 10.5 10.7 2.0 11.4 11.6 2.7 0.0 1.5 25.1 0.0 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.7 10.5 10.7 2.0 11.4 11.6 2.7 0.0 1.5 25.1 0.0 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 14 991 980 39 1017 958 47 0 103 401 0 472 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.30 0.30 0.76 0.32 0.32 0.85 0.00 0.22 0.94 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 74 991 980 89 1017 958 103 0 265 621 0 809 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 59.4 13.9 14.1 58.4 13.3 13.3 58.2 0.0 53.9 45.6 0.0 35.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 24.7 0.8 0.8 9.8 0.7 0.8 14.3 0.0 0.4 13.2 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.4 5.4 5.4 1.1 5.8 5.5 1.5 0.0 0.7 13.7 0.0 3.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.1 14.7 14.9 68.1 14.0 14.1 72.5 0.0 54.3 58.8 0.0 35.8 LnGrp LOS F B B E B B E D E D Approach Vol,veh/h 597 663 63 510 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.0 16.5 65.9 52.8 Approach LOS B B E D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s6.7 71.2 7.2 34.9 4.9 73.0 31.1 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.7 3.5 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxo,.S 36.3 7.5 53.0 5.5 37.3 42.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,a 12.7 4.7 9.0 2.7 13.6 27.1 3.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 7.9 0.6 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 27 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Diaz Road & Rancho Way 03/30/2017 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '* ) tt ) tt ) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 170 50 127 90 40 120 65 488 40 40 1193 90 Future Volume(veh/h) 170 50 127 90 40 120 65 488 40 40 1193 90 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 170 50 12 90 40 17 65 488 35 40 1193 85 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 358 208 50 114 257 103 132 1531 110 54 1409 100 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.48 0.48 0.03 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 1375 330 1681 2340 936 1681 3174 227 1681 3175 226 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 170 0 62 90 28 29 65 257 266 40 629 649 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl630 0 1705 1681 1676 1600 1681 1676 1725 1681 1676 1724 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.1 0.0 2.0 3.4 1.0 1.1 2.4 6.0 6.0 1.5 21.3 21.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.1 0.0 2.0 3.4 1.0 1.1 2.4 6.0 6.0 1.5 21.3 21.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.13 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 358 0 258 114 184 175 132 809 832 54 744 765 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.24 0.79 0.15 0.17 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.75 0.85 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 971 0 748 263 499 476 145 809 832 158 788 811 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 26.7 0.0 23.8 29.3 25.7 25.8 28.2 10.1 10.1 30.6 15.8 15.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.5 11.4 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.3 18.5 8.5 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ld.4 0.0 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.5 1.1 2.8 2.9 1.0 11.6 11.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.1 0.0 24.3 40.7 25.9 25.9 29.3 10.4 10.4 49.2 24.3 24.3 LnGrp LOS C C D C C C B B D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 232 147 588 1318 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.3 34.9 12.5 25.1 Approach LOS C C B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s8.5 33.3 8.3 13.7 6.0 35.8 11.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax$,.S 30.0 10.0 28.0 6.0 29.0 19.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1 ,Ao 23.4 5.4 4.0 3.5 8.0 5.1 3.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.9 0.1 0.5 0.0 14.8 0.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 28 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Diaz Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) + )) t ) tt r )) t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 30 430 70 401 120 220 20 145 733 400 672 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 30 430 70 401 120 220 20 145 733 400 672 10 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 30 430 54 401 120 93 20 145 693 400 672 9 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 43 600 75 488 604 433 28 1233 808 336 1537 21 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.31 0.30 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.43 0.42 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3167 396 3442 1968 1412 1774 3539 1581 3442 3576 48 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 30 239 245 401 107 106 20 145 693 400 332 349 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl774 1770 1793 1721 1770 1610 1774 1770 1581 1721 1770 1854 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.2 9.1 9.2 8.1 3.2 3.5 0.8 2.0 25.0 7.0 9.5 9.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.2 9.1 9.2 8.1 3.2 3.5 0.8 2.0 25.0 7.0 9.5 9.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 43 335 340 488 543 494 28 1233 808 336 761 797 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.71 0.72 0.82 0.20 0.21 0.71 0.12 0.86 1.19 0.44 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 173 419 425 719 616 561 173 1233 808 336 761 797 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 34.7 27.3 27.4 29.9 18.4 18.6 35.1 15.9 15.3 32.4 14.4 14.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.2 5.2 5.4 3.0 0.3 0.3 11.4 0.0 9.1 111.9 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.7 4.9 5.1 4.0 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.0 13.8 8.5 4.7 4.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.9 32.5 32.8 33.0 18.6 18.9 46.5 15.9 24.4 144.3 14.8 14.8 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B D B C F B B Approach Vol,veh/h 514 614 858 1081 Approach Delay,s/veh 33.2 28.0 23.5 62.7 Approach LOS C C C E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t4.2 17.6 5.1 34.9 5.8 26.0 11.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmai$,..5 16.5 7.5 24.0 7.5 24.5 7.5 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+M,t 11.2 2.8 11.5 3.2 5.5 9.0 27.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.6 1.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.8 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 29 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: Jefferson Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f tf )) tt r )) tt r )) tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 660 1043 80 340 461 450 50 760 390 590 900 240 Future Volume(veh/h) 660 1043 80 340 461 450 50 760 390 590 900 240 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 660 1043 70 340 461 204 50 760 175 590 900 120 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 714 1313 88 754 838 371 102 838 372 639 1391 619 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6179 412 3442 3539 1565 3442 3539 1569 3442 3539 1576 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 660 810 303 340 461 204 50 760 175 590 900 120 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1785 1721 1770 1565 1721 1770 1569 1721 1770 1576 Q Serve(g_s),s 22.6 19.2 19.3 11.4 15.1 15.1 1.7 25.0 11.5 20.2 24.8 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 22.6 19.2 19.3 11.4 15.1 15.1 1.7 25.0 11.5 20.2 24.8 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 714 1021 379 754 838 371 102 838 372 639 1391 619 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.79 0.80 0.45 0.55 0.55 0.49 0.91 0.47 0.92 0.65 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 774 1322 491 754 838 371 201 855 379 688 1391 619 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 46.6 44.7 44.9 48.7 49.2 49.2 57.3 44.5 39.3 48.0 29.6 5.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.7 2.7 7.1 0.3 2.5 5.6 1.1 11.2 1.1 17.1 0.8 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/H.5 8.7 10.3 5.5 7.7 7.1 0.8 13.5 5.1 11.1 12.3 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 47.4 52.1 49.0 51.7 54.7 58.4 55.7 40.4 65.1 30.5 5.6 LnGrp LOS D D D D D D E E D E C A Approach Vol,veh/h 1773 1005 985 1610 Approach Delay,s/veh 50.8 51.4 53.1 41.3 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s7.6 51.2 31.8 29.5 26.3 32.4 28.9 32.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 5.0 *5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmaxj,.S 45.0 18.5 *32 24.5 28.0 27.5 23.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+Iq,t 26.8 13.4 21.3 22.2 27.0 24.6 17.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 9.1 2.5 3.2 0.6 0.4 0.8 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 30 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 22: 1-15 SIB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations PH r tttt r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 1743 270 0 784 810 0 0 0 1350 0 466 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 1743 270 0 784 810 0 0 0 1350 0 466 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 1743 117 0 784 0 1350 0 358 Adj No.of Lanes 0 4 1 0 4 1 2 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 2563 633 0 2563 633 1656 0 1478 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.47 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 6669 1583 0 6669 1583 3548 0 3167 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 1743 117 0 784 0 1350 0 358 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1602 1583 0 1602 1583 1774 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 15.6 3.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 19.7 0.0 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 15.6 3.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 19.7 0.0 4.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 2563 633 0 2563 633 1656 0 1478 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.68 0.18 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 2563 633 0 2563 633 1656 0 1478 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 22.4 17.3 0.0 6.5 0.0 13.8 0.0 9.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 7.1 1.8 0.0 1.3 0.0 10.6 0.0 1.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 23.2 17.7 0.0 6.8 0.0 18.3 0.0 10.0 LnGrp LOS C B A B B Approach Vol,veh/h 1860 784 1708 Approach Delay,s/veh 22.9 6.8 16.6 Approach LOS C A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.0 32.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 27.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 17.6 21.7 5.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 3.3 3.0 8.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 32 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 23: 1-15 NB & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 -11 --1. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations PH rr tttt rr r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 2351 770 0 1494 1240 100 0 1090 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 2351 770 0 1494 1240 100 0 1090 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 2351 0 0 1494 599 67 0 1058 Adj No.of Lanes 0 4 2 0 4 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 3154 1372 0 3154 1372 664 0 1183 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.37 0.00 0.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 6669 2787 0 6669 2787 1774 0 3159 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 2351 0 0 1494 599 67 0 1058 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1602 1393 0 1602 1393 1774 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.3 8.3 1.5 0.0 18.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.3 8.3 1.5 0.0 18.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 3154 1372 0 3154 1372 664 0 1183 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.44 0.10 0.00 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 3154 1372 0 3154 1372 680 0 1211 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.1 9.9 12.2 0.0 17.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 3.2 0.7 0.0 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.2 12.2 0.0 26.0 LnGrp LOS A B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 2351 2093 1125 Approach Delay,s/veh 1.2 10.2 25.2 Approach LOS A B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 33.5 33.5 26.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 27.0 27.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.3 11.3 20.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 18.5 13.2 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.5 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 34 BO+P PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Ynez Road & Winchester Road 03/30/2017 --I. -+-- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) PH r )) f f tT+ ))) tt r )) t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 450 2171 830 510 1604 110 780 990 430 160 900 330 Future Volume(veh/h) 450 2171 830 510 1604 110 780 990 430 160 900 330 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 450 2171 635 510 1604 102 780 990 243 160 900 330 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 506 4078 1008 430 3812 242 667 1091 487 207 838 354 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.61 0.60 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6408 1583 3442 6205 394 5003 3539 1580 3548 3725 1575 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 450 2171 635 510 1242 464 780 990 243 160 900 330 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl721 1602 1583 1721 1602 1793 1668 1770 1580 1774 1863 1575 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.4 22.4 30.8 15.0 16.1 16.3 16.0 32.2 15.1 5.3 27.0 25.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.4 22.4 30.8 15.0 16.1 16.3 16.0 32.2 15.1 5.3 27.0 25.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 506 4078 1008 430 2953 1102 667 1091 487 207 838 354 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.53 0.63 1.19 0.42 0.42 1.17 0.91 0.50 0.77 1.07 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 545 4078 1008 430 2953 1102 667 1091 487 207 838 354 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 50.2 12.0 14.7 52.5 12.0 12.2 52.0 39.9 33.9 55.7 46.5 49.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.6 0.3 1.6 104.8 0.4 1.2 91.7 10.7 0.3 15.0 52.8 31.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr7.9 9.9 13.8 13.4 7.3 8.4 13.0 17.3 6.6 3.1 20.0 14.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.9 12.3 16.3 157.3 12.5 13.4 143.7 50.5 34.2 70.8 99.3 80.4 LnGrp LOS E B B F B B F D C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 3256 2216 2013 1390 Approach Delay,s/veh 19.5 46.0 84.6 91.5 Approach LOS B D F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),t9.0 81.3 21.0 31.0 21.6 78.6 11.0 41.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 5.0 *5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gma1$,.9 44.0 16.0 *26 19.0 40.0 7.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+q,a 32.8 18.0 29.0 17.4 18.3 7.3 34.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 21.4 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 36 APPENDIX E: MITIGATION LOS REPORTS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P Miti AM 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/28/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f f f tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 115 549 46 286 1171 388 87 111 101 189 150 169 Future Volume(veh/h) 115 549 46 286 1171 388 87 111 101 189 150 169 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 631 46 329 1346 0 100 128 1 217 172 60 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 142 3823 275 375 2439 1091 144 249 112 281 414 185 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.62 0.61 0.11 0.69 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6148 442 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1579 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 491 186 329 1346 0 100 128 1 217 172 60 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1602 1784 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1579 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.5 6.2 6.4 13.7 27.7 0.0 4.2 5.1 0.1 9.0 6.5 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.5 6.2 6.4 13.7 27.7 0.0 4.2 5.1 0.1 9.0 6.5 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 142 2988 1109 375 2439 1091 144 249 112 281 414 185 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.16 0.17 0.88 0.55 0.00 0.69 0.51 0.01 0.77 0.42 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 142 2988 1109 404 2439 1091 190 928 415 807 1587 708 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 69.3 11.6 11.6 63.7 11.3 0.0 68.5 65.0 62.7 65.3 59.4 58.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 49.0 0.1 0.3 13.4 0.7 0.0 3.5 1.6 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 2.8 3.2 7.2 13.7 0.0 2.1 2.5 0.0 4.4 3.2 2.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 118.3 11.7 11.9 77.0 12.0 0.0 72.1 66.6 62.7 68.1 59.8 59.4 LnGrp LOS F B B E B E E E E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 809 1675 229 449 Approach Delay,s/veh 29.1 24.7 69.0 63.8 Approach LOS C C E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 16.8 14.2 19.8 94.2 10.1 21.0 10.0 103.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 34.0 37.0 17.0 38.0 8.0 64.0 6.0 49.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 11.0 7.1 15.7 8.4 6.2 8.5 7.5 29.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 1.6 0.1 18.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 13.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P Miti AM 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/29/2017 -*--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) ttt r ) ttt r tt r tt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 476 923 427 123 1259 167 633 499 123 111 291 307 Future Volume(veh/h) 476 923 427 123 1259 167 633 499 123 111 291 307 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 496 961 379 128 1311 53 659 520 28 116 303 250 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 405 1956 954 151 1789 556 688 843 376 358 504 767 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5085 1582 3442 3539 1579 3442 3539 2740 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 496 961 379 128 1311 53 659 520 28 116 303 250 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1695 1583 1774 1695 1582 1721 1770 1579 1721 1770 1370 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.0 12.2 10.6 6.0 19.1 1.9 16.1 11.2 1.2 2.7 6.8 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.0 12.2 10.6 6.0 19.1 1.9 16.1 11.2 1.2 2.7 6.8 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 405 1956 954 151 1789 556 688 843 376 358 504 767 V/C Ratio(X) 1.22 0.49 0.40 0.85 0.73 0.10 0.96 0.62 0.07 0.32 0.60 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 405 1956 954 250 1789 556 688 958 427 405 666 893 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 37.5 19.8 8.8 38.4 24.1 18.5 33.6 28.9 25.1 35.3 34.2 24.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 119.0 0.8 1.1 6.2 2.7 0.3 24.0 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.4 5.8 4.9 3.2 9.3 0.9 9.9 5.5 0.5 1.3 3.4 2.