Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportSCH No. 2015051024 Prepared forCity of Temecula July 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA 550 West C StreetSuite 750San Diego, CA 92101619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportSCH No. 2015051024 Prepared forCity of Temecula July 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA TABLE OF CONTENTS Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. S-1 1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Intended Uses of this SEIR .....................................................................................1-1 1.3 Environmental Review Context ...............................................................................1-1 1.4 CEQA SEIR Process ...............................................................................................1-2 1.5 Organization of this Draft SEIR ...............................................................................1-4 2. Project Description .........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................2-5 2.3 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................2-5 2.4 Project Construction ............................................................................................. 2-12 2.5 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................... 2-13 2.6 Environmental Characteristics ............................................................................. 2-13 2.7 Economic Characteristics..................................................................................... 2-13 2.8 Discretionary Approvals and Intended Uses of the EIR ...................................... 2-14 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................ 3.1-1 3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................................. 3.3-1 3.4 Noise ................................................................................................................... 3.4-1 3.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.6 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................... 3.6-1 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply 4. Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................4-5 5. Alternatives Analysis .....................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................5-1 5.2 CEQA Requirements ...............................................................................................5-1 5.3 Review of Significant Environmental Impacts .........................................................5-3 5.4 Alternatives Not Evaluated in this EIR ....................................................................5-3 5.5 Alternatives Selected for Consideration ..................................................................5-3 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .......................................................................5-5 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative .............................................................5-6 Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative .......................................................................5-8 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................... 5-10 Audi of Temecula i ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Table of Contents Page 6. Other CEQA Considerations .........................................................................................6-1 6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .....................................................6-1 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................................6-2 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers .............................................................7-1 7.1 Acronyms ................................................................................................................7-1 7.2 References ..............................................................................................................7-6 7.3 List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 7-11 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters B. Air Quality/GHG Analysis Worksheets C. Noise Analysis Worksheets D. Biological Assessment / MSHCP Consistency Report E. Traffic Impact Analysis F. Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map ..............................................................................................2-2 2-2 Project Location Map..................................................................................................2-3 2-3 Harveston Land Use Plan ..........................................................................................2-4 2-4 Site Plan .....................................................................................................................2-6 2-5 First Floor Plan ...........................................................................................................2-7 2-6 Mezzanine Floor Plan.................................................................................................2-8 2-7 Building Elevations .....................................................................................................2-9 2-8 Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................... 2-11 3.1-1 Location Map of Existing Conditions Photos ......................................................... 3.1-4 3.1-2 View Looking North from the Project Site .............................................................. 3.1-5 3.1-3 View Looking East from the Project Site ................................................................ 3.1-6 3.1-4 View Looking South from the Project Site.............................................................. 3.1-7 3.1-5 View Looking West from the Project Site ............................................................... 3.1-8 3.4-1 Effects of Noise on People ..................................................................................... 3.4-2 3.4-2 Noise Monitoring Locations .................................................................................... 3.4-7 3.5-1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3.5-3 3.5-2 MSHCP Criteria Cells ........................................................................................... 3.5-20 4-1 Cumulative Projects Map ...........................................................................................4-4 Audi of Temecula ii ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Table of Contents Page Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................ S-6 3.2-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2011 – 2013) .............................................................. 3.2-6 3.2-2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .............................................................. 3.2-7 3.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............................................ 3.2-8 3.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds ..................................... 3.2-20 3.2-5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ...................................................... 3.2-21 3.2-6 Proposed Regional Construction Emissions ........................................................ 3.2-24 3.2-7 Proposed Project Unmitigated Operational Emissions ........................................ 3.2-25 3.2-8 Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 3.2-26 3.2-9 Proposed Project Unmitigated Localized Daily Construction Emissions ............. 3.2-27 3.2-10 Proposed project Localized Operational Emissions ............................................ 3.2-28 3.3-1 Estimated Construction and Operations-Related GHG Emissions ..................... 3.3-13 3.4-1 Existing Noise Environments surrounding the Project Site ................................... 3.4-8 3.4-2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (weekday) ........................................................... 3.4-9 3.4-3 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (weekend) ........................................................... 3.4-9 3.4-4 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .............................................................. 3.4-11 3.4-5 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment ........................ 3.4-11 3.4-6 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL) ......................................................... 3.4-12 3.4-7 Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ..................................... 3.4-13 3.4-8 Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .................................................. 3.4-14 3.4-9 Temecula Land Use / Noise Standards ............................................................... 3.4-15 3.4-10 City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix ....................................... 3.4-16 3.4-11 Typical Construction Noise Levels ....................................................................... 3.4-21 3.4-12 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ............................................ 3.4-22 3.4-13 Ambient Daytime Noise Level Increases at Off-site Sensitive Uses ................... 3.4-23 3.4-14 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................... 3.4-24 3.4-15 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekday) ................................................... 3.4-29 3.4-16 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekend) ................................................... 3.4-30 3.5-1 Habitat Types on the Project Site .......................................................................... 3.5-4 3.5-2 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................. 3.5-6 3.5-3 Special-Status Wildlife Species............................................................................ 3.5-13 3.6-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria ..................................................................... 3.6-1 3.6-2 Roadway Segment Thresholds .............................................................................. 3.6-2 3.6-3 Existing (2015) Intersection Level of Service ......................................................... 3.6-5 3.6-4 Intersection Level of Service – Existing (2015) with Project ................................ 3.6-10 3.6-5 Intersection Level of Service – Year 2016 Baseline with Project ........................ 3.6-11 3.7-1 Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters within the Murrieta and Auld Hydrologic Areas ........................................................................................ 3.7-2 3.7-2 Beneficial Uses of Surface Water Bodies within the Project Area ......................... 3.7-3 3.7-3 303(d) Impaired Waterbodies within the Project Area ........................................... 3.7-4 4-1 Planned And Approved Projects In The Project Area ................................................4-3 4-2 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekday) .........................................................4-8 4-3 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekend) .........................................................4-9 4-4 Intersection Level of Service – Year 2016 Baseline with Project and Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................. 4-10 5-1 Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives ......................................................5-4 5-2 Impact Summary Comparison of Alternatives to the Project .....................................5-4 Audi of Temecula iii ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Audi of Temecula S-1 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Introduction The City of Temecula (City) has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies information about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with construction and operation of the proposed Audi new car dealership (project). This Draft SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Draft SEIR is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the document. Publication of this Draft SEIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period (public review period ends September 3, 2015) during which written comments may be directed to the City of Temecula at the address below. Comments on the project should be directed to: Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk@cityoftemcula.org (e-mail) (951) 506 - 5159 (phone) S.2 Background The project is located in the City of Temecula, California within Riverside County. Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the City’s General Plan. Since the initial adoption of the City’s first General Plan, 13 specific plans have been adopted to govern land use within defined geographic regions of the City. The Harveston Specific Plan, approved in 2001, governs the development of the project site. This specific plan covers approximately 550 acres located between Margarita Road and I-15, along the Temecula City limits, in the northwest section of the City. The Harveston Land Use Plan is divided into 12 planning areas and includes parks, a school, low- to high-density residential land use areas, and a service commercial land use area. The project site is located in the service commercial area of the Specific Plan. Executive Summary Audi of Temecula S-2 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 The Harveston Plan Service Commercial area contains approximately 113 acres. Permitted uses include a mixture of commercial and office/professional uses, and support service uses that could serve the adjacent business park developments. The Service Commercial land use designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Typical commercial uses include mid-rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto sales, service and repair. The project site is 4.5 acres. It is undeveloped and was previously sheet graded as part of the original Harveston Specific Plan mass grading approval. Non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs dominate the vegetation on-site. The site is annually mowed and hydro-seeded for fire maintenance, weed abatement, and erosion and dust control purposes. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Elevation on the site ranges from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the west boundary to 1,095 feet AMSL on the east boundary. The project site contains a temporary retention basin for stormwater run-off on the southwestern portion of the site. S.3 Project Objectives The City’s project objectives include: Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant’s project objectives are: To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. To maximize Audi’s market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. S.4 Project Description The project involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 square-foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. The project site is 4.5 acres and consists of a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 916- 400-032, and is a part of Parcel 7, Tentative Parcel Map 36336. It is located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive. Surrounding land uses include Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz of Temecula to the northwest, undeveloped land designated as Executive Summary Audi of Temecula S-3 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Service Commercial in the Harveston Specific Plan to the east and south, and the I-15 freeway corridor to the west. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. A mezzanine level within the showroom building provides additional office and customer areas. The showroom and service facilities are designed as two separate buildings which are architecturally connected by a covered service drop off area. The showroom building would be 30 feet-8 inches feet high; the canopy over the service drop off area would be 18 feet high; and the service building would be 24 feet high. The service building includes parts storage, service bays, tool room, oil and air equipment rooms, an employee break room and trash room. Two service bays are dedicated to car wash and detailing. Car washing activities would use filtered, recycled water. A “jewel box” for displaying cars is located at the south portion of the service building, facing I-15. The proposed buildings would be built to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building standards. S.5 Summary of Impacts A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table S-1 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the EIR uses the words “significant” and “less than significant” in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this Draft SEIR. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included in this Draft SEIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impacts. Table S-1 at the end of this chapter presents a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. The complete impact statements and mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The level of significance for each impact was determined using significance criteria (thresholds) developed for each category of impacts; these criteria are presented in the appropriate sections of Chapter 3. Significant impacts are those adverse environmental impacts that meet or exceed the significance thresholds. Table S-1 indicates the measures that will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level. The impacts associated with the project would occur during the construction phase and the operational phase. Although most construction impacts would be short term, they can pose significant disruptions to nearby communities. Less than Significant Impacts As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, all impacts in the following topical areas were found to be less than significant: Air Quality; Executive Summary Audi of Temecula S-4 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; and Transportation and Traffic. Significant Impacts Impacts in the following topical areas were found to be significant, but mitigation measures are available that would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level: Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Hydrology/Water Quality and Water Supply; and Noise. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that “cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.” Based upon the analysis in Chapter 3, there were no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the implementation of the project. S.6 Analysis of Alternatives Three alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 5 of this document. These alternatives are summarized as follows: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Under this alternative, the project would not be built and the project site would remain in its existing, undeveloped condition. The site would continue to contain a temporary storm water siltation basin and non-native grasses and ruderal forbs on a previously graded lot. The following discusses the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, in comparison to the impacts of the project. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Under this alternative, the project’s building square footage would be reduced by one-third from approximately 37,470 square feet to approximately 24,730 square feet. The project components would be similar to the project as proposed, but at a smaller scale. Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed as a commercial retail center comprised of a typical mix of uses found in such centers, such as sales offices, restaurants, banks and financial institutions; and permitted in the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. Using the target floor area ratio (FAR) in the Harveston Specific Plan for Service Executive Summary Audi of Temecula S-5 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Commercial of 0.4 FAR, the building square feet of commercial under this alternative would more than double to approximately 78,400 square feet as compared to the project’s approximately 37,470 square feet. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. A summary comparison of the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives and potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the project is provided in Chapter 5 of this SEIR. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet certain project objectives, namely: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi’s market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. S.7 Areas of Known Controversy Section 15123 (b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. On May 5, 2015, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was distributed by the City of Temecula to the State Clearinghouse, interested agencies, and the public. Responses to the NOP were received by the following agencies: South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Pechanga Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians. Key environmental concerns raised by these organizations included: (1) the identification of any potential adverse air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, (2) the identification of any adverse effects on traffic and local roadways, and (3) the provision for an updated cultural records search for the project. Please note that while cultural resources is not a topic being analyzed in this Draft SEIR, for reasons stated in Section 1.3 of this SEIR, a record search was performed by staff at the California Historical Resources Information System - Eastern Information Center on July 2, 2015. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources within a one- half-mile radius of the project site, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. The results of the records search indicate that sixteen cultural resources studies have been conducted within one-half mile of the project site, three of which covered portions of the project site. One cultural resource, a house constructed circa 1932, has been recorded within one-half mile of the project site. No cultural resources have been recorded within the project site. Executive Summary Audi of Temecula S-6 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Aesthetics Impact AES-1: The project would significantly increase sources of light and glare throughout the project area. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following measures to reduce light and glare are required: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain “sharp cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. “Sharp cut-off” fixtures are designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little-to-no glare. This fixture contains a sharp cut- off to reduce waste light. The lamp is deeply recessed within the reflector to eliminate glare. The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the project to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director. The step-down lighting shall occur each evening between the following intervals: 6:00 P.M., 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. Through the design review process, the applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping to block light sources and reflection from cars. Well-placed landscaping would reduce glare from the cars in the parking lot and from metal/glass building surfaces, and help to shield nighttime security lighting from adjacent roadway systems. Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project-specific development within the project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Director. 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; and, 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 site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; and, shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination. The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non- Less than significant. Executive Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Audi of Temecula S-7 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Air Quality Implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality. None required. N/A Biological Resources Impact Bio-1: : Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct injury or mortality if these species should occupy the site just prior to and during construction, as well as the loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential nesting habitat includes mature ornamental trees just outside the western boundary of the project site, and areas of bare ground on the site which provide suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting species such as western meadowlark and killdeer. It is possible that raptors and other migratory birds would nest on-site due to the proximity to open space and the riverine system of Murrieta Creek to the north. Mitigation Measure MM Bio-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor and migratory bird breeding season (February 1-August 31). If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1- August 31), a pre-construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is knowledgeable in the nesting requirements of the avian species in the region. The survey shall occur at least 14 days prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). An appropriate buffer from construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer considered active, as determined by a qualified biologist. On-site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Less than significant. Impact Bio-2: A focused survey for burrowing owl was conducted by ESA in May 2015, which resulted in negative findings of burrowing owl within the project site and surrounding study area. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat on the site and delay between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction activities, burrowing owls could move onto the site prior to project construction. Suitable habitat would include the areas within the project site and study area mapped as ruderal habitat on Figure 3.5-1 and containing potentially suitable small mammal burrows. Potential impacts to Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Impacts to burrowing owl shall be avoided through implementation of the following measure: Due to the project site’s location within a burrowing owl survey area and presence of suitable habitat on the project site (regardless of the findings of the focused burrowing owl survey), a 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is required in accordance with the MSHCP. The one-day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the project site and study area, and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows. If no burrowing owls are observed construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed the RCA and/or City will be notified and additional measures, such as avoidance or installation of exclusion devices to evict the owls, will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP, burrowing owls (less than 3 pairs) that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move offsite. Less than significant. Executive Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Audi of Temecula S-8 ESA / 150189 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation this species would include loss of foraging and nesting habitat. Individuals present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Implementation of the project would result in less than significant greenhouse gasses and climate change impacts. None required. N/A Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: New development within the project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume, and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, 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. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. Less than significant. Noise Impact NOI-1: A loudspeaker paging system used at a car dealership could have a significant impact on sensitive receptors in the area. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the project to eliminate loudspeaker paging noise. Less than significant. Transportation and Traffic Implementation of the project would result in less than significant transportation and traffic impacts. None required. N/A CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared by the City of Temecula (City), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the state CEQA Guidelines in the Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000. The purpose of this SEIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Audi of Temecula project (project), which includes approval of a site development plan for a new car dealership located within the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. 1.2 Intended Uses of this SEIR This SEIR is intended to inform the City, public agencies, and the public in general of the project’s environmental effects, to examine and institute methods of mitigating any adverse environmental impacts should the project be approved, and to consider alternatives to the project as proposed. CEQA provides that public agencies should not approve projects until all feasible means available have been employed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. 1.3 Environmental Review Context The project is located within the Harveston Specific Plan that was approved in 2001. This Specific Plan covers approximately 550 acres and is located between Margarita Road and I-15, along the Temecula City limits, in the northwest section of the City. The Specific Plan depicts a land use designation of Service Commercial for the project site. The proposed use, an automotive dealership, is consistent with the applicable land use and zoning designation in the Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR has been prepared to address the anticipated environmental effects of the project in conformance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, as amended. City staff has determined that only minor changes to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR are necessary to address the impacts of the project. Therefore, the project does not require a major revision to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and a Supplemental EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, is the appropriate document to respond to these minor project-specific changes. The environmental analysis for the project will assess whether the project would result in a new significant environmental effect not previously addressed in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR or a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect. Audi of Temecula 1-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 I. Introduction Section 15150(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. In light of the previous environmental review contained in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 1999041033), this SEIR incorporates by reference the relevant analysis of environmental topics considered in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR which is available for public review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department. The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason. The City, as lead agency, has determined the key environmental issues that could have significant impacts associated with the project, and that will be the focus of this SEIR analysis, include: aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, biological resources, noise, transportation and traffic, and hydrology/water quality and water supply. Based on previous environmental analysis, existing conditions of the project site, and project details, the following environmental effects were determined not to be significant and are therefore not discussed in detail in this Draft SEIR: agriculture and forestry, land use, geology and soils, public services and utilities, cultural resources, population and housing, and growth-inducing impacts. 1.4 CEQA SEIR Process 1.4.1 Notice of Preparation On May 6, 2015, in accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR, and circulated it to the State Clearinghouse, resources agencies, and interested parties. The NOP requested comments on the scope of the Draft SEIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project describe that authority. The comment period extended through June 8, 2015. The NOP provided a general description and location of the project and a preliminary list of probable environmental effects. Responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies: the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No project-specific concerns were raised by these agencies. A copy of the NOP and any comment letters are included in this Draft SEIR as Appendix A. Community Outreach In addition to the pubic noticing required under CEQA, City staff held an informational meeting on March 25, 2015 at the Harveston clubhouse with the residents of the Harveston community to explain the project and listen to any concerns. The community raised concern about the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Waverly and Ynez to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street at the intersection. Audi of Temecula 1-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 I. Introduction 1.4.2 Draft SEIR Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §15162(a), a Supplemental EIR may be required if there are: 1) substantial changes to the project; 2) there are substantial changes in the project's circumstances; or 3) new information that would not have been known at the time the EIR was certified becomes available. This Draft SEIR provides and analysis of the project impacts and reflects the changes in the environment from the approval of the Harvetson Specific Plan EIR. This Draft SEIR provides a description of the project, environmental setting, project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. Significance criteria have been developed for each environmental resource analyzed in this Draft SEIR, and are defined for each impact analysis section. Impacts are categorized as follows: • Significant and unavoidable; • Potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; • Less than significant (mitigation is not required under CEQA, but may be recommended); or • No impact. CEQA requires that SEIRs evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing identified environmental effects where feasible through the application of mitigation measures or project alternatives. 1.4.3 Public Review This document is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the Draft SEIR. This Draft SEIR, and the Harveston Specific Plan and Harveston Specific Plan EIR are currently available for public review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, at the address listed below. Publication of this Draft SEIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period. Written comments should be sent on or before September 3, 2015, by the close of business to: Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 1.4.4 Final SEIR Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft SEIR will be addressed in a Response to Comments document which, together with the Draft SEIR, will constitute the Final Audi of Temecula 1-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 I. Introduction SEIR. The City will then consider SEIR certification (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). If the SEIR is certified, the City may consider project approval. Prior to approving the project, the City must make written findings with respect to any significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR in accordance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1.4.5 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (CEQA Section 21081.6, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program will be available to the public at the same time as the Final SEIR 1.5 Organization of this Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR has been organized into the following sections: S. Executive Summary. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Draft SEIR. 1. Introduction. This chapter discusses the CEQA process and the purpose of the Draft SEIR. 2. Project Description. This chapter provides an overview of the project, describes the objectives of the project, and provides detail on the characteristics of the project. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter describes the environmental setting and identifies impacts of the project for each of the following environmental resource areas: aesthetics; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; noise; biological resources; transportation and traffic; and hydrology/water quality and water supply. Measures to mitigate impacts of the project are presented for each resource area. 4. Cumulative Impacts. This chapter describes the potential impacts of the project when considered together with other projects in the project area. 5. Alternatives. This chapter presents an overview of the alternatives development process and describes the alternatives to the project that were considered, including the No Project Alternative. 6. Other CEQA Considerations. This chapter provides an analysis of the extent to which the project's primary and secondary effects would commit resources to uses that future generations would probably be unable to reverse. The section also discusses any significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers. This chapter provides a list of acronyms used throughout the Draft SEIR, the resources referenced in the Draft SEIR, and a list of the individuals who contributed to the preparation of the Draft SEIR. Audi of Temecula 1-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter includes a general description of the project’s characteristics, which provides a basis for the environmental analysis contained in this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). In addition, the objectives of the project are presented and the probable discretionary actions listed. 