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 156.5 20.6 9.9 44.6 26.8 18.8 57.7 29.7 25.2 36.0 35.0 24.6 LnGrp LOS F C A D C B E C C D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1836 1492 1207 669 Approach Delay,s/veh 55.1 28.0 44.9 31.3 Approach LOS E C D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.2 36.7 21.0 16.1 14.0 33.9 12.9 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.5 23.0 17.5 15.0 10.5 25.0 10.5 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 8.0 14.2 18.1 8.8 12.0 21.1 4.7 13.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 7.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.4 0.2 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P Miti AM 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 --I. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 120 1381 0 0 1117 1465 204 0 410 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 120 1381 0 0 1117 1465 204 0 410 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 0 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 122 1409 0 0 1140 1082 208 0 418 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 168 7373 0 0 6997 5947 342 0 538 Arrive On Green 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 0 3529 3000 1681 0 2640 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 122 1409 0 0 1140 1082 208 0 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1676 0 0 1765 1500 1681 0 1320 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 168 7373 0 0 6997 5947 342 0 538 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.18 0.61 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 168 7373 0 0 6997 5947 350 0 550 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 22.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 7.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 29.9 LnGrp LOS C A A A C C Approach Vol,veh/h 1531 2222 626 Approach Delay,s/veh 2.2 0.0 28.3 Approach LOS A A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 138.7 10.0 128.7 16.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 34.2 5.0 *27 11.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 6.2 2.0 11.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 16.1 0.0 14.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P Miti AM 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) tt )) ttt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 259 718 146 241 931 81 344 414 179 104 389 240 Future Volume(veh/h) 259 718 146 241 931 81 344 414 179 104 389 240 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 282 780 132 262 1012 80 374 450 29 113 423 61 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 339 1907 320 316 2179 726 430 877 392 163 591 263 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.44 0.10 0.45 0.44 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4153 697 3261 4818 1495 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1492 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 282 602 310 262 1012 80 374 450 29 113 423 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1630 1606 1638 1630 1606 1495 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1492 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.3 15.1 15.4 9.5 17.6 3.5 13.6 13.8 1.8 4.1 14.4 4.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.3 15.1 15.4 9.5 17.6 3.5 13.6 13.8 1.8 4.1 14.4 4.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 339 1475 752 316 2179 726 430 877 392 163 591 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.41 0.41 0.83 0.46 0.11 0.87 0.51 0.07 0.70 0.72 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 431 1475 752 377 2179 726 512 1272 568 216 967 430 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 53.2 21.8 22.1 53.6 23.0 16.9 51.5 38.1 33.6 56.6 47.0 42.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.8 0.8 1.5 11.6 0.7 0.3 11.7 0.3 0.1 3.1 1.2 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.0 6.8 7.3 4.8 7.9 1.5 6.8 6.5 0.7 1.9 6.7 1.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.0 22.5 23.6 65.2 23.7 17.2 63.2 38.4 33.7 59.7 48.2 43.1 LnGrp LOS E C C E C B E D C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1194 1354 853 597 Approach Delay,s/veh 32.1 31.3 49.1 49.9 Approach LOS C C D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 15.7 59.6 20.0 25.7 16.6 58.7 10.0 35.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 14.0 35.1 19.0 *34 16.0 33.1 8.0 44.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 11.5 17.4 15.6 16.4 12.3 19.6 6.1 15.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 11.9 0.4 3.3 0.3 9.7 0.0 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 38.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P Miti AM 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/29/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 214 46 153 8 54 21 237 296 6 13 296 348 Future Volume(veh/h) 214 46 153 8 54 21 237 296 6 13 296 348 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 233 50 80 9 59 16 258 322 6 14 322 133 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 303 318 269 24 157 42 284 590 11 135 446 378 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1492 182 1191 323 1681 1727 32 1681 1765 1494 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 233 50 80 84 0 0 258 0 328 14 322 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1492 1696 0 0 1681 0 1759 1681 1765 1494 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.2 1.5 2.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 9.4 0.5 10.3 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.2 1.5 2.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 9.4 0.5 10.3 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.19 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 303 318 269 223 0 0 284 0 601 135 446 378 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.16 0.30 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.72 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 433 455 385 465 0 0 284 0 709 149 569 482 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 24.2 21.4 22.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 16.5 26.4 21.2 19.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.7 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 1.1 0.1 4.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.3 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 4.7 0.2 5.5 1.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.9 21.8 22.9 25.7 0.0 0.0 55.5 0.0 17.6 26.6 25.2 19.8 LnGrp LOS C C C C E B C C B Approach Vol,veh/h 363 84 586 469 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.9 25.7 34.3 23.7 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 14.0 20.7 12.2 8.5 26.2 15.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 20.0 17.0 5.5 25.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 11.3 12.3 4.8 2.5 11.4 10.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.3 0.2 0.0 4.7 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P Miti AM 25: 1-15 SB/Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 -11 --1. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip tt r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 8 243 205 882 240 260 61 111 1164 107 117 11 Future Volume(veh/h) 8 243 205 882 240 260 61 111 1164 107 117 11 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 8 251 164 909 247 94 63 114 0 110 121 11 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 14 632 398 1009 2086 898 79 350 149 384 270 25 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.62 0.60 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1970 1240 3261 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 3261 1594 145 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 8 212 203 909 247 94 63 114 0 110 0 132 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1676 1534 1630 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 1630 0 1739 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.4 8.4 9.0 22.7 2.6 2.3 3.2 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 8.4 9.0 22.7 2.6 2.3 3.2 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 14 538 492 1009 2086 898 79 350 149 384 0 295 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.39 0.41 0.90 0.12 0.10 0.80 0.33 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 79 538 492 1036 2086 898 138 789 335 384 0 464 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.0 22.5 23.3 28.1 6.5 7.3 40.1 35.6 0.0 34.2 0.0 31.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 34.4 2.2 2.5 3.6 0.0 0.1 16.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 4.2 4.1 10.7 1.2 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.4 24.6 25.8 31.6 6.6 7.4 56.3 36.2 0.0 34.7 0.0 32.8 LnGrp LOS E C C C A A E D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 423 1250 177 242 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.2 24.9 43.3 33.6 Approach LOS C C D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 30.3 31.3 9.0 14.4 4.7 56.9 9.0 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 5.0 *6 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 14.0 7.0 *17 4.0 37.0 4.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 24.7 11.0 5.2 7.8 2.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P AM MITI Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P PM MITI 2: Jefferson Road & Rancho California Road 03/28/2017 -11 --1. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) f f f tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 343 1313 118 179 657 361 56 271 292 482 298 202 Future Volume(veh/h) 343 1313 118 179 657 361 56 271 292 482 298 202 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 394 1509 126 206 755 0 64 311 162 554 343 61 Adj No.of Lanes 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 373 2936 245 258 1593 713 126 560 250 516 961 429 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.08 0.45 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 6072 507 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1583 3442 3539 1582 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 394 1194 441 206 755 0 64 311 162 554 343 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1602 1773 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1583 1721 1770 1582 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.0 20.5 20.6 7.1 17.9 0.0 2.2 9.7 11.5 18.0 9.4 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.0 20.5 20.6 7.1 17.9 0.0 2.2 9.7 11.5 18.0 9.4 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 373 2324 857 258 1593 713 126 560 250 516 961 429 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.51 0.51 0.80 0.47 0.00 0.51 0.56 0.65 1.07 0.36 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 373 2324 857 258 1593 713 143 1121 501 516 1504 672 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.91 0.91 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 53.5 21.3 21.4 54.6 23.1 0.0 56.7 46.6 47.4 51.0 35.3 33.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 44.0 0.3 0.8 13.7 0.9 0.0 1.2 0.9 2.8 54.3 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.4 9.1 10.3 3.9 8.9 0.0 1.1 4.8 5.2 12.4 4.6 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 97.5 21.6 22.2 68.3 24.0 0.0 57.9 47.5 50.2 105.3 35.4 33.2 LnGrp LOS F C C E C E D D F D C Approach Vol,veh/h 2029 961 537 958 Approach Delay,s/veh 36.5 33.5 49.5 75.7 Approach LOS D C D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 22.0 23.0 13.0 62.0 8.4 36.6 17.0 58.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.0 37.0 9.0 38.0 5.0 50.0 13.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 20.0 13.5 9.1 22.6 4.2 11.4 15.0 19.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.1 0.0 12.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 11.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.8 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 E+P PM MITI HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P PM MITI 5: Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 03/28/2017 -11 --1. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) ttt r ) ttt r tt r tt rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 803 1620 627 181 917 230 444 677 153 225 617 628 Future Volume(veh/h) 803 1620 627 181 917 230 444 677 153 225 617 628 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 836 1688 622 189 955 70 462 705 38 234 643 589 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 725 1882 828 205 1400 436 471 870 388 343 739 1206 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 5085 1583 1774 5085 1582 3442 3539 1579 3442 3539 2755 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 836 1688 622 189 955 70 462 705 38 234 643 589 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1695 1583 1774 1695 1582 1721 1770 1579 1721 1770 1377 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.0 29.7 29.3 10.0 15.9 3.2 12.7 17.8 1.8 6.2 16.7 14.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.0 29.7 29.3 10.0 15.9 3.2 12.7 17.8 1.8 6.2 16.7 14.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 725 1882 828 205 1400 436 471 870 388 343 739 1206 V/C Ratio(X) 1.15 0.90 0.75 0.92 0.68 0.16 0.98 0.81 0.10 0.68 0.87 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 725 1882 828 205 1400 436 471 870 388 362 745 1211 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 37.5 28.2 17.8 41.6 30.7 26.1 40.9 33.7 27.7 41.3 36.3 19.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 77.5 3.8 3.2 40.5 2.7 0.8 36.3 5.6 0.1 5.5 10.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 17.3 14.6 13.4 7.2 7.8 1.5 8.4 9.4 0.8 3.2 9.2 5.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 115.0 32.0 21.0 82.0 33.4 26.9 77.2 39.4 27.8 46.8 46.9 19.5 LnGrp LOS F C C F C C E D C D D B Approach Vol,veh/h 3146 1214 1205 1466 Approach Delay,s/veh 51.9 40.6 53.5 35.9 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 15.0 39.2 17.0 23.8 24.0 30.2 13.5 27.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.5 34.0 13.5 19.0 20.5 25.0 10.5 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 12.0 31.7 14.7 18.7 22.0 17.9 8.2 19.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 6.5 0.3 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P PM MITI 10: 1-15 NB & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 -11 --1. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r rr Traffic Volume(veh/h) 125 1908 0 0 1023 882 440 0 863 0 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 125 1908 0 0 1023 882 440 0 863 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 0 0 1765 1765 1765 0 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 128 1947 0 0 1369 420 449 0 881 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 174 4863 0 0 6719 1904 555 0 871 Arrive On Green 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 3441 0 0 5294 1500 1681 0 2640 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 128 1947 0 0 1369 420 449 0 881 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1676 0 0 1765 1500 1681 0 1320 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 29.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 29.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 174 4863 0 0 6719 1904 555 0 871 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.22 0.81 0.00 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 187 4863 0 0 6719 1904 555 0 871 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 30.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 0.0 33.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.5 0.0 14.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 36.7 0.0 63.4 LnGrp LOS D A A A D F Approach Vol,veh/h 2075 1789 1330 Approach Delay,s/veh 2.5 0.1 54.4 Approach LOS A A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 136.9 13.3 123.5 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 9.0 5.0 *9 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 47.0 9.0 *36 28.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 2.0 8.7 2.0 31.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 19.3 0.0 17.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P PM MITI 14: Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway 03/28/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) tt )) tt tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 459 1413 231 335 700 195 212 611 290 232 597 191 Future Volume(veh/h) 459 1413 231 335 700 195 212 611 290 232 597 191 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 499 1536 226 364 761 162 230 664 127 252 649 50 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 552 1764 259 356 1417 299 237 861 385 237 849 378 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.42 0.40 0.11 0.36 0.34 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 3261 4241 623 3261 3984 840 3261 3353 1498 3261 3353 1495 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 499 1163 599 364 612 311 230 664 127 252 649 50 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1630 1606 1651 1630 1606 1612 1630 1676 1498 1630 1676 1495 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.5 36.5 36.7 12.0 16.7 17.1 7.7 20.2 7.6 8.0 19.7 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.5 36.5 36.7 12.0 16.7 17.1 7.7 20.2 7.6 8.0 19.7 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 552 1336 687 356 1143 573 237 861 385 237 849 378 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.87 0.87 1.02 0.54 0.54 0.97 0.77 0.33 1.06 0.76 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 563 1336 687 356 1143 573 237 1079 482 237 1079 481 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 44.8 29.4 29.8 49.0 28.2 28.7 50.9 37.9 33.2 51.0 38.0 31.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.8 4.5 8.5 53.8 1.8 3.7 49.6 2.4 0.4 76.0 2.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.2 17.0 18.3 8.0 7.7 8.1 5.1 9.6 3.2 6.1 9.4 1.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.6 34.0 38.3 102.8 30.0 32.4 100.5 40.3 33.6 127.0 40.3 31.9 LnGrp LOS E C D F C C F D C F D C Approach Vol,veh/h 2261 1287 1021 951 Approach Delay,s/veh 39.9 51.2 53.0 62.8 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 16.0 49.8 12.0 32.2 22.6 43.1 12.0 32.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 6.0 4.0 *5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 36.6 8.0 *35 19.0 29.6 8.0 34.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 14.0 38.7 9.7 21.7 18.5 19.1 10.0 22.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.1 9.3 0.0 4.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P PM MITI 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/28/2017 -11 --1. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 404 51 358 3 48 14 181 543 1 6 579 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 404 51 358 3 48 14 181 543 1 6 579 190 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 439 55 275 3 52 8 197 590 1 7 629 141 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 456 675 572 37 109 16 205 809 1 76 675 572 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.38 0.38 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1496 33 1451 216 1681 1761 3 1681 1765 1496 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 439 55 275 63 0 0 197 0 591 7 629 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1496 1700 0 0 1681 0 1764 1681 1765 1496 Q Serve(g_s),s 28.5 2.2 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 30.1 0.4 37.8 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 28.5 2.2 15.4 3.9 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 30.1 0.4 37.8 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 456 675 572 161 0 0 205 0 810 76 675 572 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.08 0.48 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.73 0.09 0.93 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 456 814 690 293 0 0 205 0 814 84 686 582 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 39.7 21.8 25.8 49.1 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 24.3 50.6 32.8 23.