2.1 Introduction The project involves the development of 4.5 acres as an automotive dealership (Audi) as part of the Harveston Specific Plan (Harveston Plan). Regionally, the project site is situated in the northern portion of the City of Temecula (City), which is located within the County of Riverside approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (Figure 2-1). The project is generally located in the northern portion of the City, north of Date Street, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Temecula Center Drive, and west of Ynez Road (Figure 2-2). The Harveston Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned community that was initially approved by the City Council in 2001. The Harveston Plan includes parks and open space, an elementary school, low- to high-density residential, and service commercial land uses (Figure 2-3). The project is located within the Service Commercial area of the Plan. The Harveston Plan Service Commercial area contains approximately 113 acres. Permitted uses include a mixture of commercial and office/professional uses, and support service uses that could serve the adjacent business park developments. The Service Commercial land use designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Typical commercial uses include mid-rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto sales, service and repair. Audi of Temecula 2-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 !\ Santa Ana River Mill Creek Cucamonga Creek Temescal Wash Chino Creek 04 6 , 0 0 0 Feet Pa t h : U : \ G I S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 4 x x x x \ D 1 4 0 6 9 8 _ R o s e B o w l _ E I R \ t a s k \ f i g u r e s \ F i g 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d , J Y L 5 / 1 / 2 0 1 5 PROJECT LOCATION Audi of Temecula . 150189 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community HOEHN AUDI OF TEMECULA Audi of Temecula. 150189 Figure 2-2 Project Location Map SOURCE: NAPI 2014 0500 Feet Pa t h : J : \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 2 _ V i c i n i t y . m x d , R T 5 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 5 Figure 2-3Harveston Land Use Plan Audi of Temecula . 150189 F i g u r e 2 - 3 H a r v e s t o n L a n d U s e P l a n SOURCE: EDAW 2. Project Description 2.2 Project Objectives The City’s project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant’s project objectives are: • To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. • To maximize Audi’s market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. 2.3 Project Characteristics The project involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 square-foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. The project site is 4.5 acres and consists of a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 916- 400-032, and is a part of Parcel 7, Tentative Parcel Map 36336. It is located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive. Surrounding land uses include Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz of Temecula to the northwest, undeveloped land designated as Service Commercial in the Harveston Specific Plan to the east and south, and the I-15 freeway corridor to the west. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. A mezzanine level within the showroom building provides additional office and customer areas. The showroom and service facilities are designed as two separate buildings which are architecturally connected by a covered service drop off area. The showroom building would be 30 feet-8 inches high; the canopy over the service drop off area would be 18 feet high; and the service building would be 24 feet high. The service building includes parts storage, service bays, tool room, oil and air equipment rooms, an employee break room and trash room. There would be two 1,000 gallon, above-ground storage tanks located within the service building; one for motor oil, the other for waste oil and waste coolant. Two service bays are dedicated to car wash and detailing. Car washing activities would use filtered, recycled water. A “jewel box” for displaying cars is located at the south portion of the service building, facing I-15. The proposed buildings would be built to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building standards. Figures 2-4 through 2-7 show the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations of the project. Audi of Temecula 2-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 102 AUDI E X C U L S I V E 101 COMM U N I C A T I O N PLAT F O R M 120 SERV I C E D R I V E 132FIRERISE R 126aMEN'S LOCK E R 128 BREAK R O O M 126MEN' S SERVI C E REST R O O M 127 WOME N ' S SERV I C E RESTR O O M 127aWOME N ' S LOCKE R127b JAN I T O R S CLOS E T 125COORI D O R 121RETAI L PARTSSALES 122 PARTS S T O R A G E 124 SERV I C E PARTS COUN T E R 123PART S MANAG E R OFFIC E 138 SPEC I A L T O O L S 137WORKS H O P 129TIRE/ ALIGN M E N T B A Y STOR A G E 130MAIN ELEC T R I C A L ROOM 131 OIL/ A I R E COMP R E S S O R ROOM 135WASH B A Y 136DETAIL B A Y 133 TRAS H R O O M 134 JEW E L B O X 103 F&I O F F I C E 104 F&I O F F I C E 105 F&I O F F I C E 118CASH I E R 119 BOUT I Q U E 106 VEHIC L E HANDO V E R 2STAIR107 STOR A G E 108 SERV I C E RECEP T I O N 109SERVI C E MANAG E R OFFIC E 110MEN' S REST R O O M 111WOMEN ' S REST R O O M 113COPYROOM112FIRERISER 1ELEVA T O R 114 ELEV A T O R MACHI N E ROOM 115 SALE S / C P O MANAG E R OFFIC E 116 GENE R A L MANA G E R OFFICE 1STAIR 117 SALES A R E A 100 SHOW R O O M CONSULTING Figure 2-4Site Plan Audi of Temecula . 150189SOURCE: RBF Consulting UP UP 8 2 HB 7 6 5 D F G 1 A41 2 A411A413 A41 4 11'-8"12'-5"65'-1"9'-0"26'-6"46'-0"128'-6" 2 4 '-0 " 1 0 '-0 " 9 0 '-0 " 5 '-9 " 2 1 '-9 3 /4 " 1 5 '-5 1 /4 " 1 3 '-1 0 " 1 8 0 '-1 0 " 11'-8"12'-5"65'-1"9'-0"26'-6"46'-0"128'-6" 299'-2" 24'-0" 10'-0" 90'-0" 5'-9" 21'-9 3/4" 15'-5 1/4" 13'-10" 1 8 0 '-1 0 " 299'-2" 3654 SF SHOWROOM 100 2841 SF SALES AREA 117 STAIR 1 204 SF GENERALMANAGEROFFICE 116 227 SF SALES/ CPOMANAGEROFFICE 115 56 SF ELEVATORMACHINEROOM 114 ELEVATOR 1 29 SF FIRERISER 112 68 SF WORKROOM 113 162 SF WOMEN'SRESTROOM 111 137 SF MEN'SRESTROOM 110 166 SF SERVICEMANAGEROFFICE 109 679 SF SERVICERECEPTION 108 60 SF STORAGE 107 STAIR 2 451 SF VEHICLEHANDOVER 106 250 SF BOUTIQUE 119 244 SF CASHIER 118 155 SF F&I OFFICE 105 155 SF F&I OFFICE 104 146 SF F&I OFFICE 103 1129 SF JEWEL BOX 134 499 SF TRASH ROOM 133 381 SF DETAIL BAY 136 381 SF WASH BAY 135 253 SF OIL/ AIRCOMPRESSORROOM 131 198 SF MAINELECTRICALROOM 130 120 SF TIRE/ALIGNMENTBAYSTORAGE 129 10018 SF WORKSHOP 137 253 SF SPECIAL TOOLS 138 146 SF PARTSMANAGEROFFICE 123 76 SF SERVICE PARTSCOUNTER 124 2240 SF PARTS STORAGE 122 68 SF RETAILPARTSSALES 121 221 SF CORRIDOR 125 51 SF JANITORSCLOSET 127b 68 SF WOMEN'SLOCKER 127a 233 SF WOMEN'SSERVICERESTROOM 127 213 SF MEN'SSERVICERESTROOM 126 556 SF BREAK ROOM 128 87 SF MEN'SLOCKER 126a 27 SF FIRERISER 132 2880 SF SERVICE DRIVE 120 253 SF COMMUNICATIONPLATFORM 101 200 SF AUDI EXCLUSIVE 1024 A C E 3 397 SF BREAK ROOMPATIO 128a 201 203 202 208208 211211 207 218218 214 204 204 207 207 204203 207 207 203 204 204 207 208208 209 206 204 204201 202 202206 204 204 204 204 210 9 9 '-9 " 3 0 '-0 " 5 1 '-1 " 24'-1"74'-1" 77'-6"35'-6" R A M P U P ( 1 0 % S L O P E ) + 3 6 " A . F .F . 204 202 202202 228 228 227 227 1HR RATED CONSTRUCTION PARTITION FULL HEIGHT NON-RATED PARTITION TO STRUCTURE PARTITION TO 6" ABOVE CEILING NON-RATED PARTITION UNDERSIDE OF CEILING NON-RATED PARTITION 'PANELITE' PRE-FABRICATED NON-RATED WALL SYSTEM WALL LEGEND 1HR RATED CMU WALLFURRING WHERE INDICATED NOTES SEE SHEET A0.2 FOR GENERAL NOTES - JOB NO.: DRAWN BY.: PA/PM: SHEET CAUTION:IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_ R e v i t \ 0 0 3 4 _ A R C H _ n t a y l o r . r v t AD NT SDG14-0034-00 FIR S T F L O O R P L A N A21 HO E H N A U D I TE M E C U L A TE M E C U L A C E N T E R D R I V E TE M E C U L A , C A 9 2 5 8 9 . SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1OVERALL FIRST FLOOR N 210 LINE OF CEILING/ MEZZANINE ABOVE. 211 FRAMELESS GLASS, BUTT JOINT RAILING, 42" A.F.F AT STAIR.214 AUDI SPINE WALL AT 54" A.F.F, FINISHED IN AUDI SPECIFIC FABRIC. PROVIDEDBY 'IDEAL IMAGE', TASK LIGHTING MOUNTED ON WALL. 218 ALL CUSTOMER ZONE FURNITURE AND MILLWORK TO BE PROVIDED BY 'IDEALIMAGE'. 227 KNOW BOX LOCATION. 228 FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL LOCATED WITHIN FIRE RISER ROOM. 201 CMU WALL WITH DIAMOND PERFORATED BOX CORRUGATED METALPROPRIETARY RAINSCREEN SYSTEM. 202 DIFFERENTIAL MULLION CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM WITH CLEAR INSULATEDGLASS. 203 CMU WALL WITH METAL SIDING PANEL WITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS, INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY. 204 DOOR FOR BUILDING ACCESS, TYP. 206 ALUMINUM FRAME WINDOW, TYP. 207 GLASS ROLL-UP DOOR BY RYTEC CORPORATION (SPIRAL FV HIGH-SPEEDDOOR, ALUMINUM FINISH). 208 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SLAB. 209 LINE OF CURVED WALL AT GROUND FLOOR. D A T E R E M A R K S 2 0 1 5 .0 2 .1 2 P R E -A P P L IC A T IO N S U B M IT T A L 2 0 1 5 .0 3 .3 0 D E V E L O P M E N T PLAN S UBMITTAL Figure 2-5First Floor Plan Audi of Temecula . 150189SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 8 2 HB 7 6 5 D F G 1 A41 2 A411A413 A41 4 4 A ROOF BELOWSEE ROOF PLAN ROOF BELOWSEE ROOF PLAN ROOF BELOWSEE ROOF PLAN 2411 SF CUSTOMERSEATING AREA 200 250 SF SALES OFFICE 211ELEVATOR 1 151 SF IT / IDF / TELCO 210 97 SF ELEC. RM. 209 317 SF FILE ROOM 208 440 SF CONFERENCEROOM 207 276 SF GENERALADMIN. 212 203 SF SALESOFFICE 213 203 SF SALESOFFICE 214 348 SF BUSINESSDEVELOPMENTOFFICE 206 STAIR 2 72 SF WOMEN'SRESTROOM 205 72 SF MEN'SRESTROOM 204 219 SF SALES OFFICE 202 225 SF SALES OFFICE 201 STAIR 1 214 SF COORIDOR 203 OPEN BELOW DN DN DN DN C E 3 208208 218218 206 206 201 201 203 203 206 206 201 203 203 202 202 202 213 213 213 213 ROOF BELOW 11'-8"12'-5"65'-1"9'-0"26'-6"46'-0"128'-6" 299'-2" 77'-6"35'-6" 2 4 '-0 " 1 0 '-0 " 9 0 '-0 " 5 '-9 " 2 1 '-9 3 /4 " 1 5 '-5 1 /4 " 1 3 '-1 0 " 1 8 0 '-1 0 " 1 2 9 '-9 " 5 1 '-1 " 11'-8"12'-5"65'-1"9'-0"26'-6"46'-0"128'-6" 299'-2" 24'-1"74'-1" 2 4 '-0 " 1 0 '-0 " 9 0 '-0 " 5 '-9 " 2 1 '-9 3 /4 " 1 5 '-5 1 /4 " 1 3 '-1 0 " 1 8 0 '-1 0 " 226 1HR RATED CONSTRUCTION PARTITION FULL HEIGHT NON-RATED PARTITION TO STRUCTURE PARTITION TO 6" ABOVE CEILING NON-RATED PARTITION UNDERSIDE OF CEILING NON-RATED PARTITION 'PANELITE' PRE-FABRICATED NON-RATED WALL SYSTEM WALL LEGEND 1HR RATED CMU WALLFURRING WHERE INDICATED NOTES SEE SHEET A0.2 FOR GENERAL NOTES - JOB NO.: DRAWN BY.: PA/PM: SHEET CAUTION:IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_ R e v i t \ 0 0 3 4 _ A R C H _ n t a y l o r . r v t AD NT SDG14-0034-00 ME Z Z A N I N E F L O O R PL A N A22 HO E H N A U D I TE M E C U L A TE M E C U L A C E N T E R D R I V E TE M E C U L A , C A 9 2 5 8 9 . SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1OVERALL MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN N D A T E R E M A R K S 2 0 1 5 .0 2 .1 2 P R E -A P P L IC A T IO N S U B M IT T A L 2 0 1 5 .0 3 .3 0 D E V E L O P M E N T PLAN S UBMIT TAL 201 CMU WALL WITH DIAMOND PERFORATED BOX CORRUGATED METALPROPRIETARY RAINSCREEN SYSTEM.202 DIFFERENTIAL MULLION CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM WITH CLEAR INSULATEDGLASS. 203 CMU WALL WITH METAL SIDING PANEL WITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS, INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY.206 ALUMINUM FRAME WINDOW, TYP. 208 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SLAB.213 ACM PANELIZED SYSTEM. 218 ALL CUSTOMER ZONE FURNITURE AND MILLWORK TO BE PROVIDED BY 'IDEALIMAGE'. 226 LOW WALL WITH CAMEO WHITE CORIAN CAP, 42" A.F.F. AROUND MEZZANINESTAIR OPENING. Figure 2-6Mezzanine Floor Plan Audi of Temecula . 150189SOURCE: Ware Malcomb TT TT TT TTTT T T TT T T TTTT TT TT TT TT TT TT TT T TT TT TT TT TT TT TT TTT TT TT T T TT T FIRST FLOOR0" MEZZ FLOOR12'-10" TOP 320032'-0" HBDFG TOP 240024'-0" AUDI RING LOGO DIAMOND PERFORATEDBOX CORRUGATED METALPROPRIETARYRAINSCREEN SYSTEM WINDOW BEHINDCLADDING, TYP. DIFFERENTIAL MULLIONCURTAIN WALL WITHCLEAR GLASS SHOWROOMENTRYALUMINUM/ GLASSROLL-UP DOORS WINDOW BEHINDCLADDING, TYP. ACM PANEL SYSTEM VEHICULEHANDOVER OPEN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM TRASHROOMENTRY WORKSHOPENTRY MAIN ELEC.RM. ENTRYOIL/ AIR RM.ENTRYFIRERISERENTRY ALUMINUM/ GLASSROLL-UP DOORS METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY TRELLIS METAL SIDING PANEL WITH4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS, INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY AUDI RINGLOGO DIFFERENTIAL MULLIONCURTAIN WALL WITHCLEAR GLASS AA A A A A A A A A C E ACMPANELSYSTEM 32'-0" 1 8 '-0 "2 4 '-0 " 2 3 '-0 " FIRST FLOOR0" MEZZ FLOOR12'-10" TOP 320032'-0" 82765 TOP 240024'-0" 1 AUDI RING LOGO DEALER NAME PLATE METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY(BEYOND) DIAMOND PERFORATEDBOX CORRUGATED METALPROPRIETARY RAINSCREENSYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL MULLIONCURTAIN WALL WITHCLEAR GLASS BREAKROOMENTRY METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY(BEYOND) 48" HIGH CMU WALL W/ CAPAND METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY TRELLISACM PANELSYSTEM(BEYOND) A A A 43 3 2 '-0 " 2 4 '-0 " 2 3 '-0 " 2 4 '-0 " FIRST FLOOR0" MEZZ FLOOR12'-10" TOP 320032'-0" 8 2765 TOP 240024'-0" 1 STAINLESS STEELCABLE GUARD RAILAT RAMP EDGE DIFFERENTIAL MULLIONCURTAIN WALL WITHCLEAR GLASS ALUMINUM/ GLASSROLL-UP DOOR 4 3METAL SIDINGPANEL WITH 4"TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY AUDI RINGLOGO ACM PANELSYSTEM METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY DIAMOND PERFORATEDBOX CORRUGATED METALPROPRIETARY RAINSCREENSYSTEM (BEYOND) 2 3 '-0 " 2 4 '-0 "3 2 '-0 " FIRST FLOOR0" MEZZ FLOOR12'-10" TOP 320032'-0" H BDFG TOP 2400 24'-0" AUDI RING LOGO OPEN SHOWROOMENTRY EGRESS FIRERISERENTRY AUDI ENTRTANCE ELEMENT,ACM PANEL SYSTEM DIAMOND PERFORATEDBOX CORRUGATED METALPROPRIETARYRAINSCREEN SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL MULLIONCURTAIN WALL WITHCLEAR GLASS WINDOW BEHINDCLADDING, TYP. ACM PANELSYSTEM AUDI SERVICESIGNAGE ALUMINUM/ GLASSROLL-UP DOOR ALUMINUM/ GLASSROLL-UP DOOR WORKSHOPENTRY ENTRY DOORSAND RAMP ACMPANELSYSTEM METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY METAL SIDING PANELWITH 4" TRAPEZOIDALCORRUGATIONS,INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY A A A ACE BUILDINGADDRESS PER CITYOF TEMECULA FIRECODE 3 2 '-0 " 1 8 '-0 "2 4 '-0 " 2 3 '-0 " VISION GLASS-SOLABAN 60 (2) STARPHIRE BY PPG IDEASCAPES.1" (25 MM) UNIT WITH 1/2" (13 MM) AIRSPACE AND (2) 1/4" (6 MM) LITES.PERFORMANCE DATA:VLT: 74%, R OUT: 11%WINTER U: 0.29, SUMMER U: 0.27SC: 0.46, SHGC: 0.40, LSG: 1.85 TEMPERED GLASST LEGEND A B SHERWIN WILLIAMSGRAY SHINGLE (NON-METALLIC SURFACES)SW 7670 COLOR LEGEND SHERWIN WILLIAMSSILVERBRIGHT (METALLIC SURFACES)RAL 9006 JOB NO.: DRAWN BY.: PA/PM: SHEET CAUTION:IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_ R e v i t \ 0 0 3 4 _ A R C H _ n t a y l o r . r v t AD NT SDG14-0034-00 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A41 HO E H N A U D I TE M E C U L A TE M E C U L A C E N T E R D R I V E TE M E C U L A , C A 9 2 5 8 9 . SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"2EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"3SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"4WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION D A T E R E M A R K S 2 0 1 5 .0 2 .1 2 P R E -A P P L IC A T IO N S U B M IT T A L 2 0 1 5 .0 3 .3 0 D E V E L O P M E N T PLAN S UBMIT TAL Figure 2-7Building Elevations Audi of Temecula . 150189SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2. Project Description Access, Parking and Circulation Ingress and egress to the project site would be from Temecula Center Drive which would be extended/improved along the frontage of the site as part of the project. Automobile access to the project site from the surrounding area would occur via I-15 exit to either Murrieta Hot Springs Road (north of the site) or Rancho California Road/Highway 79 (south of the site), then to Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive. There would be two entry points into the site with an internal drive aisle that bisects the sales and service buildings. Parking would be required to comply with the Section 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code Required parking on-site would be based on type and size of use areas (i.e. office, outdoor and indoor sales, service, etc.) and would require a minimum of 145 spaces. The project provides for a total of 173 parking spaces, and bike racks as required by the City. Landscaping and Drainage The proposed landscape plan follows the landscape design requirements set forth in Section 17.32.060 of the Temecula Municipal Code, and the applicable design guidelines and development standards in the Harveston Specific Plan. The plan uses a combination of overstory trees, shrubs and groundcover in a water efficient design (Figure 2-8). The water-wise design includes the use of drought tolerant plants, grouping of plants with similar water needs, adding soil amendments that hold water, and elimination of any turf areas. Recycled water would be used for landscape irrigation. A four-foot high masonry block retaining wall with planted shrubbery along the face to discourage graffiti would be constructed at the top of the slope facing I-15, on the southwest portion of the site, running north-south for a distance of approximately 170 feet. Best management practices proposed for storm water treatment include a system of water quality basins and an underground detention basin located at the perimeter of the site prior to releasing the water into the existing storm water system. In addition, porous pavement/pavers are proposed for the surface parking areas to allow storm water infiltration. The site would consist of approximately 125,656 square feet of impervious surface. Signage and Lighting Signage would be required to conform to design guidelines and development standards pertaining to signage in Service Commercial areas, per the Harveston Specific Plan, Section 17.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code, and the Temecula City-Wide Design Guidelines. The Audi ring logo would be placed on the north, east, and south face of the showroom building, and the south and west face of the service building. The Audi rings and the words “Audi of Temecula” will contain LED lighting for internal illumination. Two pylon monument signs with LED light lenses that are flush with the curvature of the side surfaces are proposed at the northeast (along Temecula Center Drive) and southwest corners of the development. The logo and Audi letters will be backlit with LED lighting. The sign at the southwest corner would be visible from I-15, and the sign at the northeast corner would be visible from Ynez Road. Directional and parking signage is proposed to assist with customer on-site circulation. The project would be required to meet all Service Audi of Temecula 2-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 PROPOSEDMONUMENT/PYLON SIGN PROPOSEDMONUMENT/PYLON SIGN 15 GAL. 15 GAL.15 GAL. 15 GAL. 15 GAL. 15 GAL.15 GAL. SHOW ROOM SERVICE DRIVE SERVICE TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE RAMP UP (10% SLOPE)+36" A.F.F. PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING QUANTITY WATERUSE * TREES BRACHYCHITONPOPULNEUS BOTTLE TREE 24" BOX 20 M MAGNOLIA G. 'LITTLEGEM'LITTLE GEM MAGNOLIA 36" BOX --11 M PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA'BLOODGOOD'LONDON PLANE TREE 15 GAL. --9 M QUERCUS ILEXORULMUS PARVIFOLIA'DRAKE' HOLLY OAKOREVERGREEN ELM 24" BOX@ PKG.15 GAL.@SLOPE --33 -24" BOX7 -15 GAL. L SOPHORASECUNDIFLORA TEXAS MOUNTAINLAUREL 15 GAL. --17 L SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS DIANELLA 'LITTLE REV' LITTLE REV DIANELLA 1 GAL. 24" O.C.-- L RHAPHIOLEPIS I.'BALLERINA'INDIAN HAWTHORN 5 GAL. 30" O.C.-- M HEMEROCALLIS HYBRID'YELLOW'DAYLILY 1 GAL. 24" O.C.-- M LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' NEW GOLD LANTANA 5 GAL. 30" O.C.-- L PHORMIUM TENAX'SURFER'NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL. 36" O.C.-- M MYOPORUMPARVIFOLIUM 'PINK'PINK MYOPORUM FLATS 18" O.C.-- L WESTRINGIAFRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL. 36" O.C.119 L BIORETENTION PLANTING AREA CAREX DIVULSA BERKLEY SEDGE 1 GAL. 24" O.C.-- L DESCHAMPSIACESPITOSA 'NORTHERNLIGHTS' TUFTED HAIR GRASS 1 GAL. 30" O.C.-- L JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH 1 GAL. 36" O.C.-- L S & S BIOFILTRATIONSOD NATIVE GRASSSOD SOD -- --.-- M SLOPE PLANTING RHAMNUS C. 'EVE CASE' COFFEEBERRY 1 GAL. 72" O.C.-- L ACACIA REDOLENS'LOW BOY'LOW BOY PROSTRATEACACIA 1 GAL. 96" O.C.-- L MISCANTHUSCAPILLARIS 'MORNINGLIGHT' SILVER GRASS 1 GAL. 48" O.C.-- L BACCHARIS PILULARIS'TWIN PEAKS'COYOTE BRUSH 1 GAL. 48" O.C.-- L * WATER USE BASED ON WUCOLS III SPECIES EVALUATION LIST 1999 FOR REGION 4. TYPICAL CONCRETE STEP-OUT DETAIL NOT TO SCALE CURB STEP-OUT HO E H N A U D I TE M E C U L A C E N T E R D R I V E TE M E C U L A , C A L I F O R N I A CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT TE M E C U L A L1.1 PR E L I M I N A R Y L A N D S C A P E P L A N LANDSCAPE TABULATIONS DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PROVIDED ONE TREE PER EVERY 4 PARKING STALLS(TOTAL CUSTOMER/EMPLOYEE PARKINGSTALLS = 73) 19 23 ONE STREET TREE FOR EACH 30 L.F. OFSTREET FRONTAGE (369 L.F)13 13 ONE 15-GALLON TREE FOR EACH 600 S.F.OF SLOPE AREA (SLOPE AREA=20,005 S.F.)33 33 ONE 1-GALLON OR LARGER SHRUB FOREACH 100 S.F. OF SLOPE AREA 225 225 10% OF TOTAL TREES SHALL BE 36" BOXSIZE OR LARGER (TOTAL TREES=105)10 11 (11%) 30% OF TOTAL TREES SHALL BE 24" BOXSIZE OR LARGER 29 64 (66%) 60% OF TOTAL TREE SHALL BE 15-GALLONSIZE OR LARGER 58 97 (100%) IN ADDITION TO THE TABULATIONS AT LEFT, THE FOLLOWING CITYLANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN: EVERGREEN CANOPY TREES WITH A 30' TO 40' DIAMETER, INSTALLEDFROM 24" BOX MINIMUM, USED IN ALL PARKING AREAS. INTERIOR OF ALL PARKING LOTS INCLUDE LANDSCAPE PLANTERS,WITH A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 5', LOCATED AT BOTH ENDS OFPARKING ROWS AND ADJOINING EACH TENTH PARKING SPACE, WITH AMIXTURE OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER. ALL SETBACK AREAS NOT USED FOR PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULARACCESS ARE LANDSCAPED. ALL PLANT MATERIAL IS SELECTED FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULAPLANT LIST. ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE, A MINIMUM 12' OF LANDSCAPING ISPROVIDED BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK AND THE DISPLAYAREAS. ALL PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WHICH DO NOT ABUT A STREET OREXISTING OR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AREA HAVE A MINIMUM 5' WIDELANDSCAPE BUFFER. WATER CONSERVATION NOTES THE FOLLOWING WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THIS PROJECT: WATER CONSERVING PLANTS, AND PLANTS NATIVE TO HOT, DRYSUMMERS, WILL BE UTILIZED IN AT LEAST 75% OF THE TOTAL PLANTAREA. DESIGN OF LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO CONFORM TO CITY OFTEMECULA CODE 17.32 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN. NO TURF IS PLANNED FOR THIS PROJECT. USE OF HYDROZONES WITH PLANTS GROUPED BASED UPON AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO SUSTAIN THEM. MULCH UTILIZED IN THE LANDSCAPE, 3" MINIMUM DEPTH. SOIL AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE LANDSCAPE AREAS TOIMPROVE WATER HOLDING CAPACITY OF THE SOIL. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM ADJUSTED SEASONALLY AND WITH WATERING HOURS BETWEEN 7:00 P.M. AND 10:00 A.M. IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGNED TO WATER DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LANDSCAPE BASED ON WATERING NEED. IRRIGATION DESIGN SENSITIVE TO SLOPE FACTORS. RAIN SENSORS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUTOMATICIRRIGATION SYSTEM. RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN FOR ANNUAL IRRIGATION SCHEDULE. LANDSCAPE NOTES NO SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE OF TREES. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 5' BETWEEN THE CENTER OF TREES ORLARGE SHRUBS AND EDGE OF BUILDINGS, DRIVEWAYS, HARDSCAPES,WATER METER OR GAS METER AND SEWER LATERALS. LINEAR DEEP ROOT BARRIER TO BE INSTALLED AT ALL TREES WITHIN5' OF ANY HARDSCAPE, PAVEMENT OR CURB. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 10' BETWEEN THE CENTER OF TREES OR LARGE SHRUBS AND POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EDGE OF DRIVEWAYS AND STREETS OR WALKWAYS AND UTILITY POLES. PROVDIE 100% GROUNDCOVER COVERAGE WITHIN 1 YEAR AND ALL SHRUB COVERAGE TO CONSIST OF A MINIMUM SIZE OF 5 GALLON. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3'-6" CLEARANCE OF SHRUBS TO BUILDING ANDHARDSCAPE ELEMENTS. HYDROZONES BASED UPON 'LANDSCAPE PLANTS FOR WESTERNREGIONS' BY BOB PERRY. ANY ABOVE-GROUND UTILITIES VISIBLE FROM THE STREET SHALL BE SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPING. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE SCREENED FROM THE STREET. BIKE RACKS WILL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED. Figure 2-8Landscape Plan Audi of Temecula . 150189SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2. Project Description Commercial signage guidelines and standards as detailed in Section 11.0, Development Standards, of the Harveston Specific Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and the City-wide Design Guidelines. Also, a comprehensive signage plan is required to be approved as part of the development approval process or, subsequently, by the Planning Department. Adherence to these development standards would ensure that signage proposed as part of the project would be compatible with existing development and be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan and other applicable regulations. Street lighting that matches the existing lighting along Temecula Center Drive would be installed along the frontage of the project site. In addition, parking lot lighting would be strategically installed around the interior of the site to provide adequate lighting for operations and safety. All lighting would comply with the Harveston Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards related to Service Commercial development; and would be in compliance with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance (Ordinance No. 655, Riverside County, California). The project proposes to incorporate a “step-down” lighting regimen that would progressively dim parking lot lighting to minimize obtrusive light visible by residents of the Harveston community. The step-down lighting would occur each evening at the following intervals: 6:00 pm, 7:30 pm, and 10:30 pm. From 10:30 pm to sunrise the project site would be lit with only security lights. Infrastructure Development of the project would include the provision of necessary infrastructure, including the extension of a private road (Temecula Center Drive) to access the site Additional infrastructure improvements would include drainage systems, sewage disposal systems, water pipelines, solid waste/sanitary systems, electrical conduits, natural gas pipelines, and telecommunications. These systems would be constructed on- and off-site and would be fully provided and maintained by the project owner (on-site facilities), municipal agencies, or utility service providers. The on-site water and sewer lines would be considered private property and would be maintained by the project owner. Gravity sewer lines would be designed to standards governed by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The proposed project would convey wastewater to the (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula. The payment of sewer connection fees would be required in addition to water district fees and meter installation fees. 2.4 Project Construction Initial construction is anticipated to begin within six months of project approval by the City. Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately nine months. During this time it is estimated that the peak construction force would be 164 people consisting of a range of laborers, craftsman, and supervisory, support, and management personnel. Project construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Heavy construction equipment would be determined by the construction contractor and may include, but not be limited to, backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, graders, and trenching machines. A total of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill would be required for the Audi of Temecula 2-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 2. Project Description project. These cut/fill quantities would be balanced on site. Water for grading compaction and dust control would be trucked to the project site. Water consumption during construction is estimated to be 34,615 gallons. 2.5 Operations and Maintenance Hours of operation would be: Monday through Friday, 7:00am to 8:00pm; Saturday, 8:00am to 7:00pm; and Sunday, 10:00am to 6:00pm. The operations and maintenance workforce are estimated to be 45 employees at peak periods of operation. Potable water consumption during operations is estimated to be 1,720 gallons per day. The car wash would use mostly recycled water plus three to five gallons of fresh water per vehicle serviced. The landscape irrigation would use recycled water. 2.6 Environmental Characteristics Less than Significant Impacts As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, all impacts in the following topical areas were found to be less than significant: • Air Quality; • Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; and • Transportation and Traffic. Significant Impacts Impacts in the following topical areas were found to be significant, but mitigation measures are available that would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level: • Aesthetics; • Biological Resources; • Hydrology/Water Quality and Water Supply; and • Noise. 2.7 Economic Characteristics The project’s technical characteristics are described in Section 2.3 (Project Characteristics). The proposed project would bring economic benefits to the City by providing service commercial land uses contributing c to the City’s tax base. Implementation of the project would provide employment opportunities for the local community. The peak operations and maintenance workforce is estimated to be 45 employees. In addition, construction employees would also be needed to construct the project. The number of construction employees would vary depending upon the phase of construction. Audi of Temecula 2-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 2. Project Description 2.8 Approvals – Discretionary and Other This SEIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover federal, state, regional, and local discretionary approvals that are required to implement the project. Discretionary and other ministerial approvals required to implement the project include: Agency Action City of Temecula Planning Commission Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and MMRP Development Plan Approval Sign Program Approval [All Planning Commission actions are appealable to the City Council] Regional Water Quality Control Board Review and approval of storm water permits Rancho California Water District Review and approval of water service permits City of Temecula (other permits) Grading and building permits Eastern Municipal Water District Review and approval of sewer plans Audi of Temecula 2-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1.1 Introduction This section describes the existing visual or aesthetic resources within and surrounding the project area, and analyzes the impacts of the project on these resources. The evaluation is based on the project’s potential to impact visual character and quality and create light and glare, and compares the existing visual character of the site to that resulting from implementation of the project. Visual or aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, a visual or aesthetic impact may occur. Familiarity with the following terms and concepts will aid the reader in understanding the content of this chapter. Visual character is a general description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting. An area’s visual character generally includes a description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting. The purpose of defining the visual character of an area is to provide the context within which the visual quality of a particular site or locale is most likely to be perceived by the viewing public. For urban areas, visual character is typically described on the neighborhood level or in terms of areas of common land use, intensity of development, and/or landscaping and urban design features. For natural and open space settings, visual character is most commonly described in terms of areas with common landscape attributes, such as landform, vegetation, or water features. A project viewshed is defined as the general area from which a project would be visible or could be seen. For purposes of describing a project’s visual setting and assessing potential visual impacts, the viewshed or “seen area” can be broken down into distance zones of foreground, middleground, and background. The foreground is defined as the zone within one-quarter mile to one-half mile from the viewer. The middleground can be defined as a zone that extends from the foreground up to three to five miles from the viewer, and the background extends from about three to five miles to infinity. Audi of Temecula 3.1-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics A scenic vista is generally considered to be a location from which the public can experience unique and exemplary high-quality views—typically from elevated vantage points that offer panoramic views of great breadth and depth. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Physical Setting Regional Visual Characteristic Regional views within the City of Temecula are characterized by flat or gently rolling terrain with residential communities, industrial/commercial development and agricultural land. The Santa Rosa Plateau, located at the southern end of the Santa Ana Mountains, provides a prominent visual backdrop immediately west of the City. Distant views of Palomar Mountain and the Cleveland National Forest exist to the south. The project site is located at the terminus of Temecula Center Drive on an open undeveloped lot between Interstate 15 (I-15) to the west and Ynez Road and undeveloped land to the east. The Harveston Community is located approximately 770 feet east of the project site, on the east side of Ynez Road. A six-foot high block wall separates the residences from Yenz Road. There is a Mercedes-Benz Auto Dealership to the north of the project site, and additional undeveloped land and Date Street to the south. Surrounding land uses primarily consist of undeveloped areas, residential uses and commercial/industrial uses. The architectural character and integrity of the area in the immediate vicinity of the project site is commercial/industrial, with a commercial use directly north (auto dealership) and light industrial uses across the I-15 freeway corridor to the west/southwest. Project Site The 4.5-acre project site is located in the northwest portion of a larger 112.4-acre designated Service Commercial area within the Harveston Specific Plan. The project site is relatively flat and undeveloped and contains a temporary storm water de-silting basin in the center of the site. Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 are photos of the existing conditions surrounding the project site. The site has been previously graded by the Harveston Community master developer and is elevated above I-15. Surrounding Area Figure 3.1-1 shows the location and directional view of the photos showing existing conditions surrounding the project site. The following is a more detailed description of the surrounding land uses. • North – The area immediately north of the project site is occupied by a Mercedes-Benz Auto Dealership. This auto dealership contains approximately 80,000 square feet of building space on 13.7 aces. The overall height of the tallest building (showroom) is 28 feet. In addition, there are approximately 968 parking spaces on-site with a landscape buffer separating the building and parking areas from Temecula Center Drive (Figure 3.1-2). Audi of Temecula 3.1-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics • East – The project site is bordered to the east by the terminus of Temecula Center Drive, an undeveloped lot and Ynez Road. East of Ynez Road are existing single-family homes which are part of the Harveston residential community, which includes approximately 1,900 dwelling units (single-family homes and multi-family residential units) including associated parks and community facilities. Ynez Road is a major arterial roadway (four lanes) from Winchester Road to the Temecula/Murrieta city boundary and is the main access road into the Harveston Specific Plan’s Service Commercial area where the project is located (Figure 3.1-3). • South – The project site is bordered on the south by undeveloped land and Date Street. This area to the south is also designated as Service Commercial within the Harveston Specific Plan. Future development in this area could feature high-end service commercial development, thus complimenting the project. Business and industrial parks are located further south beyond this undeveloped area (Figure 3.1-4). • West – The project site is bordered on the west by the I-15 freeway corridor. I-15 is a major north-south freeway servicing the Temecula/Murrieta area, linking it to Riverside and the Los Angeles metropolitan area (via Corona) and to San Diego (via Escondido). The western perimeter, bordering the I-15 freeway, is steeply contoured downward. Further to the west are views of a large industrial/commercial area including retail development, warehouses and associated facilities (Figure 3.1-5). Light and Glare The project site is undeveloped and does not contain light producing sources. The nighttime lighting environment surrounding the site mainly consists of passing vehicle headlights, scattered street lighting, and lighting from the adjacent Mercedes Benz dealership. Audi of Temecula 3.1-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA SOURCE: NAPI 2014 0 500 Feet Pa t h : J : \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 3 . 3 - 1 _ P h o t o _ L o c . m x d , R T 5 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 Audi of Temecula. 150189Figure 3.1-1 Location Map of Existing Conditions Photos 1 234 Audi of Temecula . 150189Figure 3.1-2 View Looking North from the Project Site SOURCE: Ware Malcomb Audi of Temecula . 150189Figure 3.1-3 View Looking East from the Project Site SOURCE: Ware Malcomb Audi of Temecula . 150189Figure 3.1-4 View Looking South from the Project Site SOURCE: Ware Malcomb Audi of Temecula . 150189Figure 3.1-5 View Looking West from the Project Site SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Regulatory Setting State Scenic Highway Program The State Scenic Highway Program, created by the California Legislature in 1963, was established to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A highway is designated under this program when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it defines the scenic corridor, which is land generally adjacent to and visible to a motorist on the highway. Based on the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan and City of Temecula General Plan, State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road) is listed as a State Eligible Scenic Highway and is located (about one mile) south of the project site. Based on a site visit performed by ESA on April 21, 2015, the site is not visible from State Highway 79 North. City of Temecula General Plan The General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. The following General Plan policies for visual resources and aesthetics, which are found within the Open Space and Conservation Element, are relevant to the project (City of Temecula, 2005): Open Space 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 (Santa Rosa Plateau) and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. The project site is not located in an area that could substantially alter views of the western escarpment (Santa Rosa Plateau) and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, and slopes in the Sphere of Influence. Also, as previously mentioned, the General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the project site, nor does the site contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. Per City requirements, slopes along the perimeter of the project would be landscaped. The landscaping in these areas would include drought-tolerant vegetation, requiring only supplemental water in the summer months as the landscaping matures. Audi of Temecula 3.1-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics City of Temecula City-Wide Design Guidelines Temecula’s City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural design, and landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The guidelines also establish criteria for unique design characteristics found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and public uses. The design standards and criteria contained within the guidelines are the primary tool for implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element (City of Temecula, 2005). Harveston Specific Plan and Design Guidelines The Harveston Specific Plan governs the project design with the intent to provide aesthetically suitable development. It contains concrete standards and development criteria that supplement those of the General Plan. The Specific Plan includes City-approved design guidelines that assure new development will be visually pleasing and that while unique, will not contrast with the surrounding uses. The Design Guidelines contain standards regarding acceptable architecture and landscape standards, to minimize potential adverse aesthetic impacts to the surrounding uses. The Service Commercial designation allows intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Warehousing and light manufacturing may be permitted as supporting uses for a business that is consistent with the Service Commercial designation. Typical commercial uses include mid-rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, auto sales, auto service, and auto repair (City of Temecula, 2003). The objective of the following criteria (taken from Section 10.0 of the Harveston Specific Plan Guidelines) is to create an attractive Service Commercial environment, complimentary in scale and aesthetic to the entire development of Planning Area 12 (of which the project site is a part). As proposed the project would be consistent with the architectural and landscape architectural guidelines contained in the Specific Plan (City of Temecula, 2003). 10.6 Service Commercial Architectural Guidelines 10.6.1 - Siting and Orientation a. Buildings should be designed using simple contemporary forms organized around a single element or group of elements (that is, major spaces, landscape elements, etc.). The objective is for these areas to be positively differentiated as quality Service Commercial and Business Park environments. b. All design shall incorporate the combination of compatible architecture and landscape forms to insure that this development achieves an image that is distinctive, clearly understandable, and unified. c. All designs shall appear as an integrated part of an overall site design concept. Audi of Temecula 3.1-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics d. To unify the site, use common site design elements such as lighting and signage, enriched paving, and landscape treatments. Site design shall incorporate variations in elevations. e. Buildings should be arranged to create and enclose a variety of outdoor spaces: plazas, squares, eating areas, usable open space, etc. Open areas must be large enough to be usable, but not so large as to appear empty. 15 to 50 feet in width is generally appropriate. f. Building units should vary in orientation and be clustered to create zones of similar activities. Such clusters should be dispersed throughout the site to reduce the impact of development on neighboring residential areas. g. Parking: Guest parking or visitor parking should be located in close proximity to main entrances. Employee parking and loading zones should be located to the side or rear of the buildings and attractively screened from public streets with landscaping or other site design elements. Street parking shall not be permitted. h. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes should be well separated and defined by landscape and site design elements. 10.6.2 – Form, Scale and Massing a. Buildings should be designed with well articulated elevations and with openings and entries that are clearly defined b. Scale, particularly for large industrial structures, should be given careful consideration. Long, uninterrupted expanses of walls shall not be allowed. 10.6.3 – Architectural Features and Details a. All buildings and structures shall comply with the applicable provisions of the City-wide Design Guidelines. In addition, all elevations facing the freeway shall include substantially similar architectural treatments that are located on the building front elevations. b. Fixtures and finishes should be selected for their contribution to the overall theme of the development. 10.6.9 – Lighting b. Screen site lighting from direct view by adjacent residential neighborhoods. c. All lighting on-site must conform with applicable Mount Palomar lighting restricted zone requirements. The illumination shall not spill over and adversely affect adjacent properties. Audi of Temecula 3.1-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance The City of Temecula is located within close proximity to the Palomar Observatory. To prevent “skyglow” condition, the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. This skyglow condition would adversely impact the use of the telescope at the observatory. Generally, observatory sites need to be 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened. Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius (Zone A) and a 45-mile radius (Zone B) of the Palomar Observatory. Zone A refers to the circular area 15 miles in radius centered on Palomar Observatory. Zone B refers the circular area defined by two circles, one 45 miles in radius centered on Palomar Observatory, and the other the perimeter of Zone A. The project is located within Zone B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures are less stringent under Zone B as compared to Zone A. For instance, parking lots, walkway and security lamps above 4,050 lumens are allowed under Zone B if they are fully shielded, whereas in Zone A, they are prohibited. Furthermore, low pressure sodium decorative lamps and other lamps that are 4,050 lumens and below are allowed under Zone B, whereas in Zone A, they are prohibited. It should be noted that when lighting is “allowed” by this ordinance, it must be fully shielded1, if feasible, and partially shielded2, in all other cases. Lighting for on-premises advertising displays shall be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. In conformance with Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, all artificial outdoor light fixtures must be installed in conformance with the provisions of the ordinance, the Building Code, the Electrical Code, and lighting requirements specified in the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Riverside, along with any other related state and federal regulations such as California Title 24. Section 59.105 of Ordinance No. 655 sets forth specific requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting for on-premises advertising displays must be shielded and focused to minimize light spill into the night sky or adjacent properties. 3.1.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The project would involve implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan. The Harveston Specific Plan is intended to improve the existing character of the area and create a cohesive community through implementation of various districts and associated development standards. It contains concrete standards and development criteria that supplement those of the General Plan. 1 Fully Shielded - constructed so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point on the fixture from which light is emitted 2 Partially Shielded – constructed so that ninety percent (90%) of the light rays emitted by the fixture are projected below the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the shield. Audi of Temecula 3.1-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics The Specific Plan includes City approved design guidelines that assure new development will be visually pleasing and that while unique, will not be in contrast with the surrounding uses. The Design Guidelines contain standards regarding acceptable architecture and landscape standards, to minimize potential adverse aesthetic impacts to the surrounding uses. The potential aesthetic impacts of the project are evaluated considering such factors as the scale, mass, proportion, orientation, architectural detailing, exterior materials and colors, lighting and landscaping/buffering associated with the design of the project. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to aesthetic issues may be considered significant if the proposed project would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts Scenic Vistas A scenic vista is usually a view of a valued resource, such as waterways, the ocean, hills, valleys, or mountains. Temecula's location and natural setting provide opportunities for scenic views of local agriculture and the rolling hills of southern, eastern and western areas, as well as Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. The City of Temecula General Plan Community Design Element identifies important scenic viewsheds to ensure that all new public and private development projects will not obstruct the public views of scenic resources. The General Plan does not identify any scenic viewsheds within the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. The project is not located in an area that could substantially alter views of the western escarpment (Santa Rosa Plateau) and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, and slopes in the Sphere of Influence. Further, as previously mentioned, the General Plan does not identify any scenic viewsheds within the project site, nor does the site contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. In addition, perimeter and interior landscaping containing understory and overstory trees would soften the building mass of the project as viewed from Ynez Road. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No scenic vistas have been identified per the City’s General Plan, and no scenic vista would be adversely impacted from project development. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.1-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Scenic Resources The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. The project would not damage a scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project site is located in a mixed-use area that includes residential and other commercial land uses. State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road), part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, is located over one mile south of the project site and is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System. The project would not be visible from Winchester Road due to distance and existing development between the project and Winchester Road. As such, no eligible or officially-designated scenic highways are affected by the project. Additionally, the project is located adjacent to the I-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the project area and distant mountains from I-15 are obscured by a steeply sloping berm with sparse trees and shrubbery that line I-15 along the east right-of-way. Development of the project would result in a change of views that include a higher density built environment, but would also continue to be obscured by the existing topography and proposed landscaping. Therefore, views of the project for passengers along I-15 would not be substantially altered by the project and impacts would be less than significant. Because the site does not have any designated scenic resources (trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings) and is not located near any scenic highways, the project would not result in any impacts to scenic resources related to a scenic highway. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Visual Character As described in Chapter 2, plans for the proposed project include a one-story showroom building, auto service facility, associated parking and other customer-related amenities. The project development would total approximately 37,478 square feet of building space to house the dealership including car maintenance, repair services, and a car wash facility. The building mass would be less than half of the existing Mercedes Benz car dealership directly north of the project, with comparable building heights and a varied exterior façade that would include walls of glass and simplified logos. Figure 2-7 shows building elevations of the proposed structures. The architectural character of the project would be similar to the surrounding development (Mercedes Benz dealership). Also, design standards contained in the Harveston Specific Plan would provide architectural guidelines, plant material guidelines, a streetscene and landscaping guidelines, and lighting standards in order to create a cohesive and well-recognizable character for the area. Compliance with the Harveston Specific Plan and Design Guidelines would ensure that no significant visual impacts would result from development of the project. As such, impacts to existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.1-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Light and Glare The project would establish a new use on an undeveloped site which would result in increased light and glare sources. The project would include nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. This new source of light could have adverse effects on nighttime views and surrounding communities in proximity of the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 would reduce impacts related to light and glare to less than significant levels. Impact AES-1: The project would significantly increase sources of light and glare throughout the project area. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following measures to reduce light and glare are required: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain “sharp cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. “Sharp cut-off” fixtures are designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little-to-no glare. This fixture contains a sharp cut-off to reduce waste light. The lamp is deeply recessed within the reflector to eliminate glare. • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site and no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. • The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the project to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director. The step-down lighting shall occur each evening between the following intervals: 6:00 P.M., 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping to block light sources and reflection from cars. Well-placed landscaping would reduce glare from cars in the parking lot and from metal/glass building surfaces, and help to shield nighttime security lighting from adjacent roadway systems. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project-specific development within the project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Director. 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; Audi of Temecula 3.1-15 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 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; and, 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 site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps, step-down lighting techniques, shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.1-16 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality This section provides an overview of the existing air quality at the project site and in the surrounding region, a summary of applicable air quality regulations, and analyses of potential short- term and long-term air quality impacts from implementation of the project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as necessary, to reduce significant air quality impacts. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting Climate and Meteorology The project site is located in the City of Temecula in the portion of Riverside County that lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The project area is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and all of Orange County. The ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the amount of emissions released by sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the Basin an area of high air pollution potential. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce ozone. The region experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the nation except Phoenix (SCAQMD, 2013a). The Temecula area is an interior valley of the Basin. Clouds and fog that form along the coast infrequently extend as far inland as the Temecula Valley, and usually burn off quickly after sunrise. Precipitation is greatest during the winter season from December through February. Based on past climate records, the average annual maximum temperature in the area is 78.6 Audi of Temecula 3.2-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the average annual minimum temperature is 50.6° F. The average precipitation in the area is about 13 inches annually (Weather Currents, 2015). Criteria Air Pollutants The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) currently focuses on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. The pollutants are referred to as “criteria air pollutants” since they are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be injurious to human health and extensive health-effects criteria documents are available about their effects on human health and welfare. A general description of these pollutants is provided below. Federal standards have been established for each criteria pollutant to meet specific public health and welfare criteria set forth in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants (referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards, or state standards) and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard. These standards are discussed in the Regulatory Framework, 3.2.2. Ozone Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROGs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). While both ROGs and VOCs refer to compounds of carbon, ROG is a term used by CARB and is based on a list of exempted carbon compounds. VOC is a term used by the USEPA and is based on USEPA’s own exempt list. The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to spread over a large area, producing regional pollution problems. Ozone concentrations are the cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than the result of a few significant emission sources. Once ozone is formed, it remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated through reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants, attachment to water droplets as they fall to earth (“rainout”), or absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain (“washout”). Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Carbon Monoxide CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is a relatively non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicles. When inhaled at high Audi of Temecula 3.2-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, lower emissions from new vehicles, and improvements in fuels. Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOx, which are reported as equivalent NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur trioxide (SO3). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Major sources of SO2 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil- burning residential heaters. Emissions of SO2 aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. It also constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. SO2 potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Particulate Matter PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively (a micron is one-millionth of a meter). PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. CARB has estimated that achieving the ambient air quality standards for PM10 could reduce premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year (CARB, 2004a). Particulate matter can also damage materials and reduce visibility. One common source of PM2.5 is diesel exhaust emissions. PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires, and natural windblown dust; and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of Audi of Temecula 3.2-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality SO2 and ROG. Traffic generates particulate matter emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM10 and PM2.5 are also emitted by burning wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning. PM10 can remain in the atmosphere for up to seven days before gravitational settling, rainout, and washout remove it. Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and is present in some manufactured products. There are a variety of activities that can contribute to lead emissions, which are grouped into two general categories, stationary and mobile sources. On-road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles; light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks; and motorcycles. Emissions of lead have dropped substantially over the past forty years. The reduction before 1990 is largely due to the phase-out of lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline for on-road automobiles. Substantial emission reductions have also been achieved due to enhanced controls in the metals processing industry. In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as total suspended particulates. As lead has been well below regulatory thresholds for decades and the project is not a source of lead, lead is not discussed in this analysis beyond the Regulatory Environment, Section 3.2.2. Toxic Air Contaminants Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB, 2009), the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM). Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a particulate matter exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene. Audi of Temecula 3.2-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Odorous Emissions Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). Offensive odors are unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen complaints to local governments. Although unpleasant, offensive odors rarely cause physical harm. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, wind speed, direction, and the sensitivity of receptors. Project Area Air Quality Setting Existing Air Quality SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The project site is located in the Temecula/Anza area sub region. Currently, the nearest monitoring station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore monitoring Station (506 W. Flint St. Lake Elsinore), which is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the project site. This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone, NO2, and CO, but does not monitor SO2 or PM10, or PM2.5. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PM10 is the Perris Station. The closest monitoring station that monitors PM2.5 is the Mira Loma Station, and the closest station that monitors SO2 is the Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Station. Concentrations from the monitoring stations for the most recent three years (2011 – 2013) are shown in Table 3.2-1.1 Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment- transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the Basin is provided in Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Land Uses Land uses such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive to poor air quality than the general public because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. In addition, residential uses are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and industrial uses, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution, even though exposure periods during exercise 1 2014 data has not been reviewed and finalized as of the date of this analysis. Typically the previous year’s data is available around June or July of the following year. Audi of Temecula 3.2-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality are generally short. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. TABLE 3.2-1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2011 – 2013) Pollutant Monitoring Data by Year Standarda 2011 2012 2013 Ozone – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.133 0.111 0.102 Days over State Standard 0.09 ppm 19 10 6 Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.106 0.089 0.089 Days over National Standard 0.075 ppm 28 17 12 Days over State Standard 0.070 ppm 45 29 25 Carbon Monoxide – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.7 0.7 06 Days over National Standard 9 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0503 0.0483 0.0466 Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Annual Average (ppm) 0.0096 0.0102 0.0084 Days over National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide – Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0513 0.0043 0.0081 Days over State Standard 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10) – Perris Monitoring Station Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 65 62 70 Days over National Standard (measured)c 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Days over State Standard (measured)c 50 µg/m3 3 1 10 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 20 µg/m3 29.2 26.5 33.6 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Mira Loma Monitoring Station Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 56.3 39.3 56.5 Days over National Standard (measured)c 35 µg/m3 8 7 9 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 12 µg/m3 15.3 15.1 14.12 ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b Concentrations and averages represent federal statistics. State and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods. c Measurements are usually collected every six days. Days over the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded. SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2013b, 2012, 2011. Audi of Temecula 3.2-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS Attainment Status Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards Ozone Extreme Nonattainment Severe Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment SOURCE: CARB, 2013a; USEPA, 2013. Currently, sensitive uses located in the project site vicinity include single-family residential uses and schools. Specifically, the nearest residential development is located across Ynez Road over 900 feet to the north and northeast of the project site. The nearest schools care the Ysabel Barnett Elementary School and the Buchanan Elementary school. They are located over 4,000 feet from the project site to the east and northeast respectively. 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework The project site is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County within the Basin. Air quality in the project area is regulated by USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD. The City of Temecula General Plan also contains an Air Quality Element that establishes a policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions. United States Environmental Protection Agency Criteria Air Pollutants At the federal level, USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal CAA, which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments to the CAA were made by Congress in 1990. The CAA requires USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). USEPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following “criteria air pollutants”: ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Table 3.2-3 shows the NAAQS for these pollutants. Audi of Temecula 3.2-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation. Long-term exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Formed when ROG and NOX react in the presence of sunlight. Major sources include on-road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment. 8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical asphyxiant, carbon monoxide interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish- brown. Motor vehicles, petroleum refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow the leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. 3 hours --- 0.50 ppm 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.03 ppm Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity, cancer and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. Dust and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 --- Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hours --- 35 µg/m3 Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling. Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning; Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases). Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing and recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Calendar Quarter --- 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling 3-Month Average --- 0.15 µg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No National Standard Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell), headache and breathing difficulties (higher concentrations) Geothermal power plants, petroleum production and refining Sulfates (SO4) 24 hour 25 µg/m3 No National Standard Decrease in ventilatory functions; aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility; property damage. Industrial processes. Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hour Extinction of 0.23/km; visibility of 10 miles or more No National Standard Reduces visibility, reduced airport safety, lower real estate value, and discourages tourism. See PM2.5. NOTE: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. SOURCE: CARB, 2013b. Audi of Temecula 3.2-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will achieve air quality goals. If USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary sources of air pollution in the air basin. USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. USEPA’s primary role at the state level is to oversee state air quality programs. USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions standards and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs. California Air Resources Board Criteria Air Pollutants CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), responding to the federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. The amendments to the CCAA establish California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA, and also include sulfates, visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards. Table 3.2-3 shows the CAAQS for these pollutants. CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release. South Coast Air Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants SCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the Basin through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of Audi of Temecula 3.2-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA. Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the region into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAB’s commitment towards meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards (SCAQMD, 2013a). The AQMP would also serve to satisfy recent USEPA requirements for a new attainment demonstration of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard, as well as a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration. Specifically, the AQMP would serve as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, for which USEPA had established a due date of December 14, 2012. In addition, the AQMP updates specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the attainment strategy for the 8-hour ozone SIP. The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which require integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state, and federal. Currently, SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early development process for the next AQMP. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the project would include the following: Rule 401 – Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines. Rule 402 – Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by Audi of Temecula 3.2-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in the Rule. Toxic Air Contaminants At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV (Toxics and Other Non-Criteria Pollutants), and in particular Rule 1401 (New Source Review), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new source review standards and air toxics control measures. SCAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SCAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically (SCAQMD, 2004). In September 2008, the SCAQMD completed the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III (MATES III). MATES III is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the Basin and is a follow up to previous air toxics studies. The study consists of several elements including a monitoring program, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the Basin. The study focuses on the carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. However, it does not estimate mortality or other health effects from particulate exposures. MATES III shows that the region around the project site area has an estimated carcinogenic risk of up to 416 in a million (SCAQMD, 2008a). These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at 10 fixed sites within the Basin. City of Temecula General Plan The Air Quality Element “establishes policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions” (City of Temecula, 2005). The goals and policies relevant to the Air Quality analysis include: Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Audi of Temecula 3.2-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the greatest extent feasible. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use. Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy 4.1 Encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through conservation. Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects. The following 15 implementation programs have also been introduced in Temecula to reduce air quality emissions. AQ-1 Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination AQ-2 Public Participation AQ-3: Land Use Compatibility AQ-4 Jobs/Housing Balance AQ-5: Mitigation Measures AQ-6: Sensitive Receptors AQ-7: Design Guidelines AQ-8: Alternative Work Schedules AQ-9: Rideshare and Transit Incentives AQ-10: Special Events AQ-11: Transportation Alternatives AQ-12: Alternative Fueled Vehicles AQ-13: Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan AQ-14: Park and Ride Facilities AQ-15: Energy Efficient Design Audi of Temecula 3.2-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Municipal Code The following section of the City of Temecula municipal code is relevant to the project (City of Temecula, 2015): 18.06.100 Dust prevention and control plan. Dust prevention and control procedures shall be employed while construction activity occurs to minimize wind borne particles. At minimum, all grading operations, land clearing, loading, stockpiling, landscaping, vehicular track-out and haul routes shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 403 (fugitive dust emissions) and the provisions of Subarticle 3.8 of the grading manual. (Ord. 04-04 § 4 (part)) Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan was prepared in September 1999 and last amended in August 2003. The plan was designed to meet the requirements of the City of Temecula’s General Plan and provide a cohesive and comprehensive document of guidelines and standards for implementation of the development within the Specific Plan area. The following development standards presented in the Specific Plan are applicable to the air quality analysis (City of Temecula, 2003). Circulation Plan Development Standards: 3: Provisions shall be made for a safe and efficient paseo, urban trail and sidewalk network, providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation in conjunction with the roadway network. A sidewalk system shall be developed along Date Street, Margarita Road, Ynez Road, collector Streets and along most of the other project roadways. Pedestrian traffic shall be separated from vehicular traffic, particularly in commercial and high density areas. 