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 32.6 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 51.2 0.0 3.6 0.2 19.6 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 17.3 1.1 6.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 15.4 0.2 22.0 3.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.4 21.8 26.7 50.7 0.0 0.0 99.4 0.0 27.9 50.8 52.4 23.6 LnGrp LOS E C C D F C D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 769 63 788 777 Approach Delay,s/veh 52.4 50.7 45.8 47.1 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.0 47.3 34.0 12.3 8.5 55.8 46.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 43.0 30.0 17.0 5.5 51.0 51.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 14.9 39.8 30.5 5.9 2.4 32.1 17.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 10.7 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary E+P PM MITI 25: 1-15 SB/Old Town Front St & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 -11 --1. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip tt r* t r* Traffic Volume(veh/h) 28 228 139 442 427 596 78 133 1380 437 104 18 Future Volume(veh/h) 28 228 139 442 427 596 78 133 1380 437 104 18 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 29 235 96 456 440 440 80 137 0 451 107 19 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 39 1036 411 578 2000 859 101 345 147 422 244 43 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.44 0.42 0.18 0.60 0.57 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 2343 928 3261 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 3261 1459 259 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 29 166 165 456 440 440 80 137 0 451 0 126 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1676 1595 1630 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 1630 0 1718 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.5 5.2 5.6 11.4 5.2 15.1 4.0 3.1 0.0 11.0 0.0 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.5 5.2 5.6 11.4 5.2 15.1 4.0 3.1 0.0 11.0 0.0 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 39 742 705 578 2000 859 101 345 147 422 0 287 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.22 0.23 0.79 0.22 0.51 0.79 0.40 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 79 742 705 690 2000 859 178 747 318 422 0 418 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 41.3 14.7 15.1 33.4 8.0 11.0 39.4 36.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 31.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 23.5 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.1 0.6 12.7 0.7 0.0 63.4 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 2.5 2.6 5.3 2.4 6.3 2.2 1.5 0.0 8.6 0.0 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.7 15.4 15.9 35.0 8.0 11.6 52.1 36.7 0.0 100.4 0.0 32.9 LnGrp LOS E B B D A B D D F C Approach Vol,veh/h 360 1336 217 577 Approach Delay,s/veh 19.6 18.4 42.4 85.6 Approach LOS B B D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.1 41.6 10.1 14.2 6.0 54.7 10.0 14.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 5.0 6.0 5.0 *6 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.0 23.0 9.0 *15 4.0 37.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 13.4 7.6 6.0 7.6 3.5 17.1 13.0 5.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.7 2.6 0.1 0.6 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 E+P PM MITI Synchro 8 Report Page 1 C+P Miti AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) f tf ) f tf t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 113 2259 10 30 3034 370 40 10 30 300 10 232 Future Volume(veh/h) 113 2259 10 30 3034 370 40 10 30 300 10 232 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 120 2403 11 32 3228 383 43 11 17 319 11 160 Adj No.of Lanes 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 95 4458 20 38 3763 429 49 13 19 272 286 242 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.67 0.66 0.02 0.64 0.63 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 6633 30 1774 5879 671 1052 269 416 1774 1863 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 120 1741 673 32 2615 996 71 0 0 319 11 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1602 1857 1774 1602 1744 1737 0 0 1774 1863 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.0 27.9 28.0 2.7 64.5 72.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.8 14.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.0 27.9 28.0 2.7 64.5 72.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.8 14.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.38 0.61 0.24 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 95 3230 1248 38 3076 1116 81 0 0 272 286 242 V/C Ratio(X) 1.27 0.54 0.54 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.04 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 95 3230 1248 83 3076 1116 81 0 0 272 286 242 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 71.0 12.6 12.7 73.2 21.3 23.0 71.1 0.0 0.0 63.5 54.1 59.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 147.3 0.2 0.6 7.2 1.2 4.4 69.7 0.0 0.0 109.6 0.3 13.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.8 12.3 14.4 1.4 28.7 35.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.4 7.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 218.3 12.9 13.3 80.4 22.5 27.5 140.8 0.0 0.0 173.1 54.3 73.1 LnGrp LOS F B B F C C F F D E Approach Vol,veh/h 2534 3643 71 490 Approach Delay,s/veh 22.7 24.4 140.8 137.8 Approach LOS C C F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.2 104.8 27.0 12.0 100.0 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 95.0 22.4 8.5 94.0 7.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 4.7 30.0 25.0 10.0 74.1 8.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 64.7 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P Miti AM HCM 2010 AWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/29/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay,slveh 10.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations *"i r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 20 49 20 0 40 31 108 0 40 72 70 Future Vol,veh/h 0 20 49 20 0 40 31 108 0 40 72 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 25 61 25 0 50 39 135 0 50 90 88 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 9.5 9.6 11.7 HCM LOS A A B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 22% 45% 0% 56% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru,% 40% 55% 55% 44% 0% 0% 69% Vol Right,% 38% 0% 45% 0% 100% 0% 31% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 182 45 45 71 108 74 97 LT Vol 40 20 0 40 0 74 0 Through Vol 72 25 25 31 0 0 67 RT Vol 70 0 20 0 108 0 30 Lane Flow Rate 228 56 56 89 135 92 121 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.354 0.098 0.09 0.154 0.197 0.161 0.187 Departure Headway(Hd) 5.603 6.344 5.797 6.244 5.249 6.284 5.561 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 644 566 619 575 684 572 646 Service Time 3.628 4.075 3.527 3.971 2.976 4.011 3.287 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.354 0.099 0.09 0.155 0.197 0.161 0.187 HCM Control Delay 11.7 9.8 9.1 10.1 9.3 10.2 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A B A B A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P Miti AM HCM 2010 AWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/29/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 74 67 30 Future Vol,veh/h 0 74 67 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 93 84 38 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 Approach SIB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 9.9 HCM LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 C+P Miti AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/29/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 59 170 10 71 30 270 330 10 20 330 390 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 59 170 10 71 30 270 330 10 20 330 390 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 261 64 87 11 77 23 293 359 10 22 359 153 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 315 331 280 19 134 40 336 678 19 118 471 399 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1492 168 1173 350 1681 1709 48 1681 1765 1494 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 261 64 87 111 0 0 293 0 369 22 359 153 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1492 1691 0 0 1681 0 1756 1681 1765 1494 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.7 2.2 3.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 11.5 0.9 13.4 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.7 2.2 3.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 11.5 0.9 13.4 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.21 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 315 331 280 194 0 0 336 0 697 118 471 399 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.19 0.31 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.53 0.19 0.76 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 377 395 334 403 0 0 412 0 861 129 568 481 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 27.9 24.4 25.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 16.5 31.3 24.1 21.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.4 0.4 0.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.9 0.3 5.7 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 1.1 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 5.7 0.4 7.2 2.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 24.8 25.9 32.6 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.0 17.3 31.6 29.8 22.3 LnGrp LOS D C C C D B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 412 111 662 534 Approach Delay,s/veh 35.5 32.6 28.5 27.7 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.8 24.0 12.2 8.5 33.3 17.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.5 23.0 17.0 5.5 35.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 14.1 15.4 6.4 2.9 13.5 12.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 3.7 0.3 0.0 6.7 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P Miti PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway 03/29/2017 --I. 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) f tf ) f tf t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 175 3252 40 30 2373 440 20 10 20 430 20 72 Future Volume(veh/h) 175 3252 40 30 2373 440 20 10 20 430 20 72 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 182 3388 41 31 2472 433 21 10 1 448 21 6 Adj No.of Lanes 1 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 161 3792 46 41 2824 485 86 41 4 323 339 287 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.58 0.56 0.05 1.00 0.98 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 6575 79 1774 5547 953 1177 561 56 1774 1863 1581 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 182 2473 956 31 2135 770 32 0 0 448 21 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1602 1849 1774 1602 1695 1794 0 0 1774 1863 1581 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.0 49.4 49.8 1.9 0.0 4.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.0 49.4 49.8 1.9 0.0 4.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.56 0.66 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 161 2772 1066 41 2447 863 130 0 0 323 339 287 V/C Ratio(X) 1.13 0.89 0.90 0.75 0.87 0.89 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.06 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 161 2772 1066 113 2447 863 130 0 0 323 339 287 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 50.0 20.3 20.4 52.1 0.0 0.3 48.1 0.0 0.0 45.0 37.2 37.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 65.6 0.5 1.3 5.8 2.8 8.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 193.1 0.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.8 21.7 25.6 1.0 0.6 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.6 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 115.6 20.8 21.7 57.9 2.8 8.8 52.6 0.0 0.0 238.1 37.6 37.1 LnGrp LOS F C C E A A D F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 3611 2936 32 475 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.8 4.9 52.6 226.7 Approach LOS C A D F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.6 67.4 24.0 14.0 60.0 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 3.5 6.0 4.6 3.5 6.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 57.0 19.4 10.5 54.0 8.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.9 51.8 22.0 12.0 6.4 3.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 47.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P Miti PM HCM 2010 AWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/29/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay,slveh 17.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 20 35 20 0 90 47 175 0 20 115 40 Future Vol,veh/h 0 20 35 20 0 90 47 175 0 20 115 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 24 42 24 0 108 57 211 0 24 139 48 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 HCM Control Delay 11.7 13.6 14.6 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 11% 36% 0% 66% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru,% 66% 64% 0% 34% 0% 0% 87% Vol Right,% 23% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 13% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 175 55 20 137 175 321 229 LT Vol 20 20 0 90 0 321 0 Through Vol 115 35 0 47 0 0 199 RT Vol 40 0 20 0 175 0 30 Lane Flow Rate 211 66 24 165 211 387 276 Geometry Grp 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.403 0.149 0.048 0.344 0.378 0.744 0.484 Departure Headway(Hd) 6.886 8.068 7.158 7.506 6.452 6.921 6.321 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 519 447 503 477 552 518 566 Service Time 4.981 5.768 4.858 5.297 4.243 4.702 4.102 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.407 0.148 0.048 0.346 0.382 0.747 0.488 HCM Control Delay 14.6 12.2 10.2 14.2 13.2 27.3 15 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B D B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 0.5 0.2 1.5 1.8 6.3 2.6 Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 C+P Miti PM HCM 2010 AWSC 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/29/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 321 199 30 Future Vol,veh/h 0 321 199 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 387 240 36 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 Approach SIB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 22.2 HCM LOS C Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 C+P Miti PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Ynez Road & Santiago Road 03/29/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 450 65 400 10 57 20 200 600 10 10 640 210 Future Volume(veh/h) 450 65 400 10 57 20 200 600 10 10 640 210 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 455 66 307 10 58 14 202 606 9 10 646 126 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 476 669 567 0 86 21 210 824 12 70 684 580 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow,veh/h 1681 1765 1496 0 1370 331 1681 1734 26 1681 1765 1496 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 455 66 307 0 0 72 202 0 615 10 646 126 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1681 1765 1496 0 0 1700 1681 0 1760 1681 1765 1496 Q Serve(g_s),s 31.9 2.9 19.2 0.0 0.0 5.0 14.3 0.0 33.8 0.7 42.4 6.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 31.9 2.9 19.2 0.0 0.0 5.0 14.3 0.0 33.8 0.7 42.4 6.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.19 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 476 669 567 0 0 107 210 0 836 70 684 580 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.10 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.96 0.00 0.74 0.14 0.94 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 476 669 567 0 0 241 210 0 836 77 691 586 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 42.3 24.0 29.1 0.0 0.0 55.0 52.2 0.0 25.4 55.4 35.5 24.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 30.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 50.9 0.0 3.7 0.3 21.8 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 18.8 1.4 8.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 9.7 0.0 17.3 0.3 24.8 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.8 24.1 30.5 0.0 0.0 62.2 103.1 0.0 29.1 55.8 57.3 24.8 LnGrp LOS E C C E F C E E C Approach Vol,veh/h 828 72 817 782 Approach Delay,s/veh 53.2 62.2 47.4 52.0 Approach LOS D E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.0 51.5 38.0 11.5 8.5 62.0 0.0 49.5 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.0 47.0 34.0 17.0 5.5 57.0 16.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 16.3 44.4 33.9 7.0 2.7 35.8 0.0 21.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 11.8 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 C+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P Miti AM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/29/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 168 0 1387 633 39 Future Vol,veh/h 0 168 0 1387 633 39 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 168 0 1387 633 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 336 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 660 0 - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 660 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 12.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 660 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.255 - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.3 - HCM Lane LOS B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1 - Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P Miti AM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 4 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 90 219 90 130 191 130 30 60 30 30 40 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 90 219 90 130 191 130 30 60 30 30 40 20 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 90 219 90 130 191 130 30 60 30 30 40 20 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 406 758 305 417 450 630 271 182 79 625 220 110 Arrive On Green 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow,veh/h 388 1803 727 419 1071 1500 287 915 401 1301 1111 556 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 0 183 321 0 130 120 0 0 30 0 60 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1441 0 1478 1490 0 1500 1602 0 0 1301 0 1667 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 0.0 1.7 2.9 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.42 0.49 0.40 1.00 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 848 0 621 867 0 630 532 0 0 625 0 331 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.29 0.37 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1321 0 1127 1345 0 1144 1419 0 0 1359 0 1271 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.3 0.0 3.9 7.3 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 7.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.2 0.0 4.3 4.6 0.0 4.