12: The project shall comply with the conditions and requirements set forth by the City of Temecula. Water Plan Development Standards/Sewer Plan Development Standards: 4: The project shall comply with Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604 (f) Appliance Efficiency Standards), which establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 17621.3 which requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. (Note this is superseded by Title 24 regulations). Grading Plan General Development Standards: 1: All grading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 82), and shall implement any grading-related mitigation measures outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations (EIR Technical Appendices). Grading for the site shall balance on-site. 5: The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems until those operations become the responsibility of other parties. Audi of Temecula 3.2-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality 7: Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 10: Prior to commencing any grading, including clearing and grubbing, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Temecula. 12: Soil stabilizers shall be used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. 14: Grading shall comply with the mitigation measures, pursuant to the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. Landscape Plan General Development Standards: 13: All landscaping shall meet the City of Temecula Water Efficient Ordinance, Chapter 1732 of the City of Temecula Development Code. 22: Graded/disturbed areas not to be developed within six months shall be temporarily planted and irrigated to provide dust and erosion control. Service Commercial Zone 12 Development Standards: 3a: A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site shall be landscaped and automatic irrigation shall be installed. 3b: Parking lot landscaping and shading shall conform to applicable City Ordinance. 3c: A minimum of a fifty foot (50') landscaped buffer/setback area shalt be provided adjacent to the Interstate 15 right-of-way. No parking or driving surfaces are allowed in this area. The following air quality mitigation measures presented in the Specific Plan EIR for the project area are relevant to the air quality analysis. 1. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. b. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: i. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. ii. Spread soil binders; and iii. Implement street sweeping as necessary c. During construction: i. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; Audi of Temecula 3.2-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality ii. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; iii. Use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. 2. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: a. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. b. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. c. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). d. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. e. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. f. Wash off trucks leaving site. g. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. h. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. i. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. j. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. k. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. 3. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: a. Provision of rideshare incentives. b. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. Audi of Temecula 3.2-15 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality c. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. d. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. e. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 6. Prior to the building / construction operations, individual contractors will commit in writing to the following: a. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 – 8:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); b. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and c. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. 7. Prior to the approval of tentative maps and/or development plans, developers will submit tract maps and/or street improvement plans to the RTA for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelters, etc. Transit-oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City. City staff will focus on the review plans for commercial uses to provide transit related features. 8. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans, especially for commercial and park uses, for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 9. Prior to the approval of development plan, City staff will review plans for all service commercial uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its `fair-share' towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development. 3.2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result from operations of a car dealership at the project site and from traffic volumes generated by this new use. Construction activities would also generate air pollutant emissions at the project site and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The increase in emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD (SCAQMD, 2015). Construction Impacts Short-term construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2, as recommended by SCAQMD. Modeling was based on project- specific data provided by the applicant, where available. Where project-specific information was Audi of Temecula 3.2-16 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality not available, reasonable assumptions based on other similar projects and default model settings were used to estimate criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions. Modeling Assumptions and output files are provided in Appendix B of this report. In addition, to determine whether or not construction activities associated with the project would create significant adverse localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the worst- case daily emissions contribution from the project was compared to SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The LSTs developed by SCAQMD are based on the pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project without causing or contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts, and only applies to the following criteria pollutants: CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The analysis of localized air quality impacts focuses only on the on-site activities of a project, and does not include emissions that are generated offsite from, for example, on-road haul or delivery truck trips (SCAQMD, 2008b). For the purpose of analyzing localized air quality impacts, SCAQMD has developed LSTs for three project site sizes: one-acre, two-acres and five-acres. The LSTs established for each of the aforementioned site acreages represent the amount of pollutant emissions that would not exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Although the project site is 4.5 acres, the actual daily disturbance based on the equipment used onsite would equal one acre. Therefore, the LSTs for the one-acre site was used to represent the maximum amount of daily pollutant emission that could occur without causing or contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts. Under conditions where the project’s on-site construction emissions would, even with incorporation of mitigation, exceed the LSTs for a one-acre site, air dispersion modeling of the project’s construction emissions would be required to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts of the project on the closest offsite sensitive receptors, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation. However, under conditions where it is determined that the project’s peak daily construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for a one-acre site, then it can be concluded that the project’s construction emissions would not result in any adverse localized air quality impacts on off-site sensitive receptors. In conducting the localized air quality analysis, which focuses only on on-site emissions, the project’s on-site construction emissions generated from combustion sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment) under a worst-case construction scenario were extracted from the CalEEMod model run outputs. Additionally, to account for the combustion emissions associated with vehicles traveling within the project site during construction, the mobile source emissions from CalEEMod were proportioned to represent a worst-case, on-site travel distance for the worker vehicles and vendor and haul trucks of 0.5 miles. The daily total on-site combustion, mobile, and fugitive dust emissions associated with the project were combined and evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a one-acre site. Operational Impacts Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated with the project, including mobile- and area-source emissions, were also quantified using the CalEEMod computer model. Area-source emissions, which are widely distributed and made of many small emissions sources (e.g., building heating and cooling units, landscaping equipment, Audi of Temecula 3.2-17 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality consumer products, painting operations, etc.), were modeled according to the size and type of land use proposed. Mass mobile-source emissions were modeled based on the daily vehicle trips that would result from the project. Project trip generation rates were obtained from the project’s traffic impact analysis (VA Consulting, Inc., 2015). The resulting long-term operational emissions were then compared with the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for determination of significance. Modeling Assumptions and output files are provided in Appendix B of this report. In addition to regional air quality impacts, the project’s localized air quality impacts during operation is also analyzed by extracting the on-site operational emissions from the CalEEMod model run for the project and evaluating those emissions against SCAQMD’s applicable operational LSTs. Since SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet from the emissions source, and the nearest receptor is over 900 feet from the project site, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 656 feet from the project site was used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts. Although the project is 4.5 acres in size, emissions from the project were compared to the two-acre LST thresholds to provide a screening-level analysis. Where the project’s localized operational emissions exceed the two-acre LSTs, dispersion modeling of the emissions would be conducted to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts of the project on the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Where localized operational emissions do not exceed the two-acre LSTs, the project is considered to be less than significant. Similar to the construction LSTs, on-site mobile emissions for a 0.5-mile vehicle trip distance were proportioned from the mobile source emissions and added to the area source emissions. CO Hotspots Historically, qualitative screening procedures and guidelines contained in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (the Protocol) were used to determine whether a project poses the potential for a CO hotspot (UCD ITS, 1997). According to the Protocol, projects may worsen air quality if they increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent or more; significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes; or worsen traffic flow, defined for signalized intersections as increasing average delay at intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F or causing an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project, to operate at LOS E or F. However, it should be noted that CO concentrations have declined dramatically in California due to existing controls and programs and most areas of the state, including the region in which the project is located, have no problem meeting the state and federal CO standards. Additionally, CO hotspots have not been seen in the most congested intersections in the region in well over a decade. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, fewer emissions from new vehicles and improvements in fuels (CARB, 2004b). The reduction in older polluting vehicles and emissions controls on newer vehicles have increased the number of vehicles that can idle and the length of time that a number of vehicles can idle before emissions would trigger a CO impact. This increase in vehicle idling has made the use of the LOS as an indicator obsolete for determining CO impacts. For this reason, several air districts, Audi of Temecula 3.2-18 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (BAAQMD, 2009), have adopted guidelines that focus on criteria other than LOS and percentage traffic increase, and instead focus on total volumes and consistency with congestion management plans. For the purposes of this analysis, total hourly vehicle volumes through intersections and an assessment of the project’s consistency with congestion management plans will be conducted to evaluate potential impacts associated with CO hotspots. Intersections that exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria (detailed under Thresholds of Significance below) would be required to conduct dispersion modeling to determine the potential impact from the impacted intersections. Toxic Air Contaminants TAC generators located within the Basin are associated with diesel-fueled vehicles and specific types of facilities such as dry cleaners, gas stations, distribution centers, and ports. The project consists of an automotive dealership and service facilities that would not include any of the aforementioned TAC emitter facilities, nor would it be anticipated to include diesel-powered generators or emergency backup generators. Therefore, it is not anticipated that off-site receptors would be impacted by TAC emissions resulting from project’s operations. Therefore, this analysis discusses impacts from TACs on a qualitative basis. Thresholds of Significance Based on the state CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant adverse effect on air quality resources if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The City of Temecula has not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts. However, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table 3.2-4. Audi of Temecula 3.2-19 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-4 SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day) Construction Operations Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 TACs (including carcinogens and non-carcinogens Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk e 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas e 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index e 1.0 (project increment) a As the project would not involve the development of any major lead emissions sources, lead emissions would not be analyzed further in this report. SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2011. Aside from regional air quality impacts, projects in the Basin are also required to analyze local air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the Basin. The localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to five acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to five acres daily. As discussed previously, the construction LSTs for a one-acre site and operational LSTs for a two-acre site in SRA 26 (Temecula), which are shown in Table 3.2-5, would be used to evaluate the project’s localized air quality impacts. It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions, the two principal species of NOx are NO and NO2, with the vast majority (95 percent) of the NOx emissions being comprised of NO. However, because adverse health effects are associated with NO2, not NO, the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels. For combustion sources, SCAQMD assumes that the conversion of NO to NO2 is complete at a distance of 5,000 meters from the source. Audi of Temecula 3.2-20 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-5 SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 26 – Temecula Valley Allowable emissions (pounds/day) as a function of receptor distance (feet) from site boundary 82 (ft) 164 (ft) 328 (ft) 656 (ft) 1,640 (ft) Construction Thresholds – 1 Acre Site Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 162 203 292 460 896 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 661 974 1,918 4,850 21,040 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 4 12 30 67 178 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3 4 8 20 86 Operational Thresholds – 2 acre Site Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 234 275 363 521 941 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 970 1,386 2,452 5,641 22,403 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 2 5 10 18 45 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 1 2 3 6 22 a The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table take into consideration the gradual conversion of NO to NO2.The analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects. SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2009. CO Hotspot The decrease in emissions of CO from vehicles has increased the number of vehicles that can idle at an intersection before CO impacts occur. Because of this, the use of the LOS as an indicator for CO impacts has become obsolete. For this reason, several air districts, including the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2009), have adopted guidelines that focus on criteria other than LOS and percentage traffic increase, and instead focus on total volumes and consistency with congestion management plans. The BAAQMD criteria are as follows: 1. Consistency with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. Traffic volumes at affected intersections would not be increased to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. Traffic volumes at affected intersections would not be increased to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). For the purposes of this analysis, intersections that exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria should conduct dispersion modeling to determine the potential impact from the affected Audi of Temecula 3.2-21 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality intersections. Where the screening values are not exceeded, the project would be determined to be less than significant with respect to localized CO impacts. Impacts Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan The project is located within the Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the project. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections. The project site is identified in the General Plan as within the Harveston Specific Plan. The Harveston Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned community that was initially approved by the City Council in 2001. The Harveston Plan includes parks and open space, an elementary school, low- to high-density residential, service commercial, and a business park (refer to Figure 2-3). The project is located within the Service Commercial area of the Plan. The Service Commercial land use designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Typical commercial uses include mid-rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto sales, service and repair. The planned use at the project site, a car dealership, is consistent with the Service Commercial designation of the Harveston Specific Plan, and therefore, consistent with the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the project will be required to implement all applicable air quality mitigation measures in the adopted Harveston Mitigation Monitoring Plan. As the project is consistent with the General Plan, it is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG’s regional forecast projections and, in turn, would also be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in SCAQMD’s AQMP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be less than significant. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Violation of Air Quality Standards – Construction The project would involve the construction of approximately 37,468 square-foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing to be built over approximately 4.5 acres. Construction activities associated with the project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel Audi of Temecula 3.2-22 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously at the time. Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary, but have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are among the pollutants of greatest localized concern with respect to construction activities. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Particulate emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction emissions of PM can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment operated, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance. Emissions of ozone precursors ROG and NOx are primarily generated from mobile sources and vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with debris hauling, delivery of construction materials, vendor trips, worker commute trips, and the types and number of heavy-duty, off-road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation. A large portion of construction-related ROG emissions also result from the application of architectural coatings and vary depending on the amount of coatings applied each day. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the project would reduce regional PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Table 3.2-6 summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the project’s worst-case construction scenario. It is assumed that the grading phase for the project would be completed before paving, building construction, and architectural coating phases would begin. Additionally it was assumed that the paving phase would overlap with the beginning of the building construction phase and that architectural coating phase would overlap with the end of the building construction phase. Due to the limited existing vegetation, it was assumed that vegetation removal would be part of the grading phase. Audi of Temecula 3.2-23 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-6 PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Year Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Onsite 52.01 46.85 31.07 0.05 3.07 2.87 Offsite 0.93 2.10 16.63 0.04 3.74 1.01 Total Construction Emissions 52.94 48.95 47.70 0.09 6.81 3.88 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? 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 SO2 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. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B As shown in Table 3.2-6, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the project’s worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, construction phase emissions would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Violation of Air Quality Standards – Operations Implementation of the project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, in addition to operational mobile emissions. According to the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project, development of the project would result in an increase in 1,227 vehicle trips per day during the week and 1,130 vehicle trips per day on the weekend. Modeled operations emissions are presented in Table 3.2-7. As shown, the project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria pollutants that would not exceed the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.2-24 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-7 PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Sources 0.03 0.31 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 Mobile Sources 3.78 7.21 27.86 0.49 3.53 1.00 Total Emissions 4.79 7.52 28.12 0.49 3.55 1.02 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 100 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutant Concentrations CO Hotspot A total of six local intersections were analyzed as part of the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the project (VA Consulting, Inc., 2015). The existing plus project and baseline 2016 plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated against the screening level threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. Peak hourly traffic volumes for each of the study area intersections are shown in Table 3.2-8. Under all scenarios, the total vehicles generated during the PM peak hour are greater than those for the AM peak hour at all study intersections. As shown, the maximum hourly traffic generated under the existing plus project and baseline 2016 plus project scenarios, which occurs at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road during the PM weekday peak hour, is 7,474 and 8,426 vehicles per hour, respectively. For weekends the peak hourly traffic for this intersection is 7,304 and 7,719 for the existing plus project and baseline 2016 plus project scenarios, respectively. As none of the peak hour traffic at all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO emissions from these vehicles volumes would be less than significant. According to the project specific traffic impact analysis (VA Consulting, Inc., 2015), the project does not require a CMP analysis because the City requirements for traffic studies exceed the CMP requirements and the project will be subject to the City requirements for mitigation. Additionally, the CMP for Riverside County does not address specific intersections. Therefore, because the project is subject to requirements that are more restrictive than the CMP it can be concluded that the project would not conflict with the Riverside CMP requirements. Given that the project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it conflict with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.2-25 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-8 PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Plus Project Baseline 2016 Plus Project Intersection AM PM AM PM Weekday Jackson Ave at Murrieta Hot Springs 3,448 4,574 4,463 5,846 Waverly Lane at Ynez Road 949 1,455 1,188 1,647 Date Street at Ynez Road 1,504 2,205 1,728 2,433 Winchester Road at Ynez Road 5,238 7,474 6,042 8,426 Winchester Road at I-15 NB ramps 4,650 5,600 5,319 6,340 Winchester Road at I-15 SB ramps 3,919 4,379 4,160 4,636 Maximum Traffic Volumes 5,238 7,474 6,042 8,426 Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 Significant? No No No No Weekend Jackson Ave at Murrieta Hot Springs 4,016 4,764 Waverly Lane at Ynez Road 1,130 1,250 Date Street at Ynez Road 1,633 1,775 Winchester Road at Ynez Road 7,304 7,719 Winchester Road at I-15 NB ramps 5,598 5,937 Winchester Road at I-15 SB ramps 3,149 3,332 Maximum Traffic Volumes 7,304 7,719 Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 Significant? No No SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants The daily on-site construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a one-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the single family residential dwelling units located across Ynez Road, approximately 900 feet from the project site. As discussed previously, because the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 656 feet are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the project’s peak day construction emissions. Table 3.2-9 identifies the daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the project’s worst-case construction scenario. Audi of Temecula 3.2-26 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-9 PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Year Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10a PM2.5a 2016 38.45 26.08 4.47 3.25 Localized Significance Thresholdb 460 4,850 67 20 Significant Impact? No No No No a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b LST values for a 1-acre site in SRA 26. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B As shown in Table 3.2-9, the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the project’s worst- case construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for a one-acre site in SRA 26. Therefore, localized air quality impacts associated with the project during construction would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – TACs Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during site grading; paving; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction-related emissions of TACs. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), carcinogenic health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of activities associated with the project. The construction period for the project would be nine months, much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination. Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time period (approximately nine months), project construction would not expose any Audi of Temecula 3.2-27 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality nearby sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The project’s on-site operational emissions are shown in Table 3.2-10. As shown, the project’s total operational-related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD’s screening operational LSTs. Thus no dispersion modeling is required and localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant. TABLE 3.2-10 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Daily Operational Emissions 0.95 1.82 0.21 0.09 Localized Significance Threshold 521 5,641 18 6 Significant Impact? No No No No SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – TACs Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes, warehouses, and dry cleaning facilities. The project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products. The automotive repair facility will be using a non-water based solvent QwikSolv. According to the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product, this solvent is non-carcinogenic and therefore would not pose a potential cancer risk to workers or off-site residents. Exposure could cause inhalation, ingestion, eye, and skin irritation. However, exposure to sensitive receptors would not result in potential impacts due to the distance between the facility and the nearest residents. Employees implementing proper protection, such as gloves and splash goggles (or respirators if concentrations exceed 100 ppm), would minimize exposure and potential health impacts. Additionally, it is not anticipated that generators or emergency back-up generators would be required. However, if a generator was implemented it would be subject to SCAQMD regulatory requirements, which limit the allowable emissions to a level below that which would result in a significant impact. As such, the operation of a generator at the project site would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.2-28 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Objectionable Odors Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. As the proposed automotive dealership does not include any of the uses that have been identified as being associated with odors, the project is not expected to result in objectionable odors for the nearby sensitive uses. During construction of the project, exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. Odors associated with project construction would be temporary (occurring only when active construction activities are occurring over the approximately nine-month construction period at the project site), and intermittent in nature (intensity would be directly related to the wind speed and direction which changes throughout the day). Additionally, the project construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the release of nuisance odors that would adversely affect any considerable number of persons or the public, and would limit the idling of equipment to five minutes or less. Because the nearest receptors are located over 900 feet from the project site, and odor emissions dissipate rapidly with distance, the odors generated from the project would be temporary and intermittent and occur only during construction activities would not be considered a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Cumulative Increase of Criteria Pollutants The project site is located within the Basin, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. Because the Basin is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7, the project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds. Additionally, because the project is consistent with the AQMP, the emissions from the project have been taken into account with respect to regional emissions and the ability for the Basin to meet the required attainment status. Thus, because the project’s individual air quality impacts are less than significant, and the project is consistent with the AQMP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.2-29 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change This section provides a discussion of global climate change, existing regulations pertaining to global climate change, and potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from development of the project. Impacts related to GHGs and climate change are analyzed and mitigation measures are provided for any potentially significant impacts. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The major concern with GHGs is that increases in their concentrations are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the rate of global climate change and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most in the scientific community agree that there is a direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long term global temperature increases. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different GHGs have different warming potential and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, SF6 is a GHG commonly used in the utility industry as an insulating gas in circuit breakers and other electronic equipment. SF6, while comprising a small fraction of the total GHGs emitted annually world-wide, is a much more potent GHG with 22,800 times the global warming potential as CO2. Therefore, an emission of one metric ton (MT) of SF6 could be reported as an emission of 22,800 MT of CO2e. Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.1 Some of the potential effects in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more forest fires, and more drought years (CARB, 2009). Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally, but are expected to include the following direct effects (IPCC, 2001): • Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas; • Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas; • Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas; • Increase of heat index over land areas; and • More intense precipitation events. 1 A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms; it is equal to approximately 1.1 U.S. tons and approximately 2,204.6 pounds. Audi of Temecula 3.3-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Also, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great. California produced 459 gross MMTCO2e in 2012 (CARB, 2014a). Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2012, accounting for 36 percent of total GHG emissions in the state (CARB, 2014a). This sector was followed by the electric power sector (including both in-state and out-of-state sources) (21 percent) and the industrial sector (19 percent) (CARB, 2014a). 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework United States Environmental Protection Agency The federal CAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air quality standards for GHGs. Executive Order S-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Executive Order B-30-15 In April 2015, Governor Brown established Executive Order B-30-15 that establishes an interim 2030 GHG reduction targets for California. This target is intended to guide regulatory policy and investments in California to help further California’s ability to meet the 2050 reduction target established by Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Assembly Bill 32- California Global Warming Solutions Act California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required CARB to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and require selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and verify their statewide GHG emissions. In December 2007 CARB adopted 427 MT CO2e as the statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the statewide levels for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below forecasted 2020 “business-as-usual” emissions of 596 MMT of CO2e, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009). Audi of Temecula 3.3-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007 (CARB, 2007). CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation, including Ship Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global-Warming-Potential Gases in Consumer Products, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency), Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing, Improved Landfill Gas Capture, Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbon-134a from Do-It-Yourself Motor Vehicle Servicing, Sulfur Hexaflouride Reductions from the Non-Electric Sector, a Tire Inflation Program, and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As of January 1, 2012, the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB aimed to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality. Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit (CARB, 2009). This Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. As required by AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated at least every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the legislation. In October 2013, a draft update to the initial Scoping Plan was developed by CARB in collaboration with the California Climate Action Team (CCAT). The draft update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures, and identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted program investments. The draft update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to CARB’s Board for discussion at its February 20, 2014 meeting. Subsequently, the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 by CARB. As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan, the emissions reductions required to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted. The primary reason for adjusting the 2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) to assign the global warming potentials (GWPs) of GHGs. Recently, in accordance the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international climate agencies have agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP values in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that was released in 2007. Because CARB has begun to transition to the use of the AR4 100-year GWPs in its climate change programs, CARB recalculated the Scoping Plan’s 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs. As the recalculation resulted in 431 MMTCO2e, the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly Audi of Temecula 3.3-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. Considering that the proposed update also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to 509 MMTCO2e, a 15 percent reduction below the estimated BAU levels was determined to be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2014b). Executive Order S-1-07 Executive Order S-1-07, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. As a result of this order, CARB approved a proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) on April 23, 2009, which will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020. The LCFS is designed to reduce California’s dependence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California. The LCFS is designed to provide a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Senate Bill 375 SB 375, which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle GHG emissions, was adopted by the state on September 30, 2008. On September 23, 2010, CARB adopted the vehicular GHG emissions reduction targets that had been developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); the targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant GHG reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG), will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable communities strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces GHG emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives. SCAG’s reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (CARB, 2010). The MPOs prepared their first SCS according to their respective regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS adopted on April 4, 2012. Senate Bill 87 Senate Bill (SB) 97, enacted in August 2007, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, or the effects related to releases of GHG emissions. On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary Audi of Temecula 3.3-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. California Green Building Standard Code In January 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became effective in January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008 California Green Building Code, the 2010 CALGreen Code represents a more stringent building code that requires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renovations in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer (including hotels and motels) and all new non-residential buildings of any size that are not additions to existing buildings. In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2), became effective on July 1, 2014. SCAQMD As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD developed a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing. The SCAQMD flowchart uses a tiered approach in which a proposed project is deemed to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions when any of the following conditions are met: • GHG emissions are within GHG budgets in an approved regional plan; • Incremental increases in GHG emissions due to the project are below the defined Significance Screening Levels, or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level; • Performance standards are met by incorporating project design features and/or implementing emission reduction measures; and • Carbon offsets are made to achieve target significance screening level. City of Temecula General Plan The Air Quality Element “establishes policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts Audi of Temecula 3.3-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change with surrounding jurisdictions” (City of Temecula, 2005). The goals and policies relevant to the GHG analysis include: Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use. Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy 4.1 Encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through conservation. Policy 4.2 Promote local recycling of wastes and the use of recycled materials. Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects. The following 15 implementation programs have also been introduced in Temecula to reduce GHG emissions. AQ-1 Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination AQ-2 Public Participation AQ-3: Land Use Compatibility AQ-4 Jobs/Housing Balance AQ-5: Mitigation Measures AQ-6: Sensitive Receptors AQ-7: Design Guidelines AQ-8: Alternative Work Schedules AQ-9: Rideshare and Transit Incentives AQ-10: Special Events AQ-11: Transportation Alternatives AQ-12: Alternative Fueled Vehicles AQ-13: Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan AQ-14: Park and Ride Facilities AQ-15: Energy Efficient Design Sustainability Plan The City of Temecula committed to becoming a sustainable community in July of 2008. Subsequently, the City of Temecula’s Sustainability Plan was developed and adopted on June 22, 2010 (City of Temecula, 2010). The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the Audi of Temecula 3.3-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 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 Sustainability Plan provides recommendations on performance in energy, green buildings, water resources, air resources, waste management, transportation, open space, and community outreach. Goals, success indicators, and implementation measures have been developed for each category as a way to monitor the Plan’s success. The following goals are outlined by the Sustainability Plan. Energy Goals: 1. Reduce Energy Consumption throughout the community through use of the latest technology, practices, and programs to support this goal. 2. Support the use of clean energy throughout the community through the use of the latest technology practices and programs. 3. Reduce fossil fuel use in vehicles. Green Building Goals: 1. Improve the quality of buildings throughout the City by increasing the number of green building measures used during construction. 2. Improve the knowledge of green building principles and practices for City staff and builders in the Temecula area. Water Resources Goals: 1. Reduce potable water use. 2. Increase reclaimed water use at municipal facilities. 3. Reduce amount of urban run-off, where conditions do not allow infiltration. 4. Improve surface water quality through filtration and focused education efforts. 5. Protect natural groundwater recharge areas. 6. Capture and use stormwater runoff for irrigation purposes at City owned and maintained landscaped areas. Air Resources Goals: 1. Reduce greenhouse gases from City Operations. 2. Establish baseline air quality data for the Temecula Community. Waste Management Goals: 1. Reduce total waste generated and reduce the use and release of household hazardous waste. 2. Increase green purchasing. Transportation Goals: 1. Disperse activity notes throughout the City. Audi of Temecula 3.3-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 2. Create a flexible network of alternative modes of transportation. 3. Distribute trip types among all modes of transportation (vehicle, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.). 4. Maintain physical roadway conditions along transit corridors. 5. Improve the transportation system to better connect jobs, housing, schools, shopping and recreational uses. Open Space Goals: 1. Increase the amount of open space within City Boundaries. 2. Improve accessibility to open space areas. 3. Protect the City’s natural assets. 4. Create or enhance public space/plazas within nonresidential zoning districts. Community Outreach Goals: 1. Share information and educate the community. Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan was prepared in September 1999 and last amended in August 2003. The plan was designed to meet the requirements of the City of Temecula’s General Plan and provide a cohesive and comprehensive document of guidelines and standards for implementation of the development within the Specific Plan area. The following development standards presented in the Specific Plan would aid in the reduction of GHG emissions (City of Temecula, 2003). Circulation Plan Development Standards: 3: Provisions shall be made for a safe and efficient paseo, urban trail and sidewalk network, providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation in conjunction with the roadway network. A sidewalk system shall be developed along Date Street, Margarita Road, Ynez Road, collector streets and along most of the other project roadways. Pedestrian traffic shall be separated from vehicular traffic, particularly in commercial and high density areas. 12: The project shall comply with the conditions and requirements set forth by the City of Temecula. Water Plan Development Standards/Sewer Plan Development Standards: 4: The project shall comply with Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604 (f) Appliance Efficiency Standards, which establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 17621.3 which requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. (Note this is superseded by Title 24 regulations). Audi of Temecula 3.3-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Grading Plan General Development Standards: 14: Grading shall comply with the mitigation measures, pursuant to the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. Landscape Plan General Development Standards: 13: All landscaping shall meet the City of Temecula Water Efficient Ordinance, Chapter 1732 of the City of Temecula Development Code. 22: Graded/disturbed areas not to be developed within six months shall be temporarily planted and irrigated to provide dust and erosion control. Service Commercial Zone 12 Development Standards: 3a: A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site shall be landscaped and automatic irrigation shall be installed. 3b: Parking lot landscaping and shading shall conform to applicable City Ordinance. 3c: A minimum of a fifty foot (50') landscaped buffer/setback area shalt be provided adjacent to the Interstate 15 right-of-way. No parking or driving surfaces are allowed in this area. The following air quality mitigation presented in the Specific Plan EIR for the project area that is relevant to GHG emissions reductions are as follows: 1. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. b. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation. 2. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: d. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. j. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. k. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: a. Provision of rideshare incentives. b. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. Audi of Temecula 3.3-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change c. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. d. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. e. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 7. Prior to the approval of tentative maps and/or development plans, developers will submit tract maps and/or street improvement plans to the RTA for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelters, etc. Transit-oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City. City staff will focus on the review plans for commercial uses to provide transit related features. 8. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans, especially for commercial and park uses, for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 9. Prior to the approval of development plan, City staff will review plans for all service commercial uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its ‘fair-share’ towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development. 3.3.3 Impact Assessment Methodology At the time of writing of this report, SCAQMD has not formally adopted a uniform methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions or global climate change. Similarly, the City also has not adopted any guidelines for GHG analysis. Pursuant to full disclosure and according to OPR’s CEQA Guidelines that state, “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project,” the construction and operational emissions associated with the project have been quantified using methods described below. SCAQMD recommends the use of CalEEMod for estimating construction and operational emissions associated with land use projects. CalEEMod estimates the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O as well as the resulting total CO2e emissions associated with construction-related GHG sources such as off-road construction equipment, material delivery trucks, soil haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. As CalEEMod currently uses IPCC’s 1996 SAR to assign the GWPs for CH4 and N2O, the emissions for these two GHGs were taken from the CalEEMod outputs and converted to CO2e emissions outside of CalEEMod using the updated GWPs from IPCC’s AR4. The GHG analysis incorporates similar assumptions as the air quality analysis for consistency. Based on SCAQMD’s 2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold document, SCAQMD recommends that for construction GHG emissions the total emissions for a project be amortized over a 30-year period and added to its operational emission estimates (SCAQMD, 2008). Audi of Temecula 3.3-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Operational emissions of GHGs, including GHGs generated by direct and indirect sources, are estimated according to the recommended methodologies from SCAQMD. Direct sources include emissions such as vehicle trips, natural gas consumption, and landscape maintenance. Indirect sources include offsite emissions occurring as a result of the project’s operations such as electricity and water consumption and solid waste disposal. The direct and indirect emissions generated during the project’s operations were estimated using CalEEMod. Similar to the calculation of the project’s construction-related GHG emissions, the operational emissions of CH4 and N2O were extracted from the CalEEMod output file and converted to CO2e emissions using the GWPs from IPCC’s AR4. Modeling was based on project-specific data (e.g., size and type of proposed use) and vehicle trip information from the project’s traffic analysis (VA Consulting Inc., 2015). All construction and operational GHG emission estimate assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix B to this report. Thresholds of Significance The following GHG significance thresholds that are used in this report are also based on the state CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the project would result in a significant GHG-related impact if it would: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has been linked to global warming, which can lead to climate change. Construction and operation of the project would incrementally contribute to GHG emissions along with past, present, and future activities, and the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of GHG emissions are analyzed here on a cumulative basis. Currently, while SCAQMD has issued proposed standards and guidelines, there is no adopted state or local standard for determining the cumulative significance of the project’s GHG emissions on global climate change. However, the SCAQMD has proposed a screening threshold value of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for projects as presented by the Stakeholder Working Group in November 2009 (SCAQMD, 2009). Since the City also has not adopted any significance criteria or guidelines for GHG analysis at the time of this writing, it is reasonable under CEQA for the City, as the lead agency, to consider using a screening level that is recommended by SCAQMD, which is the applicable air pollution control agency for the City. Thus, the annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e proposed by the SCAQMD will be utilized for determining the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. Audi of Temecula 3.3-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts Project-Generated GHG Emissions The project would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction of the project. Once fully operational, the project’s operations would generate GHG emissions from both area sources and mobile sources. 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 employees and patrons of the dealership. Construction Emissions Construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated using the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. The project’s total estimated GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 428.04 MTCO2e. This would equal to approximately 14.27 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. Operational Emissions Area and indirect sources associated with the project would primarily result from electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water to and from the project site), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed on the project site would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. In addition, the new car dealership at the project site would also generate mobile source emissions from motor vehicle trips generated by employees and patrons. The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from project implementation are shown in Table 3.3-1. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the project’s amortized construction-related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the project would have annual total emissions of 987.08 MTCO2e. This would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold. Therefore, the increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.3-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change TABLE 3.3-1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source Estimated Emissions CO2e (MT/yr) Construction Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 14.27 Operational Emissions Area Sources 0.00 Energy Consumptiona 176.90 Mobile Sources 703.00 Solid Waste 71.99 Water Consumptionb 20.92 Total Operational Emissions 972.81 Total Project Emissions 987.08 Threshold 3,000 Significant? No NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year. a The energy-related GHG emissions, as estimated by CalEEMod, 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 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, 2015; Appendix B Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB’s Scoping Plan, the actions that are most applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy efficiency programs including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB-1 (Green building), and W-1 (Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Action GB-1 (Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new dealership would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of stricter building and appliance standards. Consistency with Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan does not have specific measures for the reduction of GHG emissions. However, implementation of the development standards identified within the Specific Plan will result in the reduction of GHG emissions from the project site through the potential reduction in vehicle trips and/or resource efficiency. For example, Circulation Standard 3 requires the separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. The project has sidewalks that are Audi of Temecula 3.3-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change separated from the street by a landscaped area. Additionally landscaping is required to meet the City’s water efficiency Ordinance and installed automatic irrigation systems which will reduce water consumption. Air quality mitigation implemented as part of the Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program will also reduce GHG emissions through the potential for reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle idling. Therefore, the implementation of the project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Specific Plan. Consistency with Temecula Sustainability Plan The 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. Overall, development of the project would be consistent with the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.3-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise This section evaluates the potential for noise and groundborne vibration impacts to result from implementation of the project. This includes the potential for the project to result in impacts associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the project site to excessive noise and groundborne vibration levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Finally, mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts to noise and vibration are proposed, where appropriate, to avoid or reduce significant impacts of the project. Data used to prepare this analysis were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, the City of Temecula Municipal Code, and by measuring existing and modeling future noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses. Information contained in the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by VA Consulting, Inc. (Appendix E of this SEIR) was used in the modeling of traffic noise exposure. Noise Principles and Descriptors Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), which is the standard unit of sound amplitude measurement. The dB scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude. When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency deemphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.4-1. Audi of Temecula 3.4-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Audi of Temecula . 150189Figure 3.4-1Effects of Noise on People SOURCE: ESA 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITHINFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION LETTERS OF PROTEST Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Large Business Office Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. COMMON INDOORNOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOORNOISE LEVELS NOISELEVEL(dBA, Leq)PUBLIC REACTION Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial AreaHeavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud REFERENCE Small Theater, LargeConference Room (Background)Library Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.4-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short-duration, single-event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value; the Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level. Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Lmin: The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Ldn: Also termed the DNL, the Ldn is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after an addition of 10 dBA to measured noise levels between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account nighttime noise sensitivity. CNEL: CNEL, or Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day that is obtained after an addition of 5 dBA to measured noise levels between the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and after an addition of 10 dBA to noise levels between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. Effects of Noise on People Noise is generally loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity that is a nuisance or disruptive. The effects of noise on people can be placed into four general categories: • Subjective effects (e.g., dissatisfaction, annoyance); • Interference effects (e.g., communication, sleep, and learning interference); • Physiological effects (e.g., startle response); and • Physical effects (e.g., hearing loss). Audi of Temecula 3.4-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause physical and physiological effects, the principal human responses to typical environmental noise exposure are related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference effects of environmental noise refer to those effects that interrupt daily activities and include interference with human communication activities, such as normal conversations, watching television, telephone conversations, and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening and arousal to a lesser state of sleep. With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors, including the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise, the appropriateness of the noise to the setting, the duration of the noise, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and individual noise sensitivity. Overall, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction on people. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted (i.e., comparison to the ambient noise environment). In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise level will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships generally occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered to be a barely perceivable difference; • A change in noise levels of 5 dBA is considered to be a readily perceivable difference; and • A change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived loudness. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, but rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as asphalt or concrete surfaces or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites Audi of Temecula 3.4-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 2009). Fundamentals of Vibration As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, heavy trucks and buses traveling on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile- driving, and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. The relationship of PPV to RMS velocity is expressed in terms of the “crest factor,” defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the RMS amplitude. Peak particle velocity is typically a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity (FTA, 2006). The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration sensitive equipment. The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration levels exceed the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings. The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV (FTA, 2006). In residential areas, the background vibration velocity level is usually around 50 VdB (approximately 0.0013 in/sec PPV). This level is well below the vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans, which is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is considered to be the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people (FTA, 2006). Audi of Temecula 3.4-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels The project involves the development of 4.5 acres as an automotive dealership (Audi) as part of the Harveston Specific Plan . Regionally, the project site is situated in the northern portion of the City of Temecula, which is located within the County of Riverside approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (refer to Figure 2-1). The project is generally located in the northern portion of the City, north of Date Street, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Temecula Center Drive, and west of Ynez Road (refer to Figure 2-2). Sources of noise in the City of Temecula are typical of those found in other cities and include, but not limited to, traffic, construction work, commercial operations, human activities, emergency vehicles, and aircraft overflights.. As described in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, noise in the City is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and stationary sources, with motor vehicles being the dominant source of continuous noise. Properties adjacent to freeways can experience decibels as high as 70 to 75 dBA (City of Temecula, 2005). Stationary noise typically refers to noise from commercial establishments, machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, residential and recreational uses, and landscape maintenance equipment. The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic on I-15 and Ynez Road. Short-term noise level measurements were conducted in the project vicinity on May 12, 2015, from 10:20 A.M. to 12:00 P.M., to establish existing ambient noise conditions at existing off-site land uses. Measurement sites were chosen to represent existing noise-sensitive uses, including the existing single-family residential uses located to the east and northeast of the project site and the mobile homes located north of the project site, beyond the existing Mercedes Benz auto dealership. The noise surveys were conducted using a Larson Davis SoundTrack LXT sound meter, which was calibrated prior to use to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The results of the noise survey are shown in Table 3.4-1. The measurement locations are identified in Figure 3.4-2. Audi of Temecula 3.4-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 !. !. !. 2 3 1 Audi of Temecula.150189 Figure 3.4-2 Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE:NAIP, 2014 0 300 Feet Project Site !.Noise Monitoring Location 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-1 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT SITE Location Date and Time Period Leq dBA Lmax dBA Noise Sources Short-term Measurements 1. Single-family residential uses located northeast of project site, at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane. 05/12/15 10:20 – 10:35 A.M. 63.3 80.8 Vehicular traffic on Ynez Road; Vehicles idling at stop sign. 2. Single-family residential uses located northeast of the project site along Ynez Road, south of Waverly Lane. 05/12/15 10:38 – 10:52 A.M. 61.3 78.5 Vehicular traffic on Ynez Road. 3. Mobile home community located north of the project site, beyond the Mercedes Benz auto dealership and south of Elm Street 05/12/15 11:04 – 11:19 A.M. 59.2 64.4 Minimal cars driving by; birds chirping. SOURCE: ESA, 2015 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for 12 roadway segments located in proximity of the project site. The roadway segments selected for analysis are considered to be those that are expected to be most directly impacted by project-related traffic; which, for the purpose of this analysis, includes the roadways that are nearest to the project site. These roadways, when compared to roadways located further away from the project site, would experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the project. Calculation of the existing roadway noise levels was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes at the study intersections analyzed in the project’s TIA. The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, and site environmental conditions. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments during weekday and weekend conditions are presented in Table 3.4-2 and Table 3.4-3, respectively. Audi of Temecula 3.4-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-2 EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS (weekday) Roadway Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses located along Roadway Segment dBA Ldna Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 66.7 East of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 65.5 Jackson Avenue South Murrieta Hot Springs Road Residential/Commercial 61.5 Ynez Road North of Waverly Lane Residential/Commercial 61.5 South of Waverley Lane Residential 61.9 North of Date Street Residential 61.9 South of Date Street Residential 62.8 North of Winchester Road Church/Commercial/Office 71.5 South of Winchester Road Commercial 69.6 Date Street East of Ynez Road Residential 60.9 Winchester Road West of Ynez Road Commercial 73.6 East of Ynez Road Commercial 70.0 a Values represent noise levels from the centerline of each roadway to the approximate receptor property line. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. TABLE 3.4-3 EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS (weekend) Roadway Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses located along Roadway Segment dBA Ldna Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 66.1 East of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 66.0 Jackson Avenue South Murrieta Hot Springs Road Residential/Commercial 61.0 Ynez Road North of Waverly Lane Residential/Commercial 59.9 South of Waverley Lane Residential 60.5 North of Date Street Residential 60.5 South of Date Street Residential 61.4 North of Winchester Road Church/Commercial/Office 70.2 South of Winchester Road Commercial 69.3 Date Street East of Ynez Road Residential 59.4 Winchester Road West of Ynez Road Commercial 73.7 East of Ynez Road Commercial 70.3 a Values represent noise levels from the centerline of each roadway to the approximate receptor property line. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Audi of Temecula 3.4-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels Aside from periodic construction work that may occur throughout the city, other sources of groundborne vibration in the project site vicinity may include heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and delivery trucks) on local roadways. Trucks traveling at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB (approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV), and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 in/sec PPV) where trucks pass over bumps in the road (FTA, 2006). Sensitive Receptors Noise sensitive land use are defined as those specific land uses that have associated indoor and/or outdoor human activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise produced by community sound sources. For instance, residences, hotels, schools, churches, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The project site currently consists of 4.5 acres of undeveloped land that shows evidence of previous disturbance from rough grading activities. The nearest existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site consist primarily of single-family residential uses located to the northeast, east, and southeast fronting Ynez Road, and a mobile home community to the north, beyond the existing Mercedes Benz auto dealership. 3.4.2 Regulatory Framework Detailed below is a discussion of the relevant regulatory setting and noise regulations, plans, and policies. Federal Noise Standards There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the project. With regard to noise exposure and workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise. Federal regulations also establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dB at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers. Federal Transit Administration Vibration Standards The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are shown in Table 3.4-4. Audi of Temecula 3.4-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA Building Category PPV (in/sec) I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 SOURCE: FTA, 2006. In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: Vibration Category 1 – High Sensitivity, Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and Vibration Category 3 – Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. The vibration thresholds associated with human annoyance for these three land-use categories are shown in Table 3.4-5. No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses. TABLE 3.4-5 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACT CRITERIA FOR GENERAL ASSESSMENT Land Use Category Frequent Events a Occasional Events b Infrequent Events c Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 65 VdBd 65 VdBd 65 VdBd Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB a “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. b “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. c “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. d This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. SOURCE: FTA, 2006. California Department of Health Services Noise Standards The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 3.4-6. In addition, Audi of Temecula 3.4-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the state to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the State pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dBA. The State pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. TABLE 3.4-6 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (Ldn OR CNEL) Land Use Normally Acceptablea Conditionally Acceptableb Normally Unacceptablec Clearly Unacceptabled Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 Multi-Family Homes 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 75 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters --- 50 - 70 --- above 70 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports --- 50 - 75 --- above 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 --- 67 - 75 above 75 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 75 --- 70 - 80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial 50 - 70 67 - 77 above 75 --- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 above 75 --- a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. SOURCE: Office of Planning and Research, 2003 The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, Audi of Temecula 3.4-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dB Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dB Ldn/CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. State Vibration Standards There are no state vibration standards applicable to the project. Moreover, according to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), there are no official Caltrans standards for vibration. However, this manual provides guidelines that can be used as screening tools for assessing the potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage and human perception. The manual is meant to provide practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects. The vibration criteria established by Caltrans for assessing structural damage and human perception are shown in Table 3.4-7 and Table 3.4-8, respectively. TABLE 3.4-7 CALTRANS VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 NOTE: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. Audi of Temecula 3.4-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-8 CALTRANS VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 NOTE: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element The California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires that a noise element be included in the General Plan of each county and city in the State. The Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan is intended to identify sources of noise and provide goals and policies that ensure that noise from various sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment. The City’s noise standards are correlated with land use classifications in order to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The noise standards for each land use classification defined in the City are summarized in Table 3.4-9. The standards shown in Table 3.4-9 represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary, which is used to determine noise impacts. The City’s primary goal with regard to community noise is to minimize the exposure of residents to unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the extent possible. To this end, the Noise Element establishes noise/land use compatibility guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor noise. These guidelines are based, in part, on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the DHS for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. The City’s noise/land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 3.4-10. Audi of Temecula 3.4-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-9 TEMECULA LAND USE / NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exteriora Residential Hillside 45 65 Rural Very Low Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70b High 45 70b Commercial and Office Neighborhood, Service, etc. -- 70 Community Highway Tourist Service Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Industrial Schools 50 65 All others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture -- 70 Open Space -- 70/65c a Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. b Maximum exterior noise level up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing. c Where quiet is a basis required for the land use SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005. In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of up to 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior of noise-sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition, all new residential development in the City would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL or less. Audi of Temecula 3.4-15 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-10 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Land Use Normally Acceptablea Conditionally Acceptableb Normally Unacceptablec Clearly Unacceptabled Residentiale 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheatersf --- 50 - 70 --- above 70 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sportsf --- 50 - 75 --- above 75 Playgrounds, Parks 50 - 70 --- 70 - 75 above 75 Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 70 --- 70 - 80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and Professional 50 - 65 65 - 75 above 75 --- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 --- Agriculture above 50 a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. e Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. f No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise studies are required prior to approval. SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005. The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the project: Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting adjacent land uses. Audi of Temecula 3.4-16 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Policy 3.2 Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals. Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. Policy 3.7 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. City of Temecula Municipal Code The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code are relevant to the proposed project: 9.20.030 Exemptions Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 9.20 (Noise) of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: • Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. • Motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles. This exemption does not include sound emanating from motor vehicle sound systems. • Heating and air conditioning equipment. 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 3.4-9 and Table 3.4-10 (see above). Audi of Temecula 3.4-17 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise 9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards1 No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 9.20.070 Exceptions Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Sections 9.20.040 (general sound standards) or 9.20.060 (special sound sources standards) and may be characterized as construction-related or single event exceptions. An application for a construction-related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The form shall be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the city manager or designated representative. No public hearing is required. Harveston Specific Plan and Design Guidelines The EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan identified potentially significant noise impacts from development of the Specific Plan, but concluded that the impacts would all be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures in the EIR. The Specific Plan EIR proposed mitigation measures that would reduce temporary construction impacts to less than significant. This Supplemental EIR has incorporated the adopted mitigation measures from the Specific Plan EIR to reduce the construction noise impacts of the project. City of Temecula Groundborne Vibration Regulation While the City of Temecula has not adopted any numerical thresholds for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts, Section 17.08.080 of the City Municipal Code states that any existing or proposed use which generates vibrations that can or may be considered a nuisance or hazard on any adjacent property shall be cushioned or isolated to prevent generation of such vibrations. 3.4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology Implementation of the project could result in the introduction of noise levels that may exceed permitted City noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the project would be construction activities within the project site and project-related traffic volumes associated with operation of the proposed car dealership. Secondary sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) associated with the 1 The general sound level standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code apply to sound emanating from all sources, including special sound sources. Audi of Temecula 3.4-18 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise new facility. The increase in noise levels generated by these activities and other sources associated with the project have been quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. Aside from noise levels, groundborne vibration would also be generated during the construction of the project at the project site by various construction-related activities and equipment. Thus, the groundborne vibration levels generated by these sources have also been quantitatively estimated and compared to applicable thresholds of significance. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were estimated by data published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for general outdoor construction activities. These noise levels are then analyzed against the construction noise standards established in the City’s municipal code to determine whether an exceedance of allowable noise levels would occur across any adjacent property boundaries. Roadway Noise Levels Roadway noise levels have been calculated for selected study roadway segments located near the project site based on information provided in the TIA for the project. The roadway segments selected for analysis are expected to be most directly impacted by project-related traffic, which, for the purpose of this analysis, includes the roadways that are nearest to the project site. These roadways, when compared to roadways located further away from the project site, would experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the project. The noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model and traffic volumes from the project’s TIA. Groundborne Vibration Associated with Project Construction and Operation Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities at the project site were estimated by data published by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document. Potential vibration levels resulting from construction of the proposed car dealership and associated components are identified for off-site locations that are sensitive to vibration based on their distance from construction activities. Thresholds of Significance Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment with respect to noise and/or ground-borne vibration if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; Audi of Temecula 3.4-19 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport); or • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip). Impacts in the following issue areas were found to not be significant and will not be discussed further in this Draft SEIR: Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a public use airport or private airstrip. The project area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the project site. Given this distance, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project and no further analysis is warranted in this SEIR. Noise Criteria Construction and stationary operational noise levels associated with the project would result in a significant impact if the City’s construction noise regulations are violated and the City’s operational noise standards (see Table 3.4-9) are exceeded. The CEQA Guidelines does not define the levels at which permanent and temporary increases in ambient noise are considered “substantial.” Therefore, with regards to traffic noise, the significance of the project’s noise impacts can be determined by comparing estimated project- related noise levels to existing no-project noise levels. With respect to the community noise environment, the average healthy ear can barely perceive a noise level change of 3 dBA. A change from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA increase as a doubling of sound. As such, for the purpose of the project’s traffic noise analysis, it is assumed that a significant impact on traffic noise levels from project operations would occur if the project would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected land uses to increase by 3 dBA (Ldn) to or within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” category identified in the City’s noise/land use compatibility matrix (see Table 3.4- 10), or any 5 dBA or greater noise increase. For example, a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels at a residential land use as a result of project operations would be considered potentially significant if the additional traffic noise contribution would cause the noise levels to fall within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise level categories (i.e., 70 dBA Ldn or greater). If the additional traffic noise contribution from the project would not cause the noise levels at a residential land use to exceed 70 dBA Ldn, then a 5 dBA Ldn increase in noise levels would be necessary to result in a potentially significant impact, as a 5 dBA increase is considered to be readily noticeable. Audi of Temecula 3.4-20 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Vibration Criteria The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration or groundborne noises are considered “excessive.” As discussed previously, the City has not adopted any numerical thresholds for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts. Additionally, there are no federal, state, or local vibration regulations or guidelines directly applicable to the project. However, publications of the FTA and Caltrans are two of the seminal works for the analysis of vibration relating to transportation and construction-induced vibration. The project is not subject to FTA or Caltrans regulations; nonetheless, these guidelines serve as a useful tool to evaluate vibration impacts. For the purpose of this analysis, the vibration criteria for structural damage and human annoyance established in the most recent Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), which are shown previously in Tables 3.4- 7 and 3.4-8, are used to evaluate the potential vibration impacts of the project on nearby sensitive receptors. Impacts Construction Noise Construction activity noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.4-11 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.4-12 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. TABLE 3.4-11 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a Ground Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: USEPA, 1971. Audi of Temecula 3.4-21 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-12 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet ) Dump Truck Portable Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Pile Driver Backhoe 88 81 85 88 88 87 89 76 101 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, 1977. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed. The nearest residences are approximately 859 feet from project construction. Based on the noise levels presented in Table 3.4-11, noise levels from various construction phases can reach as high as 89 dBA at 50 feet. When this noise level is attenuated out to 859 feet, the nearest residences to the project site would experience noise levels of about 64 dBA Leq during the loudest construction activities at the project site. Under a worst-case scenario where a noise level of 64 dBA Leq occurs continuously over an eight-hour work day, the estimated Ldn noise level at the nearest residences resulting from project construction would be 59 dBA. According to Section 9.20.040 of the City’s Municipal Code, residential land uses such as single-family residences should not be exposed to an exterior noise level that exceeds a maximum of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL (refer to Table 3.4-9) generated by a noise source, including construction activities. As such, the project’s construction noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. While the City’s exterior noise standard for residential uses would not be exceeded during project construction, the use of heavy construction equipment at the site during the grading and building phases could still result in increased noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Table 3.4-13 shows the increase in ambient daytime noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor locations as a result of project construction. Audi of Temecula 3.4-22 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-13 AMBIENT DAYTIME NOISE LEVEL INCREASES AT OFF-SITE SENSITIVE USES Off-site Sensitive Land Uses Location Approximate Distance to project site Boundary (ft.)a Existing Monitored Daytime Ambient Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Estimated Hourly Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Noise Level Difference Single-family residences Northeast of the project site, at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane. 924 63 64 1.0 Single-family residences Northeast of the project site along Ynez Road, south of Waverly Lane. 859 61 64 3.0 Mobile homes North of the project site, beyond the Mercedes Benz auto dealership and south of Elm Street 1,054 59 63 4.0 a The approximate distances are measured from the nearest project site boundary to the nearest sensitive-receptor property line. b The noise levels at these off-site receptors were reduced by 5 dBA to account for existing shielding by an approximately eight-foot wall fronting the receptors. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; provided in Appendix E of this SEIR As shown in Table 3.4-13, the ambient exterior noise levels at all of the off-site sensitive receptors would experience an increase in noise levels of less than 5 dBA. As such, construction noise associated with the proposed project would not be substantially greater than existing noise levels at these nearby sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Overall, because project construction would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard for residential uses and would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors, the project’s construction noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, implementation of the following mitigation measures from the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program would further ensure construction noise levels would remain below a level of significance. 1. As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 6:30 pm to 6:30 am, Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 am of after 6:30 pm, Saturday. C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. 2. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quarter (1/4) mile of any occupied residence from 6:30 pm to 6:30 am unless such equipment is surrounded by a noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier. Audi of Temecula 3.4-23 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise 3. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Exposure to Ground-Borne Vibration – Construction Construction activities that would occur within the project site would include grading activities, which would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Persons residing and working in close proximity to a construction site could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site. The various PPV and RMS velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate during the construction of the project are identified in Table 3.4-14. Based on the information presented in Table 3.4-14, vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. This corresponds to a RMS velocity level (in VdB) of 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity. TABLE 3.4-14 VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB) 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40 SOURCE: FTA, 2006 Given that the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are located approximately 859 feet northeast of the project site, the estimated vibration velocity forecasted to occur at these off-site sensitive receptors would be approximately 0.0004 in/sec PPV. For the purpose of this analysis, these nearest residences are considered to be “new residential structures,” based on the structure descriptions provided under Caltrans vibration criteria (refer to Table 3.4-7). As the nearest single-family residences would not be exposed to PPV groundborne vibration levels that exceed the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold for continuous/frequent intermittent vibration sources shown in Table 3.4-7, vibration impacts associated with building damage would be less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.4-24 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Additionally, based on Caltrans criteria for human annoyance (refer to Table 3.4-8), the vibration levels experienced at the nearest residences would not be perceptible. As such, vibration impacts during project construction at the nearest off-site residential uses would be less than significant. With respect to non-residential uses, the nearest structure associated with the adjacent Mercedes Benz auto dealership is located approximately 50 feet from the project site’s northern boundary line. Given this distance, the estimated vibration velocity forecasted to occur at this off-site structure would be approximately 0.03 in/sec PPV. Based on Caltrans’ structure descriptions, this nearby structure is, for the purpose of this analysis, considered to be a “modern industrial/commercial building.” As this nearest structure would not be exposed to vibration levels exceeding 0.5 in/sec PPV from construction activities at the project site, vibration impacts associated with building damage would be less than significant. Additionally, with respect to human annoyance, the vibration levels experienced at this off-site structure would also be less than distinctly perceptible. Therefore, vibration impacts at this off-site structure would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Exposure to Ground-Borne Vibration - Operations The project would not involve activities or operation of stationary or mobile equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large industrial projects that employ heavy machinery. During project operations, the primary source of vibration would likely be heavy trucks accessing the site for the purposes of transporting new passenger vehicles to the proposed car dealership. However, the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment states that it is unusual for vibration from vehicular sources (including buses and trucks) to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. As discussed previously, trucks traveling at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB (approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV), and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 in/sec PPV) where trucks pass over bumps in the road (FTA, 2006). Based on Caltrans vibration criteria, these low vibration levels from single truck pass-by events would not be perceptible at the nearest residences to the project site. As such, no sources of “excessive” groundborne vibration or noise levels are anticipated during project operations. Thus, vibration impacts associated with project operations would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Operational Noise Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise The HVAC system for maintaining comfortable temperatures within the proposed buildings would typically consist of packaged rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations (City of Temecula, 2008). According to Section 9.20.030 (Exemptions) of the City Municipal Code, sound emanating from heating and air conditioning equipment are exempt from the City’s noise standards. Nonetheless, the noise level of the HVAC system, if on the edge of the proposed Audi of Temecula 3.4-25 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise building structure nearest to the off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., single-family residential uses) located approximately 900 feet to the northeast, would be about 36 dBA. Over the course of a 24- hour period, the noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors would be approximately 42 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior noise thresholds for residential uses. Thus, noise associated with the project’s HVAC equipment noise would be less than significant. Service Center Internal Equipment Noise Power tools, electric machinery, and air compressors would be used within the service center premises for the repair of motor vehicles. Potentially significant noise sources associated with auto service operations include air impact wrenches, tire breakers, and air supply compressors. It is anticipated that the service center building would operate under the same hours as the car dealership, which would be: Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.; Saturday, 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; and Sunday, 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The noise levels of these sources at sensitive receptor locations are stated below. Impact Wrench Noise Levels A potentially significant noise source at the proposed auto maintenance facility would be the operation of air impact wrenches during tire changes. These wrenches typically produce a maximum noise level of about 88 dBA at a distance of 10 feet (City of Temecula, 2008). Impact wrenches are used twice for each wheel removal/replacement operation with an average duration of use of 10 to 15 seconds per wheel (City of Temecula, 2008). The nearest residential property to the service center is located at a distance of approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast. At this distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 46 dBA without mitigation. Due to this relatively low noise level and the fact that noise from the use of impact wrenches would only occur intermittently throughout the project’s operating hours, the noise levels at the nearest residential property would not be substantial. Even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 46 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 44 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. As such, the noise impacts from the use of impact wrenches would less than significant. Tire Breaker Noise Levels Tire breakers are also a potentially significant noise source due to the rapid release of air pressure through a number of small holes adjacent to the tire sidewall. Noise produced by this type of pneumatic tire breaker reaches a brief maximum level of about 105 dBA at 10 feet. Other types of tire breakers, where the rapid air release has been eliminated and replaced with an air/hydraulic control system, produce noise levels of approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 10 feet (City of Temecula, 2008). For a worst-case estimate of tire-breaker noise generation, it is assumed that the louder type of tire breaker could be used at the proposed facility. Tire breakers are used twice for each tire removal/replacement operation. The average duration of use is approximately 20 seconds per wheel (City of Temecula, 2008). Audi of Temecula 3.4-26 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise The nearest residential property to the service center is located at a distance of approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast. At this distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 63 dBA without mitigation. While the noise from the use of tire breakers would only occur intermittently (approximately 20 seconds per wheel) throughout the project’s operating hours, the noise levels at the nearest residential property would not be substantial. Even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 63 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 61 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. As such, impacts from this noise source would be less than significant. Air Compressor Noise Levels The noise produced by air supply compressors varies considerably with compressor size, type, and operating conditions. At similar tire maintenance facilities, reference noise levels were measured at 60 dBA at 50 feet for steady-state compressor operation (City of Temecula, 2008). The compressors typically cycle on and off intermittently during the work day to meet air supply demands (City of Temecula, 2008). At the nearest residential property, located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast, the worst-case noise level associated with compressor usage would be 32 dBA without mitigation. While noise from air compressors would only occur intermittently during the work day, even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 32 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 30 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. As such, impacts from this noise source would be less than significant. Car Wash In addition to the proposed service center at the project site, two service bays within the service building would also be dedicated to car wash and detailing activities, which would generate noise levels as well. The drying system is the loudest part of a car wash; depending on the system used, a car wash blower could create noise levels of approximately 67 dBA at 50 feet from the exit (City of Temecula, 2008). At the nearest residential property, located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast, the noise level could potentially be 39 dBA during car drying. To further dampen the noise the exit will face the customer lobby building, thus attenuating the noise levels more. Even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 39 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 37 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. As such, impacts from this noise source would be less than significant. Paging System A loudspeaker paging system consisting of outdoor speakers is used at some car dealerships. While loudspeakers vary in the amount of noise they produce, a maximum noise level of approximately 77 dBA can be produced at a distance of 590 feet (City of Temecula, 2008). At the nearest residential property located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast, noise levels from Audi of Temecula 3.4-27 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise the speakers can reach up to 71 dBA. While it is uncertain how often noise from a loudspeaker paging system would occur over the course of the proposed car dealerships operating hours, under a worst-case scenario where noise levels are generated continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 69 dBA Ldn, which would exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. As such, impacts would be potentially significant if continuous noise is generated by the loudspeaker paging system over the entire duration of the new dealership’s work hours. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 will be implemented to ensure that a silent paging system be used for the project in lieu of a loudspeaker paging system. Impact NOI-1: A loudspeaker paging system used at a car dealership could have a significant impact on sensitive receptors in the area. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the project to eliminate loudspeaker paging noise. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Total Composite Operational Noise Levels While the noise levels associated with each of the project’s potential operational noise sources have been estimated above, over the course of a day there would be times when these various noise sources would occur concurrently at the project site. Based on the estimated noise levels at the nearest residential property located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast of the service center building from each of the operational noise sources identified above, and due to the logarithmic nature of noise, a composite noise level of 63 dBA would occur at this nearest off-site property when noise from these separate noise sources occur concurrently.2 While the identified operational noise sources would only occur intermittently and for short durations throughout the day, under a worst-case scenario where this maximum noise level occurs continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 61 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential uses. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional noise shielding will also be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the nearest off-site residences. Overall, the operational noise levels generated by the project would be less than significant. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Traffic Noise The project would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways. Using a spreadsheet based upon algorithms from the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and 2 Due to the logarithmic nature of noise, the noise level of 63 dBA generated by tire breakers would be the dominant noise level experienced at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor even when the other operational noise sources (i.e., impact wrenches, air compressors, and car wash) occur concurrently. Audi of Temecula 3.4-28 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise traffic data from the project’s TIA provided by VA Consulting Inc., traffic noise levels were analyzed for 12 roadway segments. The segments analyzed and results of the modeling for weekday and weekend traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.4-15 and Table 3.4-16, respectively. TABLE 3.4-15 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (weekday) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Ldna Existing Project Traffic Volumes Existing With Project Traffic Volumes Increase Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.7 66.7 0 5.0 No Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.5 66.5 0 5.0 No Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Residential/ Commercial 61.5 61.6 0.1 5.0 No Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Residential/ Commercial 61.5 61.6 0.1 5.0 No Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Residential 61.9 62.1 0.2 5.0 No Ynez Road, north of Date St. Residential 61.9 62.1 0.2 5.0 No Ynez Road, south of Date St. Residential 62.8 62.9 0.1 5.0 No Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Church/Commercial/Office 71.5 71.6 0.1 3.0 No Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Commercial 69.6 69.6 0 5.0 No Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Residential 60.9 61.0 0 5.0 No Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Commercial 73.6 73.6 0 5.0 No Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Commercial 70.0 70.0 0 5.0 No N/A = Non-applicable a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015; TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Audi of Temecula 3.4-29 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-16 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (weekend) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Ldna Existing Project Traffic Volumes Existing With Project Traffic Volumes Increase Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.1 66.1 0 5.0 No Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.0 66.0 0 5.0 No Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Residential/ Commercial 61.0 61.2 0.2 5.0 No Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Residential/ Commercial 59.9 60.2 0.3 5.0 No Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Residential 60.5 61.0 0.5 5.0 No Ynez Road, north of Date St. Residential 60.5 61.0 0.5 5.0 No Ynez Road, south of Date St. Residential 61.4 61.6 0.2 5.0 No Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Church/Commercial/ Office 70.2 70.5 0.3 3.0 No Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Commercial 69.3 69.3 0 5.0 No Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Residential 59.4 59.5 0.1 5.0 No Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Commercial 73.7 73.7 0 5.0 No Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Commercial 70.3 70.3 0 5.0 No N/A = Non-applicable a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015; TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 3.4-15, the project would increase local noise levels during the weekday by a maximum of 0.2 dBA Ldn at the roadway segment of Ynez Road south of Waverley Lane and north of Date Street. As shown in Table 3.4-16, local noise levels during the weekend would be increased by a maximum of 0.5 dBA Ldn at the same roadway segments. As the increase in traffic noise levels generated by the project under weekday and weekend conditions would not exceed the applicable thresholds, impact would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.4-30 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources This section describes and evaluates potential impacts to biological resources that could result from implementation of the project. Existing biological conditions within the project site and study area, applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures, where appropriate, are described. 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting The project site is located in southwestern Riverside County, in a valley near the eastern foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. The terrain on the project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,095 feet AMSL. Climate conditions in the region vary considerably, and are representative of the California Mediterranean climate. Average temperatures during the winter range from 36 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit. Average temperatures during the hottest summer months range from 66 to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Average precipitation is 11.4 inches per year (The Weather Channel, 2015). The proposed project site lies within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional plan focusing on conservation of plant and wildlife species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The MSHCP establishes a framework and mechanism for projects to comply with State and federal endangered species regulations (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003a). The project site is also located within the community of Harveston, which holds a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula, as such, the proposed project is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP since the Development Agreement for the area (2001) permits developers to only comply with pre-2003 regulations prior to the implementation of the MSHCP. Project Setting The project site is 4.5 acres. It is undeveloped and was previously sheet graded as part of the original Harveston Specific Plan mass grading approval. Non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs dominate the vegetation on-site. The site is annually mowed and hydro-seeded for fire maintenance, weed abatement, and erosion and dust control purposes. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Elevation on the site ranges from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the west boundary to 1,095 feet AMSL on the east boundary. The project site contains a temporary retention basin for stormwater run-off on the southwestern portion of the site. The project site has been graded with what appears to be stormwater management tiers that direct on-site generated stormwater over the edge of the graded slopes in areas covered in black plastic sheeting and sand bags. Stormwater is then directed towards Warm Springs Creek at the toe of Audi of Temecula 3.5-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources the slopes through a plastic sheet and sandbag system. The proposed project site is composed of compacted fill material and no longer has a native soil profile. The project site was surveyed in early May during a period of drought in the region. No puddles or ponding was observed on the project site during the habitat assessment survey. Soils on the project site were generally soft and friable. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, soils on the project site are mapped as Ramona and Buren loam. Three other soils are mapped for the study area but outside of the project site boundary, Ramona and Buren sandy loams, Hanford coarse sandy loam, and Chino silt loam. Due to previous disturbances the natural soil profile no longer exists. General Biological Resources The regional and local settings for terrestrial biological resources were developed from existing documentation for the project site and adjacent parcels, as well as various biological surveys conducted to determine the general habitat on site as well as the presence of sensitive biological resources. Existing literature reviewed to assist in determining baseline conditions on the site and surrounding area include the Audi of Temecula Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report (ESA, 2015a), Audi of Temecula Focused Burrowing Owl Report (ESA, 2015b), Fletcher Jones Temecula Mercedes Benz Dealership Biological Assessment/Conformance Report (ESA, 2008a), and the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2008011052 (ESA, 2008b). Biological Survey A reconnaissance level site survey was conducted by ESA biologist Tommy Molioo on May 5, 2015. Site conditions at the time of survey (morning) included cloudy skies, an average temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and 1 to 3 mile per hour winds from the south. During the reconnaissance survey, site conditions were noted. The survey provided the following information on existing plant communities and wildlife. Vegetation and Habitat Plant communities are generally described by the assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Descriptions of vegetation were generally characterized based on dominant species, according to Holland (1986) and Sawyer Keeler-Wolf (1995). Details of each habitat type, disturbed areas, and land use observed within the project site are described below. Plant names used in this report follow the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). The entire project site is mapped as containing ruderal habitat with basins (Figure 3.5-1). Developed land is mapped within the study area, outside of the project site boundary. Table 3.5-1 shows the acreage by habitat type. Audi of Temecula 3.5-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Audi of Temecula . D150189 Figure 3.5-1 Vegetation SOURCE:NAIP, 2014 0 250 Feet Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer)Vegetation/Land Cover Developed Land Ruderal Trees Basin 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-1 HABITAT TYPES ON THE PROJECT SITE Habitat Type Approximate Acreage Ruderal 4.5 Developed 0.0 GRAND TOTAL 4.5 SOURCE: ESA, 2015 Ruderal The entire project site consists of a graded, filled, and compacted land composed almost entirely of ruderal (weedy) vegetation with areas of bare ground. The entire project site plus a majority of the surrounding study area contain ruderal habitat. Two stormwater basins are located in the center of the project site that are also characterized as ruderal habitat. Plant species observed during the habitat assessment include a mixture of non-native grasses and herbaceous forbs. Dominant species include short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and red brome (Bromus rubens). Two native species, clustered tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata) and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), were also dominant throughout the project site but are still common in disturbed settings. Other commonly observed species include prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordaceous), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Scattered native and non-native trees are located outside the project site along the western border including, western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Developed Land Developed land does not occur within the project site boundary, but is mapped within the study area for the existing Mercedes Benz dealership to the north and I-15 to the west. The developed land is characterized by concrete surfaces with associated buildings and infrastructure. No natural soils or vegetation exists within the developed land. Only landscaped ornamental trees were observed in areas mapped as developed land. Representative site photographs are included in Appendix D of this SEIR. Wildlife The project site is characterized by disturbed ruderal habitat located within an undeveloped area surrounded by development that provides suitable habitat to support common wildlife species known to occur in upland and urban environments. Wildlife species observed or detected during the habitat assessment survey include common avian and mammal species typical of disturbed upland habitats and urban environments. Avian species observed or detected included western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common raven (Corvus corax) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Mammal species observed includes domestic Audi of Temecula 3.5-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources dog (Canis familiaris) and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). No amphibian or reptile species were observed during the survey. Sensitive Biological Resources Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2015). Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by the CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. Potential sensitive biological resources in proximity to the project site were also reviewed through the County online mapping database (County of Riverside, 2015). Sensitive Natural Communities The CNDDB tracks the occurrence of what the CDFW terms “Terrestrial Natural Communities” that are “considered rare and worthy of consideration by CNDDB.” The following 6 communities/habitats are recorded in the CNDDB within a 3 mile radius/nine quad CNDDB search for the project site: • Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest • Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest • Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool • Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland • Southern Willow Scrub • Valley Needlegrass Grassland None of these six natural communities were found on the project site. Special-Status Plants A total of 81 species of plants and 3 species of mosses/lichens were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site based on elevations, and the type and quality of soils and habitats present at the project site. The majority of species evaluated for the project are included on the CNPS list of species, although a few are federal and state listed species. A list of special-status plants evaluated for the project site, as well as their specific life history requirements and potential for occurrence on the project site are included in Table 3.5-2 Audi of Temecula 3.5-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources below. Plant species for this study can be grouped based on habitat type, soils type and elevation requirements. TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Plants Abronia villosa var.aurita Chaparral sand-verbena --/--/1B.1 Found in sandy areas, chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Allium munzii Munz’ onion FE/ST/1B.1 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland, usually in heavy clay soils between elevations of 300-1035 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia FE/--/1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland in alkali sandy loam or clay soils. Persist where disturbance has been superficial, sometimes near margins. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Amsinckia douglasiana Douglas’ fiddleneck --/--/1B.1 Found in cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on Monterey shale substrate in dry conditions. Elevations between 0-1,950 m. Low potential. Moderately suitable vegetation communities on site but lacks suitable substrate. Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Rainbow manzanita --/--/1B.1 Found with chaparral, usually found in grabbro chaparral in Riverside and San Diego counties at elevations of 270-790 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger’s milk-vetch --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands and cismontane woodlands. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Atriplex coronata var. notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale FE/--/1B.1 Found in playas, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Prefers dry, alkali flats in the San Jacinto River Valley at elevations of 400-500 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, playas and chenopod scrub in alkali soils at elevations of 1-500 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Atriplex parishii Parish’s brittlescale --/--/1B.1 Found in alkali meadows, vernal pools, playas and chenopod scrub. Associated with alkali soils, coastal scrub and coastal brush scrub. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson’s saltscale --/--/1B.2 Associated with alkali soils, coastal scrub and coastal brush scrub. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Ayenia compacta California ayenia --/--/2B.3 Occurs on rocky soils in Mojavean desert scrub and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations between 150-1,095 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry FE/SE/1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub. Often on steep north facing slopes or in the banks of sandy washes. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved brodiaea FT/SE/1B.1 Found in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Usually associated with annual grassland and vernal pools often surrounded by shrubland habitats. Clay soils and at elevations of 25-860 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s brodiaea --/--/1B.1 Found in vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, and meadows. Mesic, clay habitats, sometimes serpentine; usually in vernal pools and small drainages at elevations of 30-1615 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Brodiaea santarosae Santa Rosa Basalt brodiae --/--/1B.2 Can be found on basaltic soils within valley and foothill grassland habitats between 565 and 1,045 m. in elevation. Low potential. Moderately suitable vegetation communities on site but lacks suitable substrate. California macrophylla Round-leaved filaree --/--/1B.1 Found in clay soils and associated with cismontane woodlands and valley-foothill grasslands. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa lily --/--/4.2 Found in a variety of habitats including chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland from elevations between 15 and 700 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Calochortus plummerae Plummer’s mariposa lily --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane woodlands and lower montane coniferous forests; occurs on rocky or sandy sites, usually of alluvial or granitic material; common after fire. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Intermediate mariposa lily --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland on dry, rocky open slopes and rock outcrops at elevations of 120-850 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis’ evening-primrose --/--/3 Found in a variety of habitats including, coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. It is restricted to sandy or clay soils between 0 and 300 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s sedge --/--/4.2 This perennial rhizomatous herb occurs in mesic environments in association with bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. Known to occur between 3 and 3,300 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Caulanthus simulans Payson’s jewel-flower --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats on sandy and granitic soils between 90 and 2,200 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside ceanothus --/--/1B.2 Found in closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral at elevations of 100-1515 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus FT/SE/1B.1 Found in chaparral on grabbro seams on north-facing ridges on the eastern sides of mountains at elevations of 620-825 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Centromadia punegns ssp. laevis Smooth tarplant --/--/1B.1 Associated with valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub, meadows, playas and riparian woodlands. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt’s pincushion --/--/1B.1 Found in coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes, on sandy sites at elevations of 3-100 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chamaebatia australis southern mountain misery --/--/4.2 This perennial evergreen shrub is found only in chaparral habitats on gabbroic or metavolcanic soils at elevations of 300 – 1,020 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Not observed during surveys. Chorizanthe leptotheca peninsular spineflower Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest habitats on alluvial fans and granitic soils. Between 300 and 1,900 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower --/--/3.2 Found in coastal scrub and chaparral, sometimes on the interface of two vegetation types. Associated with dry, sandy soils, dry slopes and flats. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina Long-spined spineflower --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows, valley and foothill grassland in gabbroic clay soils. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory --/--/1B.2 Found in a variety of habitats including chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands. Specific to rocky, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils between 120 – 1,075 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning-glory --/--/4.2 Found in openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on clay and serpentine seeps. Between 30 – 700 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Cryptantha wigginsii Wiggins’ cryptantha --/--/1B.2 This annual herb occurs in coastal scrub habitats on clay soils at 20 -275 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant --/--/4.2 Found in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. It is restricted to vernally mesic sites on sandy soils between 25-940 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Dodecahema leptoceras Slender-horned spineflower FE/SE/1B.1 Sandy soils of alluvial origin in chaparral, cismontane woodland, alluvial fan coastal scrub maintained by infrequent flooding. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed dudleya --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. Microhabitat includes clayey soils and grassy slopes. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Dudleya viscida Sticky dudleya --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub and chaparral on north and south-facing cliffs and banks at elevations of 10-550 m. No potential. No suitable /habitat present on site. Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery FE/SE/1B.1 Found in vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego mesa hardpan and claypan vernal pools and southern interior basal flow vernal pools, usually surrounded by scrub at elevations of 15-620 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Geothallus tuberosus Campbell’s liverwort --/--/1B.1 Found in coastal scrub and vernal pools. Known from mesic soil at elevations of 10-600 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Harpagonella palmeri Palmer’s grapplinghook --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland communities on clay soils and openings in grassy areas within shrubland. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress --/--/1B.1 Found in closed-cone coniferous forests and chaparral habitats, on clay, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils. Between 80 – 1,500 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata graceful tarplant --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation limits 60 – 1,100 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Hordeum intercedens vernal barley --/--/3.2 Found in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands (specifically saline flats and depressions), and vernal pools. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula Mesa horkelia --/--/1B.1 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub habitats; found in gravelly or sandy sites. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Horkelia truncata Ramona horkelia --/--/1B.3 Found in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Habitats in California include mixed chaparral, vernal streams, and disturbed areas near roads. Clay soils at elevations of 400- 1300 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Juglans californica Southern California black walnut --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, and riparian woodlands, on alluvial systems. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush --/--/4.2 Found in coastal dunes in mesic situations, meadows and seeps (alkaline), and marshes and coastal salt swamps, between 3 – 900 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia dwarf rush --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools, between 300 – 2,040 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal salt marshes, playas, valley foothills and grasslands, and vernal pools. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Lepechinia cardiophylla heart-leaved pitcher sage --/--/1B.2 Found in closed-cone coniferous forests, chaparral, and cismontane woodlands between 520 – 1,370 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson’s pepper-grass --/--/1B.2 Found in scrublands- chaparral and coastal scrub; dry, sandy soils. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Lillium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily --/--/4.2 Found in openings in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, and riparian woodlands between 30 – 1,800 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Lilium parryi Lemon lily --/--/1B.2 Found in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, riparian forest. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Limnanthes alba ssp. parishii Parish’s meadowfoam --/SE/1B.2 Found in meadows, seeps and vernal pools. Vernally moist areas and temporary seeps of highland meadows and plateaus; often bordering lakes and streams at elevations of 600-1760 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha small-flowered microseris --/--/4.2 Found on clay soils in cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools, between 15 – 1,070 m. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia intermediate monardella --/--/1B.3 Found usually in the understory of chaparral, cismontane woodland, and sometimes in lower montane coniferous forests between 400 – 1,250 m. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lenata Felt-leaved monardella --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and cismontane woodlands. Occurs in understory in mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, and southern oak woodland; sandy soil at elevations of 300-1575 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Hall’s monardella --/--/1B.3 Found in broadleafed upland forests, chaparral, cismontane woodlands, lower montane coniferous forests, and valley and foothill grasslands, between 730 – 2,195 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Little mousetail --/--/3.1 Found in vernal pools and alkaline soils at elevations of 20-640 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Navarretia fossalis Spreading navarretia FT/--/1B.1 Associated with vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes, swamps and playas. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Navarretia prostrata Prostrate navarretia --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Nolina cismontana Chaparral nolina --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub primarily on sandstone and shale substrates, also known from gabbro, at elevations of 140-1275 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass FE/SE/1B.1 Associated with vernal pools at elevations of 15-660 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Packera ganderi Gander’s ragwort --/Rare/1B.2 Found in chaparral, recently burned sites and gabbro outcrops at elevations of 400-1200 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa woolly chaparral-pea --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, rip woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Prefers rocky, gabbroic or meravolcanic substrate at elevations of 120-1005 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Piperia cooperi chaparral rein orchid --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands between 15 – 1,585 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Fish’s milkwort --/--/4.3 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and riparian woodlands between 100 – 1,000 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit-tobacco --/--/2B.2 Found on sandy, gravelly soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 50 – 1,300 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Romneya coulteri Coulter’s matilija poppy --/--/4.2 Found often in burned areas in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 20 – 1,200 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana Southern skullcap --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and lower montane coniferous forest. In gravelly soils on streambanks or in mesic sites in oak and pine woodlands at elevations of 425-2000 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Sibaropsis hammittii Hammitt’s clay-cress --/--/1B.2 Found in valley and foothill grassland, and chaparral. Mesic microsites in open areas on clay soils in stipa grassland. Often surrounded by adenostoma chaparral at elevations of 730-1065 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Sphaerocarpos drewei Bottle liverwort --/--/1B.1 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub. Much of suitable habitat lost to urbanization. Found on soil at elevations of 90-600 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Tretracoccus dioicus Parry’s tetracoccus --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub in stony, decomposed gabbro soil. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Viguiera laciniata San Diego County viguiera --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 60 – 750 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Mosses/Lichens Schizymenium shevockii Shevock’s copper-moss --/--/1B.2 Found in cismontane woodland. Grows on metamorphic rocks, mesic sites and on rocks along road at elevations of 750-1400 m. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Selaginella cinerascens ashy spike-moss --/--/1B.3 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 20 – 640 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Texosporium sacti-jacobi Woven-spored lichen --/--/-- Found in chaparral on open sites. In California, associated with Adenostoma fasciculatum, Eriogonum spp. and Selaginella spp. At pinnacles and on small mammal pellets at elevations of 290-660 m. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Tortula californica California screw-moss --/--/1B.2 Found in chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Grows on sandy soils at elevations of 10-1460 m. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE = federally endangered FT = federally threatened FC = federal candidate FPS= fully protected species. State (CDFW) SSC = state species of special concern SE = state endangered ST = state threatened CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) FPS = California Fully Protected Species CNDDB = Tracked by the CNDDB, but with no other special regulatory or management status CNPS 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in the state and elsewhere 2 = Plants rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 = Plants about which more information is needed 4 = Plants of limited distribution An extension reflecting the level of threat to each species is appended to each rarity category as follows: .1 – Seriously endangered in California .2 – Fairly endangered in California .3 – Not very endangered in California SOURCE: CNDDB, 2015. Audi of Temecula 3.5-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Special-Status Wildlife A total of 24 special-status wildlife species were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site based on the type and quality of habitat present at the project site. The majority of species evaluated for the project area are former federal species of concern and California species of special concern, although a few are federal and state listed species. A list of special-status wildlife evaluated for the project site, as well as their specific habitat requirements and potential for occurrence on the project site are included in Table 3.5-3 below. Wildlife species evaluated for this study can be grouped by habitat type or ecological niche including coastal sage scrub, grassland, aquatic, and riparian habitats, or as ground dwelling or wide-ranging resident or migratory bird species. TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Crustaceans Brachinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT/-- Endemic to the grasslands of the central valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone- depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Brachinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp FE/-- Endemic to San Diego and Orange County mesas. Found in vernal pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Linderiella santarosae Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp --/-- Found only in the vernal pools on Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County. Found in southern basalt-flow vernal pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE/-- Endemic to western Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools filled by winter/spring rains. Hatch in warm water later in the season. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Fish Gila orcuttii Arroyo chub --/SSC Prefers slow water stream sections with muddy or sandy bottoms. Feeds on aquatic vegetation, insects, and associated invertebrates. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Amphibians Anaxyrus californicus Arroyo toad FE/SSC Rivers with sandy banks, willow, cottonwoods and sycamores, loose gravelly areas. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog FT/SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development and must have access to estivation habitat. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Spea hammondii Western spadefoot --/SSC Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools or shallow temporary pools, which do not contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish, are necessary for breeding. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Taricha torosa torosa Coast range newt --/SSC Found in coastal drainages from Mendocino to San Diego county; lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1km to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Reptiles Emys marmorata Southwestern pond turtle --/SSC Found in ponds and small lakes with abundant vegetation. Also seen in marshes, slow-moving streams, reservoirs, and occasionally in brackish water. Prefers permanent freshwater ponds and slow streams edged with sandy soils for laying eggs. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange-throated whiptail --/SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral and valley-foothill hardwood habitats, prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and rocks. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal western whiptail --/-- Found in deserts and semi-arid areas with sparse vegetation; also found in woodland and riparian areas. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Charina trivirgata Rosy boa --/-- Found in desert and chaparral, from the coast to the Mojave and Colorado deserts, prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Coleonyx variegates abbotti San Diego banded gecko --/-- Found in granite or rocky outcrops in coastal scrub and chaparral habitats. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Crotalus ruber red-diamond rattlesnake --/SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland and desert areas. Occurs in rocky, dense vegetation, requires rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake --/-- Found in open, relatively rocky areas, often in moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Prefers movement through surface litter or herbaceous vegetation, avoids open/barren areas. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Diadaphis punctatus similis San Diego ringneck snake --/-- Most common in open, relatively rocky areas, often in somewhat moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Avoids moving through open or barren areas by restricting movements to areas of surface litter or herbaceous vegetation. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Phrynosoma blainvillei Coast horned lizard --/SSC Found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub grassland, and wash habitats. Sandy, rocky or gravelly soils; friable soils. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Coast patch-nosed snake --/SSC Found in bush or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern California. Requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Thamnophis hammondii Two-striped garter snake --/SSC Highly aquatic, found in or near permanent or freshwater, often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. Ideal habitat is characterized as having dense emergent vegetation for escape from predation, deep and shallow pools of water, open areas along the margins to allow for basking, and upland habitat with access to structures suitable for hibernation and escape from flooding. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Birds Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk --/SSC Found in riparian areas, and open woodlands, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal type. Nests in riparian growths of deciduous trees and live oak woodlands. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow --/SSC Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse, mixed chaparral, frequents relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle --/SSC Nests in canyons and large trees in open habitats. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell’s sage sparrow --/WL Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise and found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Nest located on the ground beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above ground. Territories about 50 yards apart. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-15 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl --/SSC Found in a variety of habitats that contain small mammal burrows, including open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, agricultural, rangelands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation. Moderate Potential. Marginal habitat is present on site but the presence of small mammal burrows increases the suitability for burrowing owl to occur. Focused surveys resulted in negative findings. Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk --/SSC Found in open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Also documented in dry and irrigated croplands. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk --/ST Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Campylorhyncus brunneicapillus sandiegensis Coastal cactus wren --/SSC Found in southern California coastal sage scrub. Require tall opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover FT/SSC Will nest beside or near tidal waters, and includes all nesting colonies on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays and estuaries from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico Historic records suggest that nesting western snowy plovers were once more widely distributed in coastal California. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Circus cyaneus Northern harrier --/SSC Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge, nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. Forages in grassland, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain marshes. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo FC/SE Prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in riparian forest and woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. Low riparian vegetation near river bottoms. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite --/FPS Nests near wet meadows and open grasslands, dense oak, willow or other tree stands. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark --/SSC Found in short-grass prairie, “bald” hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields and alkali flats. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-16 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle --/SE Found along open shore, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting and wintering, usually nests within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old- growth, or dominant live tree w/open branches, especially ponderosa pine. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron --/-- Colonial nester, usually in trees and occasionally in tule patches. Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis --/SSC Frequents marshes, swamps, ponds and rivers. Prefers dense tule thickets for nesting, interspersed with areas of shallow water for foraging. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Polioptila californica californica Coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC Coastal sage scrub habitat in arid washes, on mesas or on slopes of coastal hills. Permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell’s vireo FE/SE Low riparian vegetation near vicinity of water or dry river bottoms, below 2000 ft. Nests are placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, baccharis or mesquite. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat --/SSC Found in deserts, grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chaetodipus californicus femoralis Dulzura pocket mouse --/SSC Found in a variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral and grassland in San Diego County. Is attracted to grass- chaparral edges. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chaetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse --/SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, etc. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Dipodomys stephensi Stephens’ kangaroo rat FE/ST Primarily found in annual and perennial grasslands, also occurs in coastal scrub and sagebrush with sparse canopy cover. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat --/SSC Found in open, semi-arid to arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat --/-- Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash and palm oasis habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly palms, forages over water and among trees. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula 3.5-17 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit --/SSC Associated with open grassland and brushland, and coastal sage scrub habitats in southern California. Low. Moderately suitable habitat occurs on site and the common black-tailed jackrabbit was observed on site. However, the site is located inland, outside of the coastal range of this species. Myotis yamanensis Yuma myotis --/-- This species is typically associated with a nearby water source. Maternity colonies are found in buildings, under bridges, and in mines and caves. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat --/SSC Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and desert habitats. Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free-tailed bat --/SSC Found in a variety of arid areas in S. California; pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, etc. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Onchomys torridus ramona Southern grasshopper mouse --/SSC Found in desert areas, especially scrub habitats with friable soils for digging, prefers low to moderate shrub cover. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse --/SSC Found in lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage scrub communities. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Perognathus longimembris internationalis Jacumba pocket mouse --/SSC Found in desert riparian, desert scrub and desert wash habitats. Also in coastal scrub and sagebrush. Rarely found on rocky sites. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Arthropods Cicindela senilis frosti Tiger beetle --/-- Found along mudflats and beaches in southern California. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly FE/-- Found in sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Requires high densities of food plants which include: Plantago erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurascens. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Socalchemmis icenoglei Icenogle’s socalchemmis spider --/-- Known only from the type locality in the vicinity of Winchester, in Riverside County. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE = federally endangered FT = federally threatened FC = federal candidate FPS= fully protected species. State (CDFW) SSC = state species of special concern SE = state endangered ST = state threatened CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) FPS = California Fully Protected Species CNDDB = Tracked by the CNDDB, but with no other special regulatory or management status SOURCE: CDFW, 2015 Audi of Temecula 3.5-18 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Habitat Conservation Planning The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the MSHCP, and is not located within any Subunits, Criteria Cells or Cell Groups (Figure 3.5-2). The western portion of the study area, outside of the project site boundaries, occurs partially within Criteria Cell 6525 (County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2015). The Criteria Area represents the area within which MSHCP Criteria are applied to achieve land contributions toward the assembly of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP Criteria for each Criteria Cell establish conservation goals. For example, the goal for Criteria Cell 6525 is to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 and will focus on conserving Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat along Warm Springs Creek and adjacent grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to RAFSS habitat proposed for conservation in Criteria Cell 6409 to the north. Conservation within this Criteria Cell 6525 will be approximately 5 percent of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003b). 3.5.2 Regulatory Framework The following provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements for the project, including federal, state, and local policies and guidelines. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended, is designed to protect birds that migrate and cross state lines to provide management of migratory birds at a federal level. The MBTA prohibits the kill or transport of native migratory birds, or any part, nest, or egg of such bird unless allowed by another regulation adopted in accordance with the MBTA. Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) was established to protect wildlife species and habitats from extinction and diminishment. The FESA is administered by the USFWS and applies to federally listed species and habitat occupied by the federally listed species. FESA Section 9 forbids acts that directly or indirectly harm listed species. Specifically, Section 9 identified prohibited acts related to endangered species, and all persons, including federal, state, and local governments, from taking listed fish and wildlife species, except as specified under the provisions for exceptions (16 U.S.C. 1539). The term ‘take’ is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such activity (16 U.S.C. 1532[18]). Audi of Temecula 3.5-19 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 STUDYAREA 61826185 62976299 59745977 6075 6779 6780 6781 6782 6783 6407640964166422 652565286530 66566658 6887 6888 6890 6891 7005 7008 0 7021 7069 7075 7076 7077 7078 7079 Audi Dealership . D150189Figure 3.5-2 MSHCP Criteria Cells SOURCE: Pa t h : J : \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 3 . 5 - 2 _ C r i t e r i a C e l l s . m x d , R T 6 / 3 / 2 0 1 5 USGS; DFG Legend Project Site Study Area (500-ft MSHCP Criteria Cells Existing Cores, HabitatBlocks and Linkages Constrained Linkage Core Linkage MSHCP Cell Groups D' J' K' L' V W 0 2,400 Feet 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Clean Water Act In 1948, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Act was later amended in 1972 and became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The act specifies a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. • Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. • Section 401 requires every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity that may result in a discharge to a water body to obtain a water quality certification that the proposed activity will comply with applicable water quality standards. Under Section 401 of the CWA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet state water quality standards. • Section 402 regulates point- and nonpoint-source discharges to surface waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In California, the SWRCB oversees the NPDES program, which is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The NPDES program provides for both general permits (those that cover a number of similar or related activities) and individual permits. Anti- backsliding requirements provided for under CWA Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) prohibit slackening of discharge requirements and regulations under revised NPDES permits. With isolated/limited exceptions, these regulations require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be at least as stringent as those contained in the previous permit. • Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S., including some wetlands. Activities in waters of the U.S. that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (e.g., dams and levees), infrastructure development (e.g., highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. This program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is similar in many ways to the FESA. CESA is administered by the CDFW. CESA provides a process for CDFW to list species as threatened or endangered in response to a citizen petition or by its own initiative (Fish and Game Code § 2070 et seq.). Section 2080 of CESA prohibits the take of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Act (Fish and Game Code § 2080). Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: (1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the taking will be minimized and fully mitigated; (3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and (4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species (Fish and Game Code § 2081). Audi of Temecula 3.5-21 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Game Code The California Fish and Game (CFG) Code regulates the taking of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. It includes the CESA (Sections 2050-2115) and Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations (Sections 1600-1616), as well as provisions for legal hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements involving the take of native wildlife. Any project impact to State-listed species within or adjacent to a project site would require a permit under CESA. Also, if a project proposes to alter a State- defined wetland, then a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from CDFW. California Native Plant Protection Act The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900–1913) is intended to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants in California and gives the CDFW authority to designate State endangered, threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for identified populations. The Act also directs the California Fish and Game Commission to adopt regulations governing taking, possessing, propagation, and sale of any endangered or rare native plant. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society but have no designated status or protection under federal or State endangered species legislation are defined as follows (CNPS, 2015): • Rank 1A: Plants Believed Extinct. • Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. • Rank 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. • Rank 3: Plants About Which More Information is Needed - A Review List. • Rank 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Natural Community Conservation Planning Program The Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) Act, Sections 2800-2840 of the State Fish and Game Code, authorized the preparation of NCCPs to protect natural communities and species while allowing a reasonable amount of economic development. The MSHCP, adopted by the County of Riverside on June 17, 2003, serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to the NCCP Act and pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the FESA. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The project site lies within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 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 was developed to serve as a HCP pursuant to the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act and Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA. It encompasses 1.26 million acres and includes all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line as well as Audi of Temecula 3.5-22 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The overarching purpose of the plan is to balance development and economic interests with species and lands conservation goals. The MSHCP permits development of lands and take of species “in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area” (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003a). The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the CDFW allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for the 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 new development to pay fees to support the financing for the MSHCP. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for CEQA, FESA and CESA. The MSHCP is further broken down into core areas and linkages, which are the focus of reserve and preservation actions. The project is not located within any of the identified core or special linkage areas. The project site is within a Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment Area. The project site is located within the community of Harveston which holds a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula. Per the Development Agreement, the project is not subject to the requirements of the MSHCP nor the associated mitigation fee; but rather, requires compliance with the environmental regulations in affect at the time of the Agreement (pre- MSHCP). Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan The proposed project is located within the boundary of the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the endangered Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) implemented by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The SKR HCP mitigates impacts from development on the SKR by establishing a network of preserves and a system for managing and monitoring them. Through implementation of the SKR HCP, more than $45 million has been dedicated to the establishment and management of a system of regional preserves designed to ensure the persistence of SKR in the plan area. This effort has resulted in the permanent conservation of approximately 50 percent of the SKR occupied habitat remaining in the HCP area. Through direct funding and in-kind contributions, SKR habitat in the regional reserve system is managed to ensure its continuing ability to support the species. The City is a member agency of the RCHCA and does require a SKR per acre fee for new development after August 27, 1996, per Section 8.24 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project is located within the SKR HCP area. The required SKR mitigation fee for the project site and surrounding area was paid in 2003 at the time the area was mass graded. Therefore, this required fee has been satisfied for the project. City of Temecula General Plan The City of Temecula has a comprehensive General Plan that addresses multiple aspects of City planning and development, as well as the preservation of natural resources such as open space, sensitive biological resources, and water. The following are biological resource goals and policies Audi of Temecula 3.5-23 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources from the City’s General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element that are applicable to this project: 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 and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats, and other appropriate measures. Policy 3.3: Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Policy 3.7: Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement corridors. Implementation Program OS-9: Require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS, the CDFW, and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance. Implementation Program OS-11: Require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water sources, and rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats. Implementation Program OS-14: Continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts. Implementation Program OS-32: Require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City Audi of Temecula 3.5-24 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources shall apply the following guidelines from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines (see General Plan for details). Implementation Program OS-33: Require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSHCP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. Implementation Program OS-34: Require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSHCP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. Implementation Program OS-35: Review development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines (see General Plan for details). Implementation Program OS-36: Require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of MBTA covered species. Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.3: Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open space. Implementation Program OS-24: Provide for a planned residential development process in the Development Code to allow clustering of development and the dedication of open space for conserving natural resources, views, and providing additional recreational opportunities. Audi of Temecula 3.5-25 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources City of Temecula Municipal Code City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance (Ord. 09-05 § 1) The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect and preserve Oak, California Bay Laurel, California Black Walnut, California Holly, and California Sycamore trees as well as other trees of special significance to the community; and to justify special efforts to preserve and protect them from development activity. Conservation Mitigation Fees Temecula’s Municipal Code Chapter 15 regulates the implementation of the MSHCP within the City Limits through a Conservation Mitigation Fee. Future development within the City will be required to pay these MSHCP fees or those adopted at the time of development. The project site is exempt from the MSHCP mitigation fee per the Development Agreement for the Harveston community, Section 4.2.1. 3.5.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Future development within the project area would result in a potential direct, indirect, temporary, and permanent impact to biological resources. A direct impact would be a modification, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from project-related activities, such as the removal of a wetland. An indirect impact would be an impact to protected plant and wildlife species or habitat from project-related development that has the potential to indirectly affect the species or habitat, such as the introduction of invasive plant species or increased noise levels. Temporary impacts would be impacts that are considered to be reversible and temporary in nature, such as noise generated during construction. Permanent impacts are impacts that are considered to be irreversible. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if the proposed project would: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Audi of Temecula 3.5-26 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species Plants There is no potential for any of the plant species listed in Table 3.5-2 to occur on the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat on the site from previous grading disturbances that have removed all the native vegetation and soils from the site. The remaining vegetation consists of predominantly ruderal (weedy) species on compacted soils composed of fill material. No impacts to special-status species would occur as a result of development of the project and no mitigation measures to address special-status plants are required. Wildlife The project could have potential adverse effects on one special-status wildlife species, burrowing owl, if the species were to occupy suitable habitat prior to or during construction. Potential impacts could result in mortality of individuals or interference with reproductive success. This species, as well as other migratory birds and raptors protected under California Fish and Game Code and/or the MBTA that have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat and/or recorded historical observations discovered during the literature search. It is possible that direct and indirect impacts to wildlife from project- level development activities (e.g., grading, vegetation removal, excavation and construction, temporary changes to the hydrology, and increased dust and noise levels during construction) could occur and mitigation is required to reduce any impacts to less than significant. Impact BIO-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct injury or mortality if these species should occupy the site just prior to and during construction, as well as the loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential nesting habitat includes mature ornamental trees outside the project site, along the western boundary, and areas of bare ground on the site which provide suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting species such as western meadowlark and killdeer. It is possible that raptors and other migratory birds would nest on-site due to the proximity to open space and the riverine system of Murrieta Creek to the north. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Audi of Temecula 3.5-27 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor and migratory bird breeding season (February 1-August 31). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1-August 31), a pre-construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). If active nests are found, a suitable buffer (e.g. 200-300 feet for common raptors and 30-50 feet for passerines) shall be established around active nests and no construction within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active (e.g. the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). On-site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact BIO-2: A focused survey for burrowing owl was conducted by ESA in May 2015, which resulted in negative findings of burrowing owl within the project site and surrounding study area. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat on the site and delay between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction activities, burrowing owls could move onto the site prior to project construction. Suitable habitat would include the areas within the project site and study area mapped as ruderal habitat on Figure 3.5-1 and containing potentially suitable small mammal burrows. Potential impacts to this species would include loss of foraging and nesting habitat. Individuals present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2: Impacts to burrowing owl shall be avoided through implementation of the following measure: • Due to the project site’s location within a burrowing owl survey area and presence of suitable habitat on the project site (regardless of the findings of the focused burrowing owl survey), a 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is required in accordance with the MSHCP. The one-day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the project site and study area, and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows. If no burrowing owls are observed construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed the RCA and/or City will be notified and Audi of Temecula 3.5-28 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources additional measures will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP, burrowing owls (less than 3 pairs) that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move offsite. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat The project site is located on a graded and compacted parcel of land. No USFWS-designated Critical Habitat, federally protected wetlands, waters of the U.S. or waters of the state, riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities are located within the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Implementation of the proposed project would also not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Short-term construction activities and operation of the proposed project would not affect Warm Springs Creek to the north, as project design features would minimize impacts the project could potentially have on any adjacent natural resources. Significance Determination: No impact. Wildlife Corridors The project site is located on a graded, leveled and compacted parcel of land. The site contains mostly non-native fill that supports mainly non-native ruderal vegetation. The site is immediately bordered by undeveloped land to the east and south, and surrounded by residential and commercial development in all directions, including an existing automotive dealership to the immediate north. Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 is located to the north of the automotive dealership within Warm Springs Creek that contains native vegetation to support the movement of wildlife north towards Proposed Core 2. The project site is separated from Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 by existing development and the site does not function to facilitate the movement of wildlife between areas of larger undeveloped land. The project site is also not located within any established wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: No impact. _________________________ Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or Other Approved Local, Regional, State, or Federal Regulations, Policies, Ordinances or Plans The project site occurs within the areas covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Long-Term Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Audi of Temecula 3.5-29 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). These plans promote the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside County and provide coverage for FESA and CESA incidental take for listed species. The Western Riverside County MSHCP is broken into Area Plans, and Cell Groups. The project site falls within the Southwest Area Plan, however no portions of the site occur within in Criteria Cells, Cell Groups, Subarea Plans, Core Areas, and Linkages. A small portion of the study area for the project (part of the 500-foot buffer around the project boundary) occurs within the eastern portion of Criteria Cell 6525; however, this area is outside the project boundary and no project impacts would occur within this Criteria Cell. Criteria Cell 6525 was established to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 which follows Warm Springs Creek. Conservation for Cell 6525 focuses on Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat along Warm Springs Creek and the adjacent grassland habitat. Chapter 15.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes mitigation fees for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems within Temecula city limits in accordance with the MSHCP. However, the project applicant is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP as a development agreement was obtained for the project in 2001, prior to the adoption of the MSHCP in 2004. Government Code Section 65864 states that only those policies, rules, and regulations which were existing at the time of approval for a developmental project must be followed by applicant. The proposed project site is also not part of Warm Springs Creek and does not support RAFSS or grassland habitat. Due to the presence of only non-native ruderal habitat on the project site, and the absence of any special-status species or sensitive biological resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code states that all applicants within the SKR HCP plan area shall conduct a biological survey for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat and pay the required impact and mitigation fee. ESA conducted a habitat assessment for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat during the reconnaissance-level survey. No kangaroo rat signs were observed during the site visit, and no suitable habitat exists on site due to the high levels of disturbance and the origin of site soils. County Ordinance 663.10 regarding the SKR HCP states that “impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat are not limited to loss or degradation of actually occupied habitat only.” Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to the Stephen’s kangaroo rat, including habitat destruction would be mitigated through payment of the required mitigation fee. Mitigation fees will be used to finance the implementation of the SKR HCP conservation measures. Due to the lack of suitable native habitat on the project site, and with the previous payment of the required mitigation fees, the project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project also would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.5-30 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic This section describes transportation and traffic along travel routes that would be used by the project and in the vicinity of the project site, and the associated regulatory framework. The impact analysis presents the criteria used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts to transportation and traffic as a consequence of implementing the project or alternatives, the methods used in evaluating these impacts, and the results of the impact assessment. This analysis is a summary of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared by VA Consulting, Inc., which is provided in Appendix E of this SEIR. 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Level of Service Analysis The traffic analysis employs a methodology based on empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other authorities. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections estimates the average control delay for vehicles travelling through the intersection. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the methodology estimates the control delays for each turning movement and identifies the delay for the longest delayed approach (if there is a shared lane, delay is averaged for all turning movements from that lane). After the quantitative delay estimates are complete, the methodology assigns a qualitative letter grade that represents the operating condition (delay/congestion) of the intersection. These grades range from level of service (LOS) A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 3.6-1. TABLE 3.6-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Service Description Signalized Delay (Seconds) Unsignalized Delay (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. < 10.0 < 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 >10.0 to 15.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 >15.0 to 25.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to 55.0 >25.0 to 35.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0 >35.0 to 50.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 >50.0 SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Audi of Temecula 3.6-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Intersection Assessment Intersection level of service is determined based on average delay per the above-described standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. This is in line with the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City of Temecula accepts LOS D signalized intersections as adequate. The City has no specific LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. However, for the purpose of this SEIR, LOS D has been assumed as the minimum acceptable LOS for unsignalized intersections. If the LOS decreases from LOS D to LOS E or F as a result of a project, mitigation measures must be identified to improve the LOS at the intersection to LOS D or better. In addition, if the project would increase the intersection delay two seconds or more at intersections operating at LOS E or F, the project applicant must identify mitigation measures to improve the delay at the intersection. Should an unsignalized intersection be found to be operating at LOS E or LOS F, a traffic signal warrant would be prepared to determine whether signalization of the intersection is needed. Roadway Segment Assessment Roadway segment operations were evaluated by comparing the projected traffic volumes to the maximum two-way daily traffic volume identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. In accordance with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, LOS E or better shall be maintained at all study roadway segments. Roadway segment operations were evaluated by comparing the projected traffic volumes to the level of service thresholds identified in the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City of Temecula Roadway Classifications and maximum two-way daily traffic volumes for roadway segment are shown in Table 3.6-2. The maximum two-way traffic volume is assumed to represent an LOS E threshold. TABLE 3.6-2 ROADWAY SEGMENT THRESHOLDS Roadway Classification Number of Lanes3 Maximum Two-Way Daily Traffic Volume Urban Arterial 8-10 D 72,200 Principal Arterial 6 D 54,000 Major Arterial 4 D 36,000 Secondary Arterial 4 D 29,000 Modified Secondary Arterial 4 D 20,000 Limited Secondary Arterial 2 D 16,000 Collector 2 U 14,000 Rural Highway 2 U 10,000 1. All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. 2. Two-lane roadways designated as future arterials that conform to arterial design standards for vertical and horizontal alignment are analyzed as arterials.3. “D” is abbreviated for divided by a raised median or separated by striped median and “U” is abbreviated for undivided. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Audi of Temecula 3.6-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Existing Roadway Network The project site is served by a network of regional and local roadways. These roadways are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated Riverside County. I-15 is the major north-south roadway in the project site vicinity, connecting with the City of Murrieta to the north and unincorporated Riverside County to the south. I-15 is an eight-lane freeway in the project vicinity. The project site is located along the west side of Temecula Center Drive west of Ynez Road. Ingress and egress to the project site would be from Temecula Center Drive which would be extended/improved along the frontage of the site as part of the project. Automobile access to the project site from the surrounding area would occur via I- 15 exit to either Murrieta Hot Springs Road (north of the site) or Winchester Road (State Route 79) (south of the site), then to Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive (see Figure 2-4). A brief description of roadways within the project area is provided below. Interstate 15 (I-15) is an urban arterial eight-lane north-south freeway that extends through San Bernardino County to the north, and San Diego County to the south. Access to the project site is provided via a freeway interchange at Winchester Road or Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (MPH). Interstate 215 (I-215) is a principal arterial six-lane north-south freeway that begins at I-15, adjacent to the project site, and extends through San Bernardino County to the north. The posted speed limit is 65 MPH. Murrieta Hot Springs Road is a six-lane east-west road that is designated as a Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor per the City of Temecula. It is located north of the project sire and the posted speed limit along Murrieta Hot Springs Road is 45 MPH. Temecula Center Drive is the access point to the project site. It currently has half-width improvements from Ynez Road to its terminus at the temporary cul-de-sac located at the northeast corner of the project site, adjacent to the Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz dealership. The proposed project improvements consist of removing the cul-de-sac and extending Temecula Center Drive with half-width improvements along the project’s frontage. A new terminus (i.e. cul-de-sac) would be constructed at the southern end of the project site. The proposed improvement of Temecula Center Drive, as part of the project, will be based on a Collector roadway cross-section and will provide a 56-foot curb-to-curb width in a 78-foot right-of-way. Temecula Center Drive and Waverly Lane are currently not designated within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Winchester Road (SR-79) is an urban arterial east-west State highway located south of the project site. This roadway will provide access to the project site via Ynez Road. Winchester Road is an eight-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Abutting land uses are primarily commercial developments. Ynez Road is a north-south principal arterial roadway located east of the project site that provides direct access to the project site. Ynez Road is a six-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Audi of Temecula 3.6-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Date Street (French Valley Parkway) is a principal arterial east-west roadway located south of the project site that would provide access to the project site via the future French Valley Parkway Interchange at I-15, planned by Caltrans. Date Street is a four-lane divided roadway east of Ynez Road and a partially constructed six-lane divided roadway west of Ynez Road that currently terminates near the I-15 right-of-way. Phase 1 of the French Valley Parkway/I-15 interchange, involving roadway improvements on the west side of I-15, has been completed. Phase 2 improvements to occur on the east side of I-15, connecting Jefferson Street and Ynez Road, is in the planning and scoping stage. As this interchange has yet to secure dedicated construction funding for Phase 2 and is the planning stage, this interchange has not been factored into the traffic analysis for purposes of this SEIR as it is too speculative to know with certainty its construction date. Existing Bus Transit Facilities The project area is serviced by the Riverside Transit Agency and operates Route 23 which provides transportation in the vicinity of the project including stops along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. Route 243 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the Cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. It also provides transportation to the Inland Valley Medical Center, Rancho Springs Medical Center, Chaparral High School, and County Center Drive. Route 23 operates on 10- minute interval schedule (RTA, 2015). Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Bicycle facilities are provided throughout Temecula, including Class I, II, and III facilities. Class I facilities are off-road, dedicated paths. Class II facilities are typically painted bicycle lanes that share right-of-way with automobiles. Class III facilities are designated bicycle routes, with bikes and vehicles sharing the roadways with minimal striping. The Harveston community located just east of the project has a system of bicycle and pedestrian trails and walkways throughout the development. Also, there are Class II and III bicycle facilities and sidewalks along the following major roadways in the general vicinity of the project: • Ynez Road (Class II) • Date Street (Class II) • Harveston Drive (Class II) • Lakeview (Class II) • Overland Drive Class III (unmarked) Temecula Center Drive, the access road leading to the project site, has a sidewalk on the north side of the roadway. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, Class II Bike Lanes in the project area are planned on: • Jefferson Avenue • Rancho California Road Audi of Temecula 3.6-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic • Winchester Road • Overland Drive • Date Street / Proposed French Valley Parkway The City of Temecula is currently updating its Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, which may result in changes to the existing or proposed facilities identified above. As such, no additional improvements have been identified beyond those already noted in the City’s General Plan. Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Traffic volumes in the project area were calculated based on traffic counts taken by National Data and Surveying Services in April and May of 2015 during weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as Saturday peak hours (2PM-6PM). Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR) show the existing intersection turning movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours and are used to represent Existing (2015) conditions. Intersection Operations Existing traffic volumes described above, lane configurations collected in the field, and signal timing information maintained by City staff were used to evaluate operations at the study intersections for existing AM and PM peak-hour conditions. The results are summarized in Table 3.6-3. As shown in Table 3.6-3, all study intersections currently operate acceptably at LOS D or better during the peak hours. TABLE 3.6-3 EXISTING (2015) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday Weekend Study Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Signal 14.0 B 18.8 B 17.3 B 2. Ynez Road/Waverly Lane Stop Sign 10.3 B 15.7 C 10.6 B 3. Ynez Road/Date Street Signal 30.2 C 26.2 C 41.2 D 4. Ynez Road/Winchester Road Signal 36.3 D 42.8 D 42.5 D 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Road Signal 16.2 B 26.5 C 39.3 D 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Road Signal 21.5 C 27.6 C 23.0 C SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Sec/veh = seconds per vehicle Audi of Temecula 3.6-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Roadway Segment Operations Figures 5A and 5B of the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR) show existing 24-hour daily traffic volumes and volume to capacity ratios within the TIA study area for weekday and weekend conditions. All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios are based on maximum two-way daily capacities as identified in the City of Temecula Circulation Element. Therefore, a v/c ratio of .90 or below indicates a roadway operating at LOS D or better based on 24-hour traffic volumes. The analyses show that all TIA study area roadway segments are operating at Level of Service D or better under both existing weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are exclusive right-turn lanes and dual-left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. All data for the LOS analysis is included in the TIA in Appendix E of this SEIR. 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework Congestion Management Program Compliance The purpose of the state-mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to monitor roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region’s transportation system. Based upon this assessment, the CMP contains specific strategies and improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