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 7.3 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 399 451 120 90 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.2 4.4 7.5 7.1 Approach LOS A A A A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 12.8 8.2 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 3.3 4.9 2.6 4.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 4.0 0.9 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Altair Specific Plan Temecula 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P Miti PM HCM 2010 TWSC 6: Vincent Moraga/Diaz & Park Ridge Dr 03/29/2017 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 1.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r tt t Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 141 0 1032 1321 178 Future Vol,veh/h 0 141 0 1032 1321 178 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 141 0 1032 1321 178 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 750 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 6.94 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 354 0 - - Stage 1 0 - 0 - - Stage 2 0 - 0 - - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 354 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay,s 21.7 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 354 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.398 - HCM Control Delay(s) 21.7 - HCM Lane LOS C - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.9 - Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 BO+P Miti PM HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Pujol Street & First Street 03/30/2017 --1. -*.-- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M 4 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 375 170 190 287 180 80 120 90 80 90 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 375 170 190 287 180 80 120 90 80 90 20 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1800 1765 1800 1800 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 1765 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 180 375 170 190 287 180 80 120 90 80 90 20 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 285 736 403 331 459 930 160 175 113 348 329 73 Arrive On Green 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow,veh/h 298 1187 650 387 741 1500 326 745 482 1167 1399 311 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 335 0 390 477 0 180 290 0 0 80 0 110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 644 0 1491 1128 0 1500 1552 0 0 1167 0 1710 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.9 0.0 7.4 10.8 0.0 2.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 30.1 0.0 7.4 18.2 0.0 2.9 9.6 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 2.9 Prop In Lane 0.54 0.44 0.40 1.00 0.28 0.31 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 499 0 925 791 0 930 448 0 0 348 0 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.42 0.60 0.00 0.19 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 515 0 945 807 0 950 559 0 0 433 0 526 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 14.3 0.0 5.4 7.8 0.0 4.5 19.8 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 17.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.2 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.1 0.0 3.1 5.3 0.0 1.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 0.0 5.7 9.0 0.0 4.6 21.5 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 17.6 LnGrp LOS B A A A C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 725 657 290 190 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.2 7.8 21.5 17.9 Approach LOS B A C B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.0 38.3 17.0 38.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.0 35.0 17.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 11.6 32.1 6.4 20.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 2.2 2.1 8.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Altair Synchro Network PM 5:00 pm 02/20/2015 2035+P PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 APPENDIX D South Parcel Nature Center Air Quality and GHG Worksheets Altair Specific Plan ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Air Quality and GHG Assumptions Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Assumptions The Nature Center revision to the Altair Specific Plan Project results in the removal of the 5,000 student university and replacing that with a 20,000 square foot nature center. In order to account for the changes in emissions that would result,the revised analysis will re-calculate the emissions associated with the construction and operation of Phase 3, removing the university,adding the nature center,and keeping the other landuses developed as part of Phase 3. The net change in emissions from the replacement of the university is what is being evaluated. The original analysis was completed in 2015 and at that time the 2013 CaIEEMod model was the appropriate model to use for modeling Air Quality and GHG emissions. Subsequent to that time,the 2016 CalEEMod model was released. However, because of the differences between the two models,this analysis uses the 2013 CalEEMod model. By using the same model as was used for the original analysis,the analysis accurately depicts the changes in emissions that would occur. CaIEEMod Inputs that are not modeling defaults: Project Location: County Riverside-SCAQMD Climate Zone: 10 Operational Year: 2024 Phase 3 Utility Company: Southern California Edison Land Use Type: Total Project: Apartments 1750 DU's Apartment Mid-Rise Retail 22 KSF Strip mall (closest CaIEEMod category) Elementary School 730 Students Elementary School College 5000 Students Community Center 29 KSF Health Club(closest CaIEEMod category) population 4,603 2.63 persons per dwelling unit Employment 477 1,124 sf per employee education' 44 Elementary School 400 University 1,352 sf per employee retail' 5 Phase 2 11 Phase 3 362.3188406 1,789 sf per employee community center' 16 community center ' Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS)2012 Data.Accessed: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/reports/2012/buildstock/?src=<Consumption Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey(CBECS)-b1 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Assumptions Original Phase 3: Villages D, E, F,G and Campus 53.74 Apartments 585 DU's 31.33 Retail 15 KSF 3.75 University/College 5,000 Students 450 KSF 18.66 population 1,539 Employment 411 Nature Center Phase 3: Villages D, E, F,G and Nature Center 53.74 Apartments 585 DU's 31.33 Retail 15 KSF 3.75 Nature Center 1 20 KSF 18.66 population 1,539 Employment 11 (from Retail) 0 Nature Center-Unknown Population 0 used for analysis. 1,550 Total Service Population 1 Park(minus square footage for arch coating)and General Office CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION Altair would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame,with the phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure,as needed,for each phase. It is anticipated that development would start at the north end of the project and proceed southerly. Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately three years to complete Phase 2 and Phase 3 are anticipated to take 3.5 years each to account for the 10 year buildout scenario. Initial construction is anticipated to begin within 12 months of project approval by the City of Temecula. Construction schedule based on CalEEMod Defaults and Consultant Knowledge Phase Starte Date End Date #Days Days/week Construction Phase Three-July 2022 thru December 2025 Site Preparation 7/1/2022 5/15/2022 32 5 Grading 8/16/2022 11/22/2022 71 5 Building Construction 11/23/2022 7/24/2025 697 5 Paving 11/23/2022 2/7/2023 55 5 Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 233 5 "NOTE: As building amounts are the only thing that will change for construction,only Architectural Coating is modeled for construction of the Nature Center. Emissions from all other phases of construction will be the same as the equipment and timing does not change. Default Construction Equipment by phase used for Project. cut/fill material balanced onsite. Not anticipated to need any inport or export of material. Note:CaIEEIVod assumes floor area square footage for City Park based on the acreage. However, because the nature center building is being modeled as a general office building,the default square footage under City Park is changed to 0. Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Assumptions PROJECT OPERATIONAL INFORMATION Operational Mobile Sources Trip Rate: Weekday Saturday Sunday Residential 5.59 6.07 5.15 DU Retail 30.35 28.79 13.99 KSF Nature Center 39.10 8.42 5.65 KSF * Includes Mode Shift Adjustment/Internalization Reduction * Weekday provided by Traffic Study(Fehr& Peers, 2017). Saturday and Sunday determined by taking the precent change between the default weekday and project weekday and applying that to the weekend default rates from CalEEMod. For Nature Center Saturday and Sunday used the greater of the City Park and Office land uses. Area: Woodstoves: 0 (SCAQMD Requirement) Fireplaces: Original Revised Phase 3 wood 29.25 0 (SCAQMD Requirement) gas 497.25 523 propane 0 0 none 58.5 62 "Mitigation" Measures applied to make project consistent with existing regulation requirements and achievements. Construction: To achieve SCAQMD standard dust control minimum requiremnts: Soil Stabilizers (61%reduction) Replace ground cover(5%reduction) Water exposed area (3x per day) Unpaved roads(15 mph) Traffic Included as part of trip rate Energy: 15%exceedence of Title 24 to account for the Title 24 efficiencey increase between 2008 (CaIEEMod default usage)and 2013 regulations currently in effect. Water: 20%reduction in indoor water use to account for 2013 Title 24 requirements. Solid Waste: 50% reduction in waste disposal. Current rate achieved by California. Air Quality Calculations and Modeling Output Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Regional Construction Emissions Unmitigated Construction Emissions ROG I NO, I CO I SOX I PM,o I PM,., 2022 69.23 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16 Max Phase 1 45.39 98.88 118.91 0.11 9.83 6.44 Max Phase 2 69.23 54.27 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.71 2022 5.03 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16 2023 4.70 30.81 60.55 0.16 9.31 3.41 2024 3.47 19.72 44.75 0.14 8.55 2.82 Nature Center 2025: 26.76 20.01 48.18 0.17 9.48 3.06 Civic Center: 69.61 20.11 49.30 0.16 9.90 3.17 Change: (42.84) (0.09) (1.12) 0.01 (0.42) (0.11) Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 Mitigation: None required Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Localized Construction Emissions (LST) Unmitigated LST Analysis NOx I CO I PM,,, I Pm, lbs/day Max Phase 1: 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48 Max Phase 2: 55.93 49.20 8.98 5.70 2022 40.46 47.13 8.42 5.16 2023 26.28 42.20 1.37 1.18 2024 15.32 27.56 0.79 0.63 Nature Center 2025: 15.47 27.04 0.75 0.60 Maximum (2016): 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48 Civic Center(2025): 15.47 29.02 0.75 0.61 Change: 0.00 (1.98) (0.00) (0.00) Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 1 LST values are extrapolated from the SCAQMD LST Threshold Tables for SRA 26 and is based on 3.5 acres disturbed per day.3.5 acres disturbed was determined based on the equipment used during site preparation(the phase resulting in the greatest PKO and PM2.s emissions). Mitigation: AQ-6: The site shall be watered 4x per day during ground disturbance activities, including site preparation and grading for all construction phases. Mitigated LST Analysis. Reduction shown for PM for 2016 only. NOx I CO I PM,,, I Pm, lbs/day 2016 86.83 115.09 8.46 5.73 Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2015 1 LST values are extrapolated from the SCAQMD LST Threshold Tables for SRA 26 and is based on 3.5 acres disturbed per day.3.5 acres disturbed was determined based on the equpiment used during site preparation(the phase resulting in the greatest PKO and PM2.s emissions). Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Regional Construction Emissions Unmitigated Construction Emissions ROG I NO, I CO I SOX I PM,o I PM,., 2022 69.23 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16 Max Phase 1 45.39 98.88 118.91 0.11 9.83 6.44 Max Phase 2 69.23 54.27 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.71 2022 5.03 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16 2023 4.70 30.81 60.55 0.16 9.31 3.41 2024 3.47 19.72 44.75 0.14 8.55 2.82 Nature Center 2025: 26.76 20.01 48.18 0.17 9.48 3.06 Civic Center: 69.61 20.11 49.30 0.16 9.90 3.17 Change: (42.84) (0.09) (1.12) 0.01 (0.42) (0.11) Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 Mitigation: None required Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Localized Construction Emissions (LST) Unmitigated LST Analysis NOx I CO I PM,,, I Pm, lbs/day Max Phase 1: 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48 Max Phase 2: 55.93 49.20 8.98 5.70 2022 40.46 47.13 8.42 5.16 2023 26.28 42.20 1.37 1.18 2024 15.32 27.56 0.79 0.63 Nature Center 2025: 15.47 27.04 0.75 0.60 Maximum (2016): 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48 Civic Center(2025): 15.47 29.02 0.75 0.61 Change: 0.00 (1.98) (0.00) (0.00) Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 1 LST values are extrapolated from the SCAQMD LST Threshold Tables for SRA 26 and is based on 3.5 acres disturbed per day.3.5 acres disturbed was determined based on the equipment used during site preparation(the phase resulting in the greatest PKO and PM2.s emissions). Mitigation: AQ-6: The site shall be watered 4x per day during ground disturbance activities, including site preparation and grading for all construction phases. Mitigated LST Analysis. Reduction shown for PM for 2016 only. NOx I CO I PM,,, I Pm, lbs/day 2016 86.83 115.09 8.46 5.73 Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2015 1 LST values are extrapolated from the SCAQMD LST Threshold Tables for SRA 26 and is based on 3.5 acres disturbed per day.3.5 acres disturbed was determined based on the equpiment used during site preparation(the phase resulting in the greatest PKO and PM2.s emissions). Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Construction Inputs from CaIEEMod Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOX I CO I SOX I PMIo I PMzs lbs/day 2016 Total 10.62 98.88 118.91 0.11 9.83 6.44 2017 Total 4.71 32.09 40.81 0.09 6.24 2.93 2018 Total 45.39 30.73 43.43 0.10 6.91 3.03 2019 Total 5.80 54.27 60.18 0.14 9.05 5.71 2020 Total 3.96 25.39 43.11 0.11 7.53 2.85 2021 Total 3.65 22.98 41.45 0.11 7.36 2.69 2022 Total 69.23 22.41 45.47 0.13 8.45 2.95 2022 Total 5.03 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16 Phase 3 onsite 3.76 38.43 35.10 0.06 8.24 5.10 offsite 2.25 7.83 31.56 0.11 8.11 2.30 2023 Total 4.70 30.81 60.55 0.16 9.31 3.41 2024 Total 3.47 19.72 44.75 0.14 8.55 2.82 2025 Total 26.76 20.01 48.18 0.17 9.48 3.06 onsite 24.65 13.56 17.86 0.06 0.58 0.55 offsite 2.11 6.46 30.32 0.11 8.91 2.51 LST By Year Summary NOX I CO I PMIo I PM2.1 2016 86.8271 115.094 9.8303 6.4806 2071 27.6402 24.6173 1.8758 1.7051 2018 26.4235 25.4778 1.7391 1.5871 2019 55.9251 49.195 8.9814 5.7041 2020 20.6684 25.323 1.2494 1.0922 2021 18.75 24.7785 1.0908 0.9431 2022 18.2263 26.0769 1.0234 0.885 2022 40.4566 47.133 8.4159 5.1625 2023 26.2835 42.2017 1.3728 1.1762 2024 15.3194 27.561 0.7858 0.6341 2025 15.4689 27.0414 0.751 0.6044 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Construction Inputs from CaIEEMod Unmitigated Construction ROG I NO, I CO I SO, I PM,, PM, lbs/day Winter Winter MAX offsite 4.1431 24.0675 69.7737 0.05694 4.6384 1.311 offsite 1.5715 5.6877 20.754 0.0551 4.4599 1.2568 offsite 1.6342 5.4637 21.8482 0.06391 5.2646 1.4702 offsite 1.9736 7.4611 26.5134 0.08244 6.5942 1.8559 offsite 1.8073 5.5106 24.412 0.0805 6.4163 1.8022 offsite 1.7207 5.6377 23.1912 0.0806 6.4081 1.7947 offsite 1.8754 5.4629 25.1762 0.0932 7.5656 2.1057 2022 Total 4.9674 38.4846 60.6152 0.15504 9.4729 5.1574 Phase 3 onsite 3.7643 38.4288 35.0957 0.0618 8.2409 5.1029 offsite 2.2167 7.8338 30.0061 0.10594 8.1102 2.2962 offsite 2.0906 6.4945 28.6137 0.10584 8.1085 2.2947 2025 Total 26.7344 20.0128 46.5451 0.1713 9.4848 3.0563 onsite 24.6514 13.5552 17.8609 0.0566 0.5765 0.5454 offsite 2.083 6.4576 28.6842 0.1147 8.9083 2.5109 Phase 3 -2025 Architectural Coating Fugitive - - - - Onsite 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.97E-02 0.0515 0.0515 Offsite 0.1666 0.2142 2.2014 1.06E-02 0.9673 0.2605 LST By Year Winter ROG I NOx I CO I SOx I PM,o I PM2.s 2016 Onsite 74.8137 49.1374 9.6323 6.3829 2017 Onsite 26.4057 18.1291 1.7812 1.673 2018 Onsite 25.2666 19.3869 1.6449 1.5554 2019 Onsite 54.1978 40.2888 8.8441 5.6577 2020 Onsite 19.0839 16.8084 1.1128 1.0465 2021Onsite 17.3403 16.5376 0.9549 0.8979 2022 Onsite 16.9449 18.1412 0.8874 0.8398 2022 Onsite 38.4288 35.0957 8.2409 5.1029 2023 Onsite 24.3109 30.4943 1.1977 1.1166 2024 Onsite 13.3774 16.1332 0.6106 0.5744 2025 Onsite 13.5552 17.8609 0.5765 0.5454 Mobile 0.0212 0.2973 9.70E-04 5.56E-03 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Construction Inputs from CaIEEMod Unmitigated Construction ROG I NO, I CO I SO, I PM,o I PM2.5 lbs/day Summer Summer Max offsite 3.8192 23.7817 60.7754 0.06141 4.6376 1.1357 offsite 1.6075 5.4954 22.682 0.0594 4.4592 1.2561 offsite 1.6807 5.2758 24.0393 0.06905 5.264 1.4697 offsite 2.0193 7.2248 28.6898 0.0867 6.5933 1.8551 offsite 1.8473 6.3093 26.3029 0.0867 6.4155 1.8015 offsite 1.7574 5.4619 24.9169 0.0868 6.4075 1.7941 offsite 1.9219 5.2848 27.3304 0.1006 7.565 2.1052 2022 Total 5.0274 38.4835 62.1662 0.16272 9.4726 5.1574 Phase 3 onsite 3.7643 38.4288 35.0957 0.0618 8.2409 5.1029 offsite 2.2467 7.6051 31.5571 0.11362 8.1092 2.2953 offsite 2.1174 6.3227 30.0519 0.1136 8.1075 2.2938 2025 Total 26.7632 19.8438 48.1778 0.15307 9.4839 3.0554 onsite 24.6514 13.5552 17.8609 0.02987 0.5765 0.5454 offsite 2.1118 6.2886 30.3169 0.1232 8.9074 2.51 Phase 3 -2025 Architectural Coating Fugitive - - - - Onsite 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.97E-03 0.0515 0.0515 Offsite 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 1.16E-02 0.9673 0.2605 LST By Year Summer ROG I NOx I CO I SOx I PMIo I PM2.s 2016 Onsite 74.8137 49.1374 9.6323 6.3829 2017 Onsite 26.4057 18.1291 1.7812 1.673 2018 Onsite 25.2666 19.3869 1.6449 1.5554 2019 Onsite 54.1978 40.2888 8.8441 5.6577 2020 Onsite 19.0839 16.8084 1.1128 1.0465 2021Onsite 17.3403 16.5376 0.9549 0.8979 2022 Onsite 16.9449 18.1412 0.8874 0.8398 2022 Onsite 38.4288 35.0957 8.2409 5.1029 2023 Onsite 24.3109 30.4943 1.1977 1.1166 2024 Onsite 13.3774 16.1332 0.6106 0.5744 2025 Onsite 13.5552 17.8609 0.5765 0.5454 Mobile 1.9137 9.1805 0.1745 0.059 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Regional Operational Emissions Unmitigated Operational Emissions ROG I NO, I CO I SOX I PM,o I PMZs lbs/day Phase 1 Area 13.12 0.48 41.59 0.00 0.83 0.82 Energy 0.15 1.32 0.56 0.01 0.11 0.11 Mobile 9.94 31.19 106.97 0.30 20.96 5.90 Phase 1 Total 23.21 32.99 149.13 0.31 21.89 6.83 Phase 2 Area 19.67 0.64 55.12 0.00 1.10 1.09 Energy 0.24 2.11 1.04 0.01 0.17 0.17 Mobile 15.99 41.43 160.16 0.53 36.39 10.21 Phase 2 Total 35.90 44.17 216.32 0.55 37.66 11.47 Phase 3 Area 16.22 0.56 48.30 0.00 0.97 0.96 Energy 0.18 1.57 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 Mobile 12.03 28.64 126.76 0.49 33.59 9.42 Civic Center: 114.09 141.65 683.24 1.88 128.34 38.56 Change: (26.54) (33.72) (142.05) (0.52) (34.11) (9.74) Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Regional Operational Emissions Mitigation: AQ-1: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. AQ-2: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units, shall include the following: a: Use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings. b: Use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. c: Information encouraging employees to use alternative work weeks, flextime,telecommuting, and work-at-home programs as appropriate. (non-quantifiable) AQ-3: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10%of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory minimum of 10%of all landscape equipment used onsite be electrically operated. AQ-4: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a: Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15%; or b: Project design shall include on-site renewable energy such that 9% of the onsite energy consumption is offset. AQ-5: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi-family residential and non- residential units shall: a: Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi- family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non- residential buildings. Additionally, building management should be encouraged to initiate a ride-share program within the specific plan such that employees as well as residents have more access to car- pooling opportunities. (non-quantifiable) b: Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non-quantifiable) c: Require that 5%of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi- family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non- quantifiable) Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Regional Operational Emissions Mitigated Operational Emissions ROG I NO, I CO I SOX I PM,o I PMZs lbs/day Phase 1 Area 12.19 0.47 40.54 0.00 0.22 0.22 Energy 0.15 1.32 0.56 0.01 0.11 0.11 Mobile 9.94 31.19 106.97 0.30 20.96 5.90 Phase 1 Total 22.29 32.98 148.08 0.31 21.29 6.23 Phase 2 Area 18.22 0.62 53.74 0.00 0.30 0.30 Energy 0.24 2.11 1.04 0.01 0.17 0.17 Mobile 15.99 41.43 160.16 0.53 36.39 10.21 Phase 2 Total 34.45 44.16 214.94 0.55 36.85 10.68 Phase 3 Area 15.05 0.54 47.09 0.00 0.26 0.26 Energy 0.18 1.57 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 Mobile 12.03 28.64 126.76 0.49 33.59 9.42 Civic Center: 109.38 141.61 679.03 1.87 126.17 36.41 Change: (25.39) (33.72) (141.49) (0.51) (34.06) (9.70) Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center Localized Operational Emissions (LST) Unmitigated Localized Operational Emissions' NOX I CO I PM,O I PM, lbs/day Nature Center: 8.33 92.82 2.72 1.58 Civic Center: 14.41 102.21 3.70 1.11 Change: (6.08) (9.39) (0.98) 0.47 Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 1 Because the emissions are localized,operational emissions from Phase 2 and 3 would not impact the same emissions as phase 1,etc. Therefore the emisisons of each phase are considered separately with respect to localized emissions. z While each of the phases are individually over 5 acres,the 5 acre thresholds are used as a screening level. As the emissions for the larger areas are less than the 5 acre thresholds,they would be less than significant if dispersion modeling was performed for the larger phase area. Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center CO Hotspot Summary Existing Existing+Project Cumulative Cumulative+Project Intersection Int ID AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Vincent Moraga Dr/Rancho California Rd 1 1,552 2,575 2,152 3,326 1,880 2,940 2,452 3,635 Jefferson Ave/Rancho California Rd 2 3,141 4,338 3,362 4,572 4,040 4,920 4,261 5,160 1-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Rd 3 4,044 4,327 4,302 4,606 4,840 4,890 5,098 5,151 1-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Rd 4 4,562 5,555 4,718 5,727 5,350 6,210 5,523 6,391 Ynez Rd/Rancho California Rd 5 5,195 6,972 5,345 7,122 6,070 7,810 6,214 7,960 Vincent Moraga Dr/Park Ridge(Future Intersection) 6 0 0 900 857 30 30 1,033 1,117 A St/Western Bypass(Future Intersection) 7 0 0 760 895 40 40 870 935 Project Rd/Western Bypass(Future Intersection) 8 0 0 978 1,315 70 70 1,128 1,385 1-15 SB Ramps/Front St/Temecula Pkwy 9 2,731 3,265 1,974 1,746 3,580 4,170 4,194 4,551 1-15 NB Ramps Temecula Pkwy 10 4,297 4,764 4,697 5,241 5,530 5,970 5,922 6,447 Temecula Pkwy/La Paz Rd 11 4,615 5,079 4,863 5,341 6,070 6,620 6,438 6,882 Temecula Pkwy/Pechanga Pkwy 12 4,807 5,817 5,020 6,038 6,530 7,610 6,735 7,824 Rainbow Valley Rd/Pechanga Pkwy 13 2,981 3,929 3,036 3,979 4,240 5,370 4,240 5,382 Margarita Rd/Temecula Pkwy 14 3,938 5,354 4,046 5,466 4,770 6,310 4,878 6,572 Pujol St/Santiago Rd 15 366 818 427 880 460 950 621 1,112 Old Town/Front St/Santiago Rd 16 1,020 2,072 829 1,595 1,180 2,370 1,069 1,893 Ynez Rd/Santiago Rd 17 1,632 2,316 1,692 2,378 1,870 2,610 1,930 2,672 Ridge Park Dr/Rancho California Rd 18 1,012 1,207 1,072 1,269 1,190 1,410 1,270 1,472 Diaz Rd/Rancho Wy 19 1,056 1,419 1,255 1,632 1,210 1,610 1,409 1,823 Diaz Rd/Winchester Rd 20 1,958 2,256 2,096 2,407 2,260 2,570 2,398 2,721 Jefferson Ave/Winchester Rd 21 4,422 5,306 4,525 5,423 5,780 5,940 5,883 6,054 1-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Rd 22 4,700 4,651 4,803 4,774 5,670 5,190 5,773 5,303 1-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd 23 4,778 6,062 4,850 6,136 5,660 6,760 5,732 6,825 Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 24 5,023 7,028 5,095 7,063 5,870 7,830 5,942 7,905 Front St/Temecula Pkwy(Removed w/1-15 Interchange Project) 25 814 1,640 3,345 3,916 0 0 0 0 Max 5,195 7,028 5,345 7,122 6,530 7,830 6,735 7,960 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 12:12 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - Unmitigated Construction & Operation Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 233.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 497.25 523.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 58.50 62.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.25 0.00 tblLandUse Land UseSq uareFeet 792,792.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.39 31.33 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.34 3.75 tblLandUse Population 1,673.00 1,539.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2024 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 Total 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 Total 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Energy 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mobile 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 1 4 1 12 Total 28.1537 30.9968 169.0839 0.4698 32.8837 1.8181 34.7018 8.7747 1.7558 10.5306 1 0.0000 �47,390.69147,390.692� 1.2415 0.2452 47,492.75 23 3 79 Mitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Energy 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 Mobile 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 1 12 Total 28.1267 1 30.7664 1 168.9841 1 0.4684 1 32.8837 1 1.7995 34.6832 1 8.7747 1 1.7372 10.5120 1 0.0000 147,096.79147,096.7911 1.2358 1 0.2398 147,197.06 16 6 85 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.10 0.74 0.06 0.31 0.00 1.02 0.05 0.00 1.06 0.18 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.45 2.20 0.62 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Facto]0.48 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1666 0.2142 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 Total 0.1666 0.2142 1 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1666 0.2142 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 Total 0.1666 0.2142 1 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 1 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 720 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 12 Unmitigated 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 12 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 11,186,022 11,186,022 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 1,928,919 1,928,919 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 793,097 793,097 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 4,151.20 3,335.60 13,908,038 13,908,038 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 Mitigated 3 4 NaturalGas 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 Unmitigated 1 7 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 200 2.1600e- 0.0196 0.0165 1.2000e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 23.5294 23.5294 4.5000e- 4.3000e- 23.6726 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 95.3425 1.0300e- 9.3500e- 7.8500e- 6.00OOe- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 11.2168 11.2168 2.1000e- 2.1000e- 11.2850 003 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 19222.9 0.2073 1.7715 0.7538 0.0113 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 2,261.5129 2,261.512 0.0434 0.0415 2,275.276 Rise 9 1 Total 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.2591 2,296.259 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG I NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 1 0.17 1.8300e- 0.0167 0.0140 1.00OOe- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 20.0000 20.0000 3.8000e- 3.7000e- 20.1217 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 0.0828904 8.9000e- 8.1300e- 6.8300e- 5.00OOe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 9.7518 9.7518 1.9000e- 1.8000e- 9.8112 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 16.7672 0.1808 1.5452 0.6575 9.8600e- 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 1,972.6065 1,972.606 0.0378 0.0362 1,984.611 Rise 003 5 5 Total 0.1835 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.3583 2,002.358 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG I NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- jTotalCO21 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Unmitigated 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 N 0 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.4758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.0152 5.00OOe- 0.0554 0.0000 0.7014 0.7014 0.6941 0.6941 0.0000 11,075.29 11,075.294 0.2123 0.2031 11,142.69 005 41 1 65 Landscaping 1.4511 0.5559 48.2484 2.5500e- 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 86.9147 86.9147 0.0834 88.6664 003 Total 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9689 0.9689 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Mitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.4758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.0152 5.00OOe- 0.0554 0.0000 0.7014 0.7014 0.6941 0.6941 0.0000 11,075.29 11,075.294 0.2123 0.2031 11,142.69 005 41 1 65 Landscaping 1.4511 0.5559 48.2484 2.5500e- 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 86.9147 86.9147 0.0834 88.6664 003 Total 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.SSOOe- 0.9689 0.9689 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 111,1162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 12:17 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - Unmitigated Construction & Operation Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 233.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 497.25 523.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 58.50 62.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.25 0.00 tblLandUse Land UseSq uareFeet 792,792.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.39 31.33 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.34 3.75 tblLandUse Population 1,673.00 1,539.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2024 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,042.783 4 8 Total 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,048.783 4 8 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,042.783 4 8 Total 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,048.783 4 8 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Energy 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mobile 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 1 4 1 45 Total 28.4593 29.9008 175.8386 0.5027 32.8837 1.8160 34.6997 8.7747 1.7539 10.5287 0.0000 49,635.01 149,635.018� 1.2394 0.2452 49,737.04 84 4 12 Mitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Energy 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 Mobile 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 4 1 45 Total 28.4324 1 29.6703 1 175.7388 0.5012 1 32.8837 1 1.7974 1 34.6811 1 8.7747 1 1.7353 1 10.5100 1 0.0000 149,341.11 149,341.1171 1.2338 1 0.2398 149,441.35 76 6 18 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.09 0.77 0.06 0.29 0.00 1.02 0.05 0.00 1.06 0.18 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.45 2.20 0.59 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Facto]0.48 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 Total 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 Total 0.1753 0.2024 1 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 1 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 720 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 4 45 Unmitigated 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 4 45 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 11,186,022 11,186,022 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 1,928,919 1,928,919 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 793,097 793,097 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 4,151.20 3,335.60 13,908,038 1 13,908,038 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 Mitigated 3 4 NaturalGas 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 Unmitigated 1 7 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 200 2.1600e- 0.0196 0.0165 1.2000e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 23.5294 23.5294 4.5000e- 4.3000e- 23.6726 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 95.3425 1.0300e- 9.3500e- 7.8500e- 6.00OOe- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 11.2168 11.2168 2.1000e- 2.1000e- 11.2850 003 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 19222.9 0.2073 1.7715 0.7538 0.0113 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 2,261.5129 2,261.512 0.0434 0.0415 2,275.276 Rise 9 1 Total 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.2591 2,296.259 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG I NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 1 0.17 1.8300e- 0.0167 0.0140 1.00OOe- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 20.0000 20.0000 3.8000e- 3.7000e- 20.1217 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 0.0828904 8.9000e- 8.1300e- 6.8300e- 5.00OOe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 9.7518 9.7518 1.9000e- 1.8000e- 9.8112 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 16.7672 0.1808 1.5452 0.6575 9.8600e- 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 1,972.6065 1,972.606 0.0378 0.0362 1,984.611 Rise 003 5 5 Total 0.1835 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.3583 2,002.358 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG I NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- jTotalCO21 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Unmitigated 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 N 0 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.4758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.0152 5.00OOe- 0.0554 0.0000 0.7014 0.7014 0.6941 0.6941 0.0000 11,075.29 11,075.294 0.2123 0.2031 11,142.69 005 41 1 65 Landscaping 1.4511 0.5559 48.2484 2.5500e- 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 86.9147 86.9147 0.0834 88.6664 003 Total 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9689 0.9689 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Mitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.4758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.0152 5.00OOe- 0.0554 0.0000 0.7014 0.7014 0.6941 0.6941 0.0000 11,075.29 11,075.294 0.2123 0.2031 11,142.69 005 41 1 65 Landscaping 1.4511 0.5559 48.2484 2.5500e- 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 86.9147 86.9147 0.0834 88.6664 003 Total 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.SSOOe- 0.9689 0.9689 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 111,1162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 1:15 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - LST Mobile Onsite Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions -Assumes 1/2 mile onsite trip for operational activities Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - See Operational Output Calculations Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions and mitigation in operational output Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Trips and VMT- Onsite 1/4 mile for construction Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblTripsAndVMT Haul ingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 0.25 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.50 tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 0.50 tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 0.50 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4229 1.1667 2.1065 3.3800e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 308.2632 308.2632 0.0169 0.0000 308.6185 003 003 Total 23.4229 1.1667 2.1065 3.3800e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 308.2632 308.2632 0.0169 0.0000 308.6185 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4229 1.1667 2.1065 3.3800e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 308.2632 308.2632 0.0169 0.0000 308.6185 003 003 Total 23.4229 1.1667 2.1065 3.3800e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 308.2632 308.2632 0.0169 0.0000 308.6185 003 003 ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2. 205 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mobile 8.4169 6.2080 1 43.8404 1 0.0342 1 1.5743 0.0782 1.6525 0.4201 0.0723 0.4924 12,534.368�2,534.36841 0.1160 1 12,536.803 4 7 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 I CH4 I 77TO I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mobile 8.4169 6.2080 1 43.8404 1 0.0342 1 1.5743 1 0.0782 1.6525 0.4201 0.0723 0.4924 12,534.368�2,534.36841 0.1160 1 1 2,536.803 4 7 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 4.83 2.83 1.41 3.24 0.00 60.95 26.27 0.00 61.01 44.99 0.00 71.11 71.11 48.69 85.03 71.16 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0. 88 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 I 720 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1330 0.0212 0.2973 4.1000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.000Oe- 5.5600e- 26.8151 26.8151 1.5700e- 26.8480 004 004 003 1 004 003 003 Total 0.1330 1 0.0212 1 0.2973 1 4.1000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.000Oe- 5.5600e- 26.8151 1 26.8151 1.5700e- 26.8480 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 720 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1330 0.0212 0.2973 4.1000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.000Oe- 5.5600e- 26.8151 26.8151 1.5700e- 26.8480 004 004 003 004 003 003 Total 0.1330 0.0212 1 0.2973 4.1000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.000Oe- 5.5600e- 26.8151 1 26.8151 1 1.5700e- 26.8480 004 004 003 004 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile Mobile Emissions Only 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 8.4169 6.2080 43.8404 0.0342 1.5743 0.0782 1.6525 0.4201 0.0723 0.4924 2,534.368 2,534.3684 0.1160 2,536.803 4 7 Unmitigated 8.4169 6.2080 43.8404 0.0342 1.5743 0.0782 1.6525 0.4201 0.0723 0.4924 2,534.368 2,534.3684 0.1160 2,536.803 4 7 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 532,326 532,326 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 89,960 89,960 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 44,003 44,003 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 4,151.20 3,335.60 666,288 666,288 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 0.50 0.50 0.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 0.50 0.50 0.50 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 0.50 0.50 0.50 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 0.50 0.50 0.50 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 1:17 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - LST Mobile Onsite Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions -Assumes 1/2 mile onsite trip for operational activities Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - See Operational Output Calculations Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions and mitigation in operational output Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Trips and VMT- Onsite 1/4 mile for construction Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblTripsAndVMT Haul ingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 0.25 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.50 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.50 tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 0.50 tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 0.50 tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 0.50 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary Mobile Sources Only 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4269 1.1653 2.0616 3.4000e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 309.8255 309.8255 0.0169 0.0000 310.1809 003 003 Total 23.4269 1.1653 2.0616 3.4000e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 309.8255 309.8255 0.0169 0.0000 310.1809 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4269 1.1653 2.0616 3.4000e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 309.8255 309.8255 0.0169 0.0000 310.1809 003 003 Total 23.4269 1.1653 2.0616 3.4000e- 0.0172 0.0525 0.0697 4.6700e- 0.0524 0.0571 0.0000 309.8255 309.8255 0.0169 0.0000 310.1809 003 003 ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2. 205 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mobile 8.5849 6.1847 1 36.9145 1 0.0361 1 1.5743 0.0762 1.6504 0.4201 0.0704 0.4905 12,686.981 �2,686.98131 0.1139 1 12,689.373 3 9 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 I CH4 I 77TO I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mobile 8.5849 6.1847 1 36.9145 1 0.0361 1 1.5743 1 0.0762 1.6504 0.4201 0.0704 0.4905 12,686.981 �2,686.98131 0.1139 1 12,689.373 3 9 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 4.79 2.83 1.53 3.11 0.00 61.06 26.29 0.00 61.11 45.04 0.00 70.43 70.43 48.91 85.03 70.49 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0. 88 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- jTotalCO21 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1369 0.0198 0.2524 4.3000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.00OOe- 5.5600e- 28.3775 28.3775 1.5700e- 28.4104 004 004 003 1 004 003 003 Total 0.1369 1 0.0198 1 0.2524 1 4.3000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.00OOe- 5.5600e- 28.3775 1 28.3775 1.5700e- 28.4104 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1369 0.0198 0.2524 4.3000e- 0.0172 9.7000e- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.00OOe- 5.5600e- 28.3775 28.3775 1.5700e- 28.4104 004 1 004 003 004 003 003 Total 0.1369 0.0198 0.2524 4.3000e- 1 0.0172 9.70OOe- 0.0182 4.6700e- 9.00OOe- 5.5600e7 28.3775 28.3775 1.5700e- 28.4104 004 004 003 004 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile Mobile Sources only 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I 720 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 8.5849 6.1847 1 36.9145 0.0361 1 1.5743 1 0.0762 1.6504 0.4201 0.0704 0.4905 1 2,686.981 12,686.9813 0.1139 2,689.373 3 9 Unmitigated 8.5849 1 6.1847 1 36.9145 0.0361 1 1.5743 1 0.0762 1 1.6504 0.4201 1 0.0704 0.4905 1 2,686.981 12,686.98131 0.1139 1 1 2,689.373 11 3 9 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 532,326 532,326 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 89,960 89,960 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 44,003 44,003 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 4,151.20 3,335.60 1 666,288 666,288 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% I Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 0.50 0.50 0.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 0.50 0.50 0.50 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 0.50 0.50 0.50 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 0.50 0.50 0.50 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 4453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 1:02 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - Mitigated Operation Riverside-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - See Operational Output Calculations Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions and mitigation in operational output Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExterio 250 150 tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiallnterior 250 150 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 233.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 497.25 523.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 58.50 62.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.25 0.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 792,792.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.39 31.33 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.34 3.75 tblLandUse Population 1,673.00 1,539.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2024 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 1 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 Total 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 Total 23.4565 1.3597 4.0105 0.0135 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 975.8606 975.8606 0.0408 0.0000 976.7180 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Energy 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mobile 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 1 12 Total 28.1537 1 30.9968 1169.08391 0.4698 1 32.8837 1 1.8181 1 34.7018 1 8.7747 1.7558 10.5306 0.0000 47,390.69 147,390.6921 1.2415 1 0.2452 1 47,492.75 23 3 79 Mitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 15.0459 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.0000 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 0.0000 85.9732 003 Energy 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 Mobile 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 12 Total 26.9545 30.7548 1167.7707 0.4683 1 32.8837 1.0913 33.9749 8.7747 1.0364 9.8111 0.0000 36,018.88 136,018.887 1.0196 0.0367 36,051.67 77 7 88 ROG NOx I CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 4.26 0.78 1 0.78 1 0.33 1 0.00 1 39.98 1 2.09 0.00 1 40.98 1 6.83 1 0.00 1 24.00 1 24.00 1 17.87 1 85.03 24.09 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Facto]0.48 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 7727 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 720 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1666 0.2142 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 Total 0.1666 1 0.2142 1 2.2014 1 0.0106 1 0.9613 1 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 1 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 1 720 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 720 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1666 0.2142 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 Total 0.1666 0.2142 2.2014 0.0106 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 694.4126 694.4126 0.0255 694.9476 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 I NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 11.7251 28.6404 120.0020 0.4558 32.8837 0.7038 33.5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 12 Unmitigated 11,7251 28,6404 120,0020 0.4558 32,8837 0.7038 33,5875 8.7747 0.6489 9.4237 33,932.22 33,932.224 0.9018 33,951.16 44 4 12 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 11,186,022 11,186,022 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 1,928,919 1,928,919 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 793,097 793,097 City Park 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 1 4,151.20 3,335.60 1 13,908,038 1 13,908,038 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 FLDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 Mitigated 3 4 NaturalGas 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 Unmitigated 1 7 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 200 2.1600e- 0.0196 0.0165 1.2000e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 23.5294 23.5294 4.5000e- 4.3000e- 23.6726 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 95.3425 1.0300e- 9.3500e- 7.8500e- 6.00OOe- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 11.2168 11.2168 2.1000e- 2.1000e- 11.2850 003 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 19222.9 0.2073 1.7715 0.7538 0.0113 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 2,261.5129 2,261.512 0.0434 0.0415 2,275.276 Rise 9 1 Total 0.2105 1 1.8005 1 0.7782 1 0.0115 0.1454 1 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 1 12,296.2591 2,296.259 1 0.0440 1 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 0.17 1.8300e- 0.0167 0.0140 1.000Oe- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 20.0000 20.0000 3.8000e- 3.7000e- 20.1217 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 0.0828904 8.9000e- 8.1300e- 6.8300e- 5.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 9.7518 9.7518 1.9000e- 1.8000e- 9.8112 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 16.7672 0.1808 1.5452 0.6575 9.8600e- 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 1,972.6065 1,972.606 0.0378 0.0362 1,984.611 Rise 003 5 5 Total 0.1835 1 1.5700 1 0.6784 1 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 1 12,002.3583 2,002.358 1 0.0384 1 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Electric Lawnmower Use Electric Leafblower Use Electric Chainsaw Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior No Hearths Installed Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 15.0459 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.0000 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 0.0000 85.9732 003 Unmitigated 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 21 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.4758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.0152 5.00OOe- 0.0554 0.0000 0.7014 0.7014 0.6941 0.6941 0.0000 11,075.29 11,075.294 0.2123 0.2031 11,142.69 005 41 1 65 Landscaping 1.4511 0.5559 48.2484 2.5500e- 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 86.9147 86.9147 0.0834 88.6664 003 Total 16.2181 1 0.5559 1 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9689 0.9689 0.9615 0.9615 1 0.0000 111,162.20111,162.2081 0.2957 1 0.2031 111,231.36 003 89 9 29 Mitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.3869 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.3829 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 85.9732 003 Total 15.0459 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.0000 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 0.0000 85.9732 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 1:09 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - Mitigated Operation Riverside-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - See Operational Output Calculations Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions and mitigation in operational output Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExterio 250 150 tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiallnterior 250 150 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 233.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 497.25 523.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 58.50 62.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.25 0.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 792,792.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.39 31.33 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.34 3.75 tblLandUse Population 1,673.00 1,539.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2024 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves Wood stove DayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 1 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,042.783 4 8 Total 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,042.783 4 8 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 I CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2025 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,042.783 4 8 Total 23.4652 1.3479 4.4134 0.0145 0.9613 0.0575 1.0188 0.2549 0.0571 0.3120 0.0000 1,041.926 1,041.9264 0.0408 0.0000 1,042.783 4 8 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 29 Energy 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mobile 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 1 4 1 45 Total 28.4593 1 29.9008 1 175.8386 0.5027 1 32.8837 1 1.8160 1 34.6997 1 8.7747 1 1.7539 1 10.5287 1 0.0000 149,635.01 149,635.0181 1.2394 1 0.2452 49,737.04 84 4 12 Mitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 15.0459 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.0000 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 0.0000 85.9732 003 Energy 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 Mobile 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 4 45 Total 27.2601 29.6588 1174.5254 1 0.5012 1 32.8837 1.0892 33.9728 8.7747 1.0345 9.8092 0.0000 38,263.21 38,263.213 1.0175 0.0367 38,295.96 37 7 21 ROG NOx I CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 I Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 4.21 0.81 1 0.75 1 0.31 1 0.00 1 40.02 1 2.09 0.00 1 41.02 6.83 1 0.00 1 22.91 1 22.91 1 17.90 1 85.03 23.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Facto]0.48 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 7727 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 720 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 Total 0.1753 1 0.2024 1 2.6043 0.0116 1 0.9613 1 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 1 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I MmO CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 23.1191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Total 23.2899 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e- 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.7705 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 7TO CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 Total mm] 0.1753 0.2024 2.6043 0.0116 0.9613 6.0100e- 0.9673 0.2549 5.5700e- 0.2605 760.4783 760.4783 0.0255 761.0133 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 12.0307 27.5444 126.7567 0.4887 32.8837 0.7018 33.5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 4 45 Unmitigated 12,0307 27,5444 126,7567 0.4887 32,8837 0.7018 33,5854 8.7747 0.6470 9.4218 36,176.55 36,176.550 0.8997 36,195.44 04 4 45 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 11,186,022 11,186,022 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 1,928,919 1,928,919 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 793,097 793,097 City Park 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 1 4,151.20 3,335.60 1 13,908,038 1 13,908,038 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 FLDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 0.1836 1.5700 0.6784 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 2,002.358 2,002.3583 0.0384 0.0367 2,014.544 Mitigated 3 4 NaturalGas 0.2105 1.8005 0.7782 0.0115 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 2,296.259 2,296.2591 0.0440 0.0421 2,310.233 Unmitigated 1 7 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 200 2.1600e- 0.0196 0.0165 1.2000e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 1.4900e- 23.5294 23.5294 4.5000e- 4.3000e- 23.6726 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 95.3425 1.0300e- 9.3500e- 7.8500e- 6.00OOe- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 11.2168 11.2168 2.1000e- 2.1000e- 11.2850 003 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 19222.9 0.2073 1.7715 0.7538 0.0113 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 0.1432 2,261.5129 2,261.512 0.0434 0.0415 2,275.276 Rise 9 1 Total 0.2105 1 1.8005 1 0.7782 1 0.0115 0.1454 1 0.1454 0.1454 0.1454 1 12,296.2591 2,296.259 1 0.0440 1 0.0421 2,310.233 1 7 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 0.17 1.8300e- 0.0167 0.0140 1.000Oe- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 1.2700e- 20.0000 20.0000 3.8000e- 3.7000e- 20.1217 Building 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Strip Mall 0.0828904 8.9000e- 8.1300e- 6.8300e- 5.000Oe- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 9.7518 9.7518 1.9000e- 1.8000e- 9.8112 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Apartments Mid 16.7672 0.1808 1.5452 0.6575 9.8600e- 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 1,972.6065 1,972.606 0.0378 0.0362 1,984.611 Rise 003 5 5 Total 0.1835 1 1.5700 1 0.6784 1 0.0100 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 0.1268 1 12,002.3583 2,002.358 1 0.0384 1 0.0367 2,014.544 3 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Electric Lawnmower Use Electric Leafblower Use Electric Chainsaw Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior No Hearths Installed Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 15.0459 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.0000 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 0.0000 85.9732 003 Unmitigated 16.2181 0.5559 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9688 0.9688 0.9615 0.9615 0.0000 11,162.20 11,162.208 0.2957 0.2031 11,231.36 003 89 9 21 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.4758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 1.0152 5.00OOe- 0.0554 0.0000 0.7014 0.7014 0.6941 0.6941 0.0000 11,075.29 11,075.294 0.2123 0.2031 11,142.69 005 41 1 65 Landscaping 1.4511 0.5559 48.2484 2.5500e- 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 0.2674 86.9147 86.9147 0.0834 88.6664 003 Total 16.2181 1 0.5559 1 48.3038 2.5500e- 0.9689 0.9689 0.9615 0.9615 1 0.0000 111,162.20111,162.2081 0.2957 1 0.2031 111,231.36 003 89 9 29 Mitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 1.3869 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 12.2760 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.3829 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 85.9732 003 Total 15.0459 0.5444 47.0903 2.4600e- 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.2606 0.0000 84.3050 84.3050 0.0794 0.0000 85.9732 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation GHG Calculations and Modeling Output Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center GHG Summary Emissions Unmitigate GHG Construction Emissions CH4 I COZ CH4 (COZe) NZO (CO) COZe 2016 1,005.57 0.15 3.79 0.00 0.00 1,009.76 2017 859.73 0.10 2.40 0.00 0.00 862.14 2018 573.85 0.06 1.54 0.00 0.00 575.40 2019 963.00 0.16 3.94 0.00 0.00 966.94 2020 1,034.78 0.10 2.42 0.00 0.00 1,037.20 2021 1,022.40 0.09 2.37 0.00 0.00 1,024.77 2022 119.88 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 120.09 2022 417.57 0.10 2.50 0.00 0.00 420.06 2023 1,253.07 0.10 2.62 0.00 0.00 1,255.68 2024 1,227.80 0.10 2.39 0.00 0.00 1,230.19 2025 Arch Coating: 104.15 0.04 1.08 0.00 0.00 105.23 Total Project: 9,293.50 Amortized Emissionsl: 309.78 Mitigate GHG Construction Emissions CH4 I COZ CH4 (COZe) NZO (COZe) COZe 2016 1,005.57 0.15 3.79 0.00 0.00 1,009.76 2017 859.73 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 859.80 2018 537.85 0.06 1.54 0.00 0.00 539.40 2019 963.28 0.16 3.94 0.00 0.00 967.22 2020 1,034.78 0.10 2.42 0.00 0.00 1,037.20 2021 1,022.40 0.09 2.37 0.00 0.00 1,024.77 2022 119.88 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 120.09 2022 417.57 0.10 2.50 0.00 0.00 420.06 2023 1,253.07 0.10 2.62 0.00 0.00 1,255.68 2024 1,227.80 0.10 2.39 0.00 0.00 1,230.19 2025 Arch Coating: 104.15 0.04 1.08 0.00 0.00 105.23 Total Project: 9,255.43 Amortized Emissionsl: 308.51 Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center GHG Summary Emissions Unmitigated GHG Emissions COZ CH4 (COZe) NZO (CO) COZe MT/year Annual Unmitigated Phase 1 Area 115.76 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.59 116.61 Energy 818.69 0.03 0.76 0.01 3.07 822.51 Mobile 3,586.07 0.11 2.82 0.00 0.00 3,588.90 Waste 23.34 1.38 34.49 0.00 0.00 57.83 Water 167.30 0.86 21.41 0.02 6.44 195.15 Total Phase 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,781.01 Phase 2 Area 154.10 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.78 155.22 Energy 1,399.77 0.05 1.31 0.02 5.13 1,406.21 Mobile 5,613.69 0.16 4.05 0.00 0.00 5,617.74 Waste 62.09 3.67 91.74 0.00 0.00 153.83 Water 253.87 1.24 31.12 0.03 9.36 294.35 Total Phase 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,627.35 Phase 3 Area 135.45 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.69 136.43 Energy 1,084.37 0.04 1.03 0.01 3.93 1,089.33 Mobile 5,065.73 0.13 3.33 0.00 0.00 5,069.05 Waste 30.96 1.83 45.74 0.00 0.00 76.70 Water 288.39 1.13 28.20 0.03 8.64 325.23 Total Phase 3 6,696.74 Amoritized Construction 309.78 Operational Emissions 19,105.10 Total Project Emissions 19,414.88 Service Population (SP) 4,680.00 Emissions per SP 4.15 Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 Mitigation: See AQ-1 through AQ-6 in Construction and Operational Summary Sheets. Altair Specific Plan - Nature Center GHG Summary Emissions Mitigated GHG Emissions COZ CH4 (COZe) NZO (CO) COZe MT/year Annual Unmitigated Phase 1 Area 8.17 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 8.37 Energy 770.13 0.03 0.70 0.01 2.92 773.74 Mobile 3,586.07 0.11 2.82 0.00 0.00 3,588.90 Waste 11.67 0.69 17.25 0.00 0.00 28.92 Water 167.30 0.86 21.41 0.02 6.44 195.15 Total Phase 1 4,595.08 Phase 2 Area 10.88 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 11.14 Energy 1,313.50 0.05 1.22 0.02 4.89 1,319.60 Mobile 5,613.69 0.16 4.05 0.00 0.00 5,617.74 Waste 31.05 1.83 45.87 0.00 0.00 76.92 Water 253.69 1.24 31.12 0.03 9.36 294.17 Total Phase 2 7,319.57 Phase 3 Area 9.56 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 9.79 Energy 1,016.61 0.04 0.95 0.01 3.75 1,021.32 Mobile 5,065.73 0.13 3.33 0.00 0.00 5,069.05 Waste 15.48 0.92 22.96 0.00 0.00 38.44 Water 288.39 1.13 28.20 0.03 8.64 325.23 Total Phase 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,463.83 Amoritized Construction 308.51 Operational Emissions 18,619.68 Total Project Emissions 18,928.19 Service Population (SP) 4,680 Emissions per SP 4.04 Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2017 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/30/2017 12:19 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - Unmitigated Construction & Operation Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tbl Con structionPhase NumDays 75.00 233.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 497.25 523.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 58.50 62.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.25 0.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 792,792.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.39 31.33 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.34 3.75 tblLandUse Population 1,673.00 1,539.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2024 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year tons/yr MT/yr 2025 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 I NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 770 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year tons/yr MT/yr 2025 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I 720 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 135.4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 136.4107 004 003 Energy 0.0384 0.3286 0.1420 2.1000e- 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0000 1,153.904 1,153.9042 0.0429 0.0143 1,159.245 003 2 8 Mobile 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 61.9163 0.0000 61.9163 3.6592 0.0000 138.7584 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13.5724 313.8403 327.4127 1.4084 0.0359 368.1191 Total 4.5656 5.1792 26.3172 0.0775 5.2752 0.1832 5.4584 1.4095 0.1742 1.5837 75.4887 6,668.918 6,744.4072 5.2554 0.0525 6,871.055 5 3 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 135.4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 136.4107 004 003 Energy 0.0335 0.2865 0.1238 1.8300e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0000 1,084.369 1,084.3698 0.0410 0.0132 1,089.333 003 8 7 Mobile 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.9582 0.0000 30.9582 1.8296 0.0000 69.3792 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.8579 277.5322 288.3901 1.1280 0.0290 321.0588 Total 4.5607 1 5.1371 1 26.2989 1 0.0772 5.2752 0.1798 1 5.4550 1.4095 1 0.1708 1.5803 41.8161 16,563.07616,604.89211 3.1435 1 0.0445 6,684.703 1 6 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.11 0.81 0.07 0.35 0.00 1.86 0.06 0.00 1.95 0.21 44.61 1.59 2.07 40.19 15.27 2.71 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 1 CH4 1 72O 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 2.6934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0199 0.1335 0.2108 3.50OOe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.00OOe- 6.000Oe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7795 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7133 0.1335 0.2108 3.5000e- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7795 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.25OOe- 0.1101 7.00OOe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.50OOe- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 74.4001 2.69OOe- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.2500e- 0.1101 1 7.00OOe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.5000e- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 74.4001 1 2.6900e- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 2.6934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0199 0.1335 0.2108 3.50OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7794 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7133 0.1335 0.2108 3.5000e- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7794 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.2500e- 0.1101 7.00OOe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.50OOe- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 74.4001 2.69OOe- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.2500e- 0.1101 7.00OOe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.5000e- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 1 74.4001 1 2.6900e- 0.0000 tj 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 I NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 Unmitigated 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 11,186,022 11,186,022 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 1,928,919 1,928,919 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 793,097 793,097 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4,507.40 4,151.20 3,335.60 13,908,038 13,908,038 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 ELDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 1 72O 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 752.8570 752.8570 0.0346 7.1600e- 755.8033 Mitigated 003 Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 773.7327 773.7327 0.0356 7.3600e- 776.7607 Unmitigated 003 NaturalGas 0.0335 0.2865 0.1238 1.8300e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0000 331.5129 331.5129 6.3500e- 6.0800e- 333.5304 Mitigated 003 003 003 NaturalGas 0.0384 0.3286 0.1420 2.1000e- 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0000 380.1714 380.1714 7.2900e- 6.9700e- 382.4851 Unmitigated 003 003 003 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG I NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 7.01634e+ 0.0378 0.3233 0.1376 2.0600e- 0.0261 0.0261 0.0261 0.0261 0.0000 374.4188 374.4188 7.1800e- 6.8600e- 376.6975 Rise 006 1 003 003 003 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 73000 3.9000e- 3.5800e- 3.0100e- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 3.8956 3.8956 7.00OOe- 7.00OOe- 3.9193 Building 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Strip Mall 34800 1.9000e- 1.7100e- 1.4300e- 1.00OOe- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1 0.0000 1 1.8571 1 1.8571 1 4.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 1.8684 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 0.0384 0.3286 0.1420 2.0900e- 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0000 380.1714 380.1714 7.2900e- 6.9600e- 382.4851 003 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 62050 3.300Oe- 3.04OOe- 2.560Oe- 2.00OOe- 2.3000e- 2.300Oe- 2.300Oe- 2.30OOe- 0.0000 3.3112 3.3112 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 3.3314 Building 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Strip Mall 30255 1.600Oe- 1.4800e- 1.2500e- 1.00OOe- 1.1000e- 1.100Oe- 1.100Oe- 1.10OOe- 0.0000 1.6145 1.6145 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 1.6244 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Apartments Mid 6.12001e+ 0.0330 0.2820 0.1200 1.8000e- 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0000 326.5871 326.5871 6.2600e- 5.9900e- 328.5747 Rise 00611 003 003 003 Total 0.0335 0.2865 0.1238 1.8300e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0000 331.5129 331.5129 6.3500e- 6.0800e- 333.5304 003 003 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 2.25508e+ 645.3296 0.0297 6.1400e- 647.8551 Rise 006 003 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 213800 61.1825 2.81OOe- 5.800Oe- 61.4219 Building 003 004 Strip Mall 234900 67.2206 3.09OOe- 6.400Oe- 67.4837 003 004 t 773.7327 0.0356 7.3600e- 776.7607 003 Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 2.20598e+ 631.2789 0.0290 6.00OOe- 633.7495 Rise 006 003 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 202550 57.9631 2.66OOe- 5.5000e- 58.1899 Building 003 004 Strip Mall 222300 63.6149 2.92OOe- 6.100Oe- 63.8639 003 004 Total 752.8569 1 0.0346 7.1600e- 755.8033 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG I NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotalCO21 CH4 1 N2O 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 135.4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 136.4107 004 003 Unmitigated 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 135.4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 136.4107 004 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.2693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 2.2404 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0127 0.0000 6.9000e- 0.0000 8.7700e- 8.7700e- 8.6800e- 8.6800e- 0.0000 125.5917 125.5917 2.4100e- 2.3000e- 126.3561 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.1814 0.0695 6.0311 3.2000e- 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0000 9.8560 9.8560 9.4600e- 0.0000 10.0546 004 1 1 003 Total 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 1 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 1 135.4477 1 0.0119 1 2.3000e- 1 136.4107 004 003 Mitigated ROG NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.2693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 2.2404 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0127 0.0000 6.9000e- 0.0000 8.7700e- 8.7700e- 8.6800e- 8.6800e- 0.0000 125.5917 125.5917 2.4100e- 2.3000e- 126.3561 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.1814 0.0695 6.0311 3.2000e- 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0000 9.8560 9.8560 9.4600e- 0.0000 10.0546 004 1 1 003 Total 2.7038 0.0695 1 6.0317 1 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 1 135.4477 1 0.0119 1 2.3000e- 1 136.4107 004 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 288.3901 1.1280 0.0290 321.0588 Unmitigated 327,4127 1.4084 0.0359 368.1191 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 38.1151/ 230.5119 1.2520 0.0314 266.5393 Rise 24.0291 City Park 0/21.685 68.9433 3.1700e- 6.6000e- 69.2131 003 004 General Office 3.55467/ 21.2998 0.1168 2.9300e- 24.6590 Building 2.17867 003 Strip Mall 1.11109/ 6.6577 0.0365 9.1000e- 7.7077 0.680989 004 Total 327.4127 1.4084 0.0359 368.1191 Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 30.4921/ 195.7452 1.0021 0.0252 224.6115 Rise 24.0291 City Park 0/21.685 68.9433 3.1700e- 6.6000e- 69.2131 003 004 General Office 2.84374/ 18.0574 0.0935 2.3500e- 20.7487 Building 2.17867 003 Strip Mall 0.88887/ 5.6442 0.0292 7.3000e- 6.4854 0.680989 004 Total 288.3901 1.1280 1 0.0290 1 321.0588 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e MT/yr Unmitigated 61.9163 3.6592 0.0000 138.7584 Mitigated 30.9582 1.8296 0.0000 69.3792 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 269.1 54.6249 3.2282 0.0000 122.4179 Rise City Park 1.57 0.3187 0.0188 0.0000 0.7142 General Office 18.6 3.7756 0.2231 0.0000 8.4614 Building Strip Mall 15.75 3.1971 0.1889 0.0000 7.1649 Total 61.9163 3.6591 0.0000 138.7584 Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 134.55 27.3124 1.6141 0.0000 61.2089 Rise City Park 0.785 0.1594 9.4200e- 0.0000 0.3571 003 General Office 9.3 1.8878 0.1116 0.0000 4.2307 Building Strip Mall 7.875 1.5986 0.0945 0.0000 3.5825 Total 30.9582 1.8296 0.0000 69.3792 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 5/31/2017 3:08 PM Altair - Nature Center Option - Mitigated Operation Riverside-South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 20.00 1000sgft 0.46 20,000.00 0 City Park 18.20 Acre 18.20 0.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 585.00 Dwelling Unit 31.33 585,000.00 1539 Strip Mall 15.00 1000sgft 3.75 15,000.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 28 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 630.89 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use-See Assumptions Construction Phase - See Assumptions Architectural Coating - See Assumptions Vehicle Trips - See Assumptions Woodstoves-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See Assumptions Area Mitigation - See Operational Output Calculations Energy Mitigation - See Assumptions and mitigation in operational output Water Mitigation - See Assumptions Waste Mitigation - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNon residential Exterio 250 150 tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNon residential Interior 250 150 tblConstruction Phase NumDays 75.00 233.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 497.25 523.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 58.50 62.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.25 0.00 tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet 792,792.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.39 31.33 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.34 3.75 tblLandUse Population 1,673.00 1,539.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2024 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.07 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.37 8.42 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 28.79 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.15 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.98 5.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 13.99 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.59 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.59 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 39.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 30.35 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 29.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWood Mass 999.60 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 770 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Year tons/yr MT/yr 2025 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year tons/yr MT/yr 2025 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 003 003 003 003 rTotal 2.7314 0.1595 0.4765 1.5900e- 0.1101 6.7000e- 0.1168 0.0292 6.6500e- 0.0359 0.0000 104.1455 104.1455 4.3200e- 0.0000 104.2361 1 003 003 003 003 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotaICO21 CH4 I N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 135.4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 136.4107 004 003 Energy 0.0384 0.3286 0.1420 2.1000e- 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0000 1,153.904 1,153.9042 0.0429 0.0143 1,159.245 003 2 8 Mobile 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 61.9163 0.0000 61.9163 3.6592 0.0000 138.7584 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13.5724 313.8403 327.4127 1.4084 0.0359 368.1191 Total 4.5656 5.1792 26.3172 0.0775 5.2752 0.1832 5.4584 1.4095 0.1742 1.5837 75.4887 6,668.918 6,744.4072 5.2554 0.0525 6,871.055 5 3 Mitigated Operational ROG I NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.6664 0.0681 5.8863 3.1000e- 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0000 9.5600 9.5600 9.0100e- 0.0000 9.7492 004 003 Energy 0.0335 0.2865 0.1238 1.8300e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0000 1,016.612 1,016.6127 0.0379 0.0126 1,021.311 003 7 4 Mobile 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 Waste 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 15.4791 0.0000 15.4791 1 0.9148 0.0000 34.6896 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.8579 277.5322 288.3901 1.1280 0.0290 321.0588 Total 4.5232 5.1357 26.1535 0.0772 5.2752 0.1702 5.4454 1.4095 0.1612 1.5708 26.3370 6,363.431 6 2.330,395.7683 2.2227 0.0416 6,45 3 2 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.93 0.84 0.62 0.36 0.00 7.11 0.24 0.00 7.42 0.82 65.11 4.49 5.17 57.71 20.88 6.05 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2025 12/24/2025 5 233 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 1,184,625; Residential Outdoor: 394,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 52,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,500 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 86.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads 3.2 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 2.6934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0199 0.1335 0.2108 3.5000e- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7795 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7133 0.1335 0.2108 3.5000e- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7795 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 1 CH4 720 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.2500e- 0.1101 7.00OOe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.5000e- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 74.4001 2.6900e- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1 1.2500e- 0.1101 7.00OOe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.5000e- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 1 74.4001 1 2.6900e- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 1 720 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 2.6934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0199 0.1335 0.2108 3.5000e- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7794 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 2.7133 0.1335 0.2108 3.5000e- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0000 29.7454 29.7454 1.6200e- 0.0000 29.7794 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 1 7727 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.2500e- 0.1101 7.000Oe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.5000e- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 74.4001 2.6900e- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 Total 0.0181 0.0261 0.2657 1.2500e- 0.1101 7.000Oe- 0.1108 0.0292 6.5000e- 0.0299 0.0000 74.4001 74.4001 2.6900e- 0.0000 74.4566 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 I NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 Unmitigated 1.8234 4.7811 20.1434 0.0751 5.2752 0.1145 5.3897 1.4095 0.1055 1.5151 0.0000 5,065.726 5,065.7264 0.1331 0.0000 5,068.521 4 3 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 3,270.15 3,550.95 3012.75 11,186,022 11,186,022 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 General Office Building 782.00 168.40 113.00 1,928,919 1,928,919 Strip Mall 455.25 431.85 209.85 793,097 793,097 Total 4,507.40 4,151.20 3,335.60 13,908,038 13,908,038 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 City Park 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 ELDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.453702 0.068956 0.179949 0.174153 0.046237 0.007387 0.012169 0.045320 0.000857 0.001069 0.005825 0.000784 0.003591 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 I NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 685.0998 685.0998 0.0315 6.5200e- 687.7810 Mitigated 003 Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 773.7327 773.7327 0.0356 7.3600e- 776.7607 Unmitigated 003 NaturalGas 0.0335 0.2865 0.1238 1.8300e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0000 331.5129 331.5129 6.3500e- 6.0800e- 333.5304 Mitigated 003 003 003 NaturalGas 0.0384 0.3286 0.1420 2.1000e- 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0000 380.1714 380.1714 7.2900e- I 6.9700e- 1 382.4851 Unmitigated 003 003 003 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG I NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 7.01634e+ 0.0378 0.3233 0.1376 2.0600e- 0.0261 0.0261 0.0261 0.0261 0.0000 374.4188 374.4188 7.1800e- 6.8600e- 376.6975 Rise 006 1 003 003 003 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 73000 3.9000e- 3.5800e- 3.0100e- 2.00OOe- 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 3.8956 3.8956 7.00OOe- 7.00OOe- 3.9193 Building 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Strip Mall 34800 1.9000e- 1.7100e- 1.4300e- 1.00OOe- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.8571 1.8571 4.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 1.8684 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Total 0.0384 0.3286 0.1420 2.0900e- 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0265 0.0000 380.1714 380.1714 7.2900e- 6.9600e- 382.4851 003 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 62050 3.300Oe- 3.04OOe- 2.560Oe- 2.00OOe- 2.3000e- 2.300Oe- 2.300Oe- 2.30OOe- 0.0000 3.3112 3.3112 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 3.3314 Building 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Strip Mall 30255 1.600Oe- 1.4800e- 1.2500e- 1.00OOe- 1.1000e- 1.100Oe- 1.100Oe- 1.10OOe- 0.0000 1.6145 1.6145 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 1.6244 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 Apartments Mid 6.12001e+ 0.0330 0.2820 0.1200 1.8000e- 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0000 326.5871 326.5871 6.2600e- 5.9900e- 328.5747 Rise 00611 003 003 003 Total 0.0335 0.2865 0.1238 1.8300e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0000 331.5129 331.5129 6.3500e- 6.0800e- 333.5304 003 003 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 2.25508e+ 645.3296 0.0297 6.1400e- 647.8551 Rise 006 003 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 213800 61.1825 2.81OOe- 5.800Oe- 61.4219 Building 003 004 Strip Mall 234900 67.2206 3.09OOe- 6.400Oe- 67.4837 003 004 t 773.7327 0.0356 7.3600e- 776.7607 003 Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid 2.00744e+ 574.4638 0.0264 5.460Oe- 576.7120 Rise 006 003 City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office 184321 52.7464 2.42OOe- 5.00OOe- 52.9529 Building 003 004 Strip Mall 202293 57.8896 2.66OOe- 5.500Oe- 58.1161 003 004 Total 685.0998 1 0.0315 6.5100e- 687.7810 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Electric Lawnmower Use Electric Leafblower Use Electric Chainsaw Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior No Hearths Installed Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 IBio-CO21 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 2.6664 0.0681 5.8863 3.1000e- 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0000 9.5600 9.5600 9.0100e- 0.0000 9.7492 004 003 Unmitigated 2.7038 0.0695 6.0317 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 1 0.0000 135,4477 135,4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 136,4107 004 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG I NOx CO SO2 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CH4 I ITTO I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.2693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 2.2404 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0127 0.0000 6.9000e- 0.0000 8.7700e- 8.7700e- 8.6800e- 8.6800e- 0.0000 125.5917 125.5917 2.4100e- 2.3000e- 126.3561 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Landscaping 0.1814 0.0695 6.0311 3.2000e- 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0000 9.8560 9.8560 9.4600e- 0.0000 10.0546 004 1 1 003 Total 2.7038 0.0695 6.031 t136.4J107 7 3.2000e- 0.0422 0.0422 0.0421 0.0421 0.0000 135.4477 135.4477 0.0119 2.3000e- 004�] I M.L- 003 Mitigated ROG NOx CO I SO2 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotaICO21 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.2531 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer 2.2404 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.1729 0.0681 5.8863 3.1000e- 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0000 9.5600 9.5600 9.0100e- 0.0000 9.7492 004 003 Total 2.6664 0.0681 5.8863 3.1000e- 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0326 0.0000 9.5600 9.5600 9.0100e- 0.0000 9.7492 004 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 288.3901 1.1280 0.0290 321.0588 Unmitigated 327,4127 1.40114 0.0359 368.1191 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 38.1151/ 230.5119 1.2520 0.0314 266.5393 Rise 24.0291 City Park 0/21.685 68.9433 3.1700e- 6.6000e- 69.2131 003 004 General Office 3.55467/ 21.2998 0.1168 2.9300e- 24.6590 Building 2.17867 003 Strip Mall 1.11109/ 6.6577 0.0365 9.1000e- 7.7077 0.680989 004 Total 327.4127 1.4084 0.0359 368.1191 Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 30.4921/ 195.7452 1.0021 0.0252 224.6115 Rise 24.0291 City Park 0/21.685 68.9433 3.1700e- 6.6000e- 69.2131 003 004 General Office 2.84374/ 18.0574 0.0935 2.3500e- 20.7487 Building 2.17867 003 Strip Mall 0.88887/ 5.6442 0.0292 7.3000e- 6.4854 0.680989 004 Totali 1 288.3901 1.1280 0.0290 321.0588 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e MT/yr Unmitigated 61.9163 1 3.6592 1 0.0000 1 138.7584 Mitigated 15.4791 1 0.9148 1 0.0000 34.6896 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 269.1 54.6249 3.2282 0.0000 122.4179 Rise City Park 1.57 0.3187 0.0188 0.0000 0.7142 General Office 18.6 3.7756 0.2231 0.0000 8.4614 Building Strip Mall 15.75 3.1971 0.1889 0.0000 7.1649 Total 61.9163 3.6591 0.0000 138.7584 Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 67.275 13.6562 0.8071 0.0000 30.6045 Rise City Park 0.3925 0.0797 4.7100e- 0.0000 0.1786 003 General Office 4.65 0.9439 0.0558 0.0000 2.1154 Building Strip Mall 3.9375 0.7993 0.0472 0.0000 1.7912 Total 15.4791 0.9148 1 0.0000 1 34.6896 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation APPENDIX E Energy Conservation Worksheets Altair Specific Plan ESA/140106 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2017 Altair Specific Plan Fuel Conversion Construction Fuel Consumption Summary gallons Year Diesel Gas Phase 1 141,713.77 114,058.48 Phase 2 163,744.22 166,761.62 Phase 3 196,439.83 194,538.28 Total 501,897.82 475,358.38 Annual 150,147.65 141,248.04 Annual Operational Fuel Consumption gallons/year gallons/30 years Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Proposed Project 1 110,330.41 1,983,973.781 3,309,912 159,519,213 Mitigated Project 1 110,330.41 1,983,973.781 3,309,912 159,519,213 Assumptions 10.15 diesel KgCO2/gallon' 8.91 gasoline KgCO2/gallon' 1 MT=1,000 kilograms Construction diesel Used for trucks(haul and vendor)and off-road equipment gasoline worker vehicles *Mitigated and unmitigated emissions will be the same as vehicle use does not change. Operation diesel Majority of trucks and buses gasoline remaining vehicle mix LCFS&Pavley assumed for on-road vehicles after year 2011 1 U.S.Energy Information Administration Voluntary Reportion of Greenhouse Gases Program, located here:http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html Altair Specific Plan Fuel Conversion -Construction Fuel Factor Total Total MT/yr Type KGCO2/gal Gallons Diesel(gal) Gas(gal) Phase 1 Site Preparation Off-road 50 diesel 10.15 4,936 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 2 gasoline 8.91 255 4,936 255 Phase 1 Grading Off-road 179 diesel 10.15 17,598 Haul 129 diesel 10.15 12,729 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 6 gasoline 8.91 639 30,328 639 Phase 1 Building Construction Off-road 720 diesel 10.15 70,919 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 298 diesel 10.15 29,321 Worker 975 gasoline 8.91 109,444 100,240 109,444 Phase 1 Paving Off-road 51 diesel 10.15 5,000 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 3 gasoline 8.91 377 5,000 377 Phase 1 Architectural Coating Off-road 12 diesel 10.15 1,210 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 30 gasoline 8.91 3,344 1,210 3,344 Phase 2 Site Preparation Off-road 57 diesel 10.15 5,581 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 2 gasoline 8.91 268 5,581 268 Phase 2 Grading Off-road 198 diesel 10.15 19,519 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 6 gasoline 8.91 661 19,519 661 Phase 2 Building Construction Off-road 811 diesel 10.15 79,873 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 527 diesel 10.15 51,920 Worker 1,430 gasoline 8.91 160,542 131,793 160,542 Phase 2 Paving Off-road 55 diesel 10.15 5,465 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 3 gasoline 8.91 384 5,465 384 Phase 2 Architectural Coating Off-road 14 diesel 10.15 1,385 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 44 gasoline 8.91 4,906 1,385 4,906 Altair Specific Plan Fuel Conversion -Construction Phase 3 Site Preparation Off-road 55 diesel 10.15 5,459 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 2 gasoline 8.91 249 5,459 249 Phase 3 Grading Off-road 194 diesel 10.15 19,118 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 5 gasoline 8.91 615 19,118 615 Phase 3 Building Construction Off-road 809 diesel 10.15 79,667 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 852 diesel 10.15 83,918 Worker 1,616 gasoline 8.91 181,368 163,585 181,368 Phase 3 Paving Off-road 54 diesel 10.15 5,343 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 3 gasoline 8.91 355 5,343 355 Phase 3 Architectural Coating Off-road 30 diesel 10.15 2,934 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 106 gasoline 8.91 11,952 2,934 11,952 Altair Specific Plan Fuel Conversion -Operational Proposed protect Gasoline %Fleet mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MCY MH Total 0.456057 0.068715 0.179002 0.17281 0.046712 0.007447 0.006318 0.003363 0.940424 Diesel %Fleet mix MHD HHD OBUS UBUS SBUS Total 0.012395 0.044413 0.000888 0.001061 0.000819 0.059576 Total COz Factor MT/yr KGCO2./gal Gallons Unmitigated Diesel 1,119.85 10.15 110,330.41 Gasoline 17,677.21 8.91 1,983,973.78 Total 18,797.06 Proposed proiect-Mitigated Gasoline %Fleet mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MCY MH Total 0.456057 0.068715 0.179002 0.17281 0.046712 0.007447 0.006318 0.003363 0.940424 Diesel %Fleet mix MHD HHD OBUS UBUS SBUS Total 0.012395 0.044413 0.000888 0.001061 0.000819 0.059576 Total COz Factor MT/yr KGCO2./gal Gallons Mitigated Diesel 1,119.85 10.15 110,330.41 Gasoline 17,677.21 8.91 1,983,973.78 Total 18,797.06 Altair Specific Plan CalEEMod Energy Output Summary Proposed Project Unmitigated Energy I Electric 12,180,440 kWh/year 1 109.62396 GWh (over 9 years) Natural Gas I 52,791,110 kBTU/year 1 51,755,9901 cubic feet/year SCE 11394 GWh 0.96% %GWh SoCalGas 982 billion CF 0.01% CF Mitigated - 15%Title 24 Exceedence Energy I Electric I 11,314,302 kWh/year Natural Gas I 26,808,826 kBTU/year Mitigated -9% Onsite Energy reduction Energy I Electric I 10,653,683 kWh/year Natural Gas I 31,273,853 kBTU/year *Note: See Greenhouse Gas Appendix for CalEEMod modeling output. Altair Nature Center Fuel Conversion Construction Fuel Consumption Summary gallons Year Diesel Gas Phase 1 141,713.77 114,058.48 Phase 2 163,744.22 166,761.62 Phase 3 196,439.83 190,943.03 Total 501,897.82 471,763.13 Annual 150,147.65 140,220.82 Proposed Project Total 501,898 475,358 Change 0 -3,595 Annual 150,148 141,248 Change 0 -1,027 Annual Operational Fuel Consumption gallons/year gallons/30 years Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Nature Center 83,788.87 1,506,700.82 2,513,666 45,201,025 Mitigated Nature Center 83,788.87 1,506,700.82 2,513,666 45,201,025 Proposed Project 110,330.41 1,983,973.78 3,309,912.26 59,519,213.31 Mitigated Project 110,330.41 1,983,973.78 3,309,912.26 59,519,213.31 Change Unmitigated -26,541.54 -477,272.96 -796,246.22 -14,318,188.76 Change Mitigated -26,541.54 -477,272.96 -796,246.22 -14,318,188.76 Assumptions 10.15 diesel KgCO2/gallon' 8.91 gasoline KgCO2/gallon' 1 MT=1,000 kilograms Construction diesel Used for trucks(haul and vendor)and off-road equipment gasoline worker vehicles *Mitigated and unmitigated emissions will be the same as vehicle use does not change. Operation diesel Majority of trucks and buses gasoline remaining vehicle mix LCFS&Pavley assumed for on-road vehicles after year 2011 1 U.S.Energy Information Administration Voluntary Reportion of Greenhouse Gases Program,located here:http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html Altair Nature Center Fuel Conversion -Construction Fuel Factor Total Total MT/yr Type KGCO2/gal Gallons Diesel(gal) Gas(gal) Phase 1 Site Preparation Off-road 50 diesel 10.15 4,936 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 2 gasoline 8.91 255 4,936 255 Phase 1 Grading Off-road 179 diesel 10.15 17,598 Haul 129 diesel 10.15 12,729 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 6 gasoline 8.91 639 30,328 639 Phase 1 Building Construction Off-road 720 diesel 10.15 70,919 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 298 diesel 10.15 29,321 Worker 975 gasoline 8.91 109,444 100,240 109,444 Phase 1 Paving Off-road 51 diesel 10.15 5,000 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 3 gasoline 8.91 377 5,000 377 Phase 1 Architectural Coating Off-road 12 diesel 10.15 1,210 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 30 gasoline 8.91 3,344 1,210 3,344 Phase 2 Site Preparation Off-road 57 diesel 10.15 5,581 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 2 gasoline 8.91 268 5,581 268 Phase 2 Grading Off-road 198 diesel 10.15 19,519 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 6 gasoline 8.91 661 19,519 661 Phase 2 Building Construction Off-road 811 diesel 10.15 79,873 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 527 diesel 10.15 51,920 Worker 1,430 gasoline 8.91 160,542 131,793 160,542 Phase 2 Paving Off-road 55 diesel 10.15 5,465 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 3 gasoline 8.91 384 5,465 384 Phase 2 Architectural Coating Off-road 14 diesel 10.15 1,385 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 44 gasoline 8.91 4,906 1,385 4,906 Altair Nature Center Fuel Conversion -Construction Phase 3 Site Preparation Off-road 55 diesel 10.15 5,459 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 2 gasoline 8.91 249 5,459 249 Phase 3 Grading Off-road 194 diesel 10.15 19,118 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 5 gasoline 8.91 615 19,118 615 Phase 3 Building Construction Off-road 809 diesel 10.15 79,667 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 852 diesel 10.15 83,918 Worker 1,616 gasoline 8.91 181,368 163,585 181,368 Phase 3 Paving Off-road 54 diesel 10.15 5,343 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 3 gasoline 8.91 355 5,343 355 Phase 3 Architectural Coating Off-road 30 diesel 10.15 2,934 Haul 0 diesel 10.15 0 Vendor 0 diesel 10.15 0 Worker 74 gasoline 8.91 8,357 2,934 8,357 Altair Nature Center Fuel Conversion -Operational Proposed protect Gasoline %Fleet mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MCY MH Total 0.456057 0.068715 0.179002 0.17281 0.046712 0.007447 0.006318 0.003363 0.940424 Diesel %Fleet mix MHD HHD OBUS UBUS SBUS Total 0.012395 0.044413 0.000888 0.001061 0.000819 0.059576 Total CO2 Factor MT/yr KGCO2/gal Gallons Unmitigated Diesel 850.46 10.15 83,788.87 Gasoline 13,424.70 8.91 1,506,700.82 Total 14,275.16 Proposed protect-Mitigated Gasoline %Fleet mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MCY MH Total 0.456057 0.068715 0.179002 0.17281 0.046712 0.007447 0.006318 0.003363 0.940424 Diesel %Fleet mix MHD HHD OBUS UBUS SBUS Total 0.012395 0.044413 0.000888 0.001061 0.000819 0.059576 Total CO2 Factor MT/yr KGCO2/gal Gallons Mitigated Diesel 850.46 10.15 83,788.87 Gasoline 13,424.70 8.91 1,506,700.82 Total 14,275.16 Altair Nature Center CalEEMod Energy Output Summary Proposed Project Unmitigated Energy I Electric I 8,096,870 kWh/year I 72.87183 GWh (over 9 years) Natural Gas I 22,469,310 kBTU/year 1 22,028,735 1 cubic feet/year SCE 11394 GWh 0.64% %GWh SoCalGas 982 billion CF 0.002% CF Proposed Project Electric 12,180,440 kWh/year -4,083,570 Difference Proposed Project NG 52,791,110 kBTU/year -30,321,800 Difference Mitigated Energy I Electric 1 7,478,421 kWh/year Natural Gas 1 17,798,241 kBTU/year Proposed Project Electric 10,653,683 0 -3,175,262 Difference Proposed Project NG 26,808,826 0 -9,010,585 Difference *Note: See Greenhouse Gas Attachment to Appendix A for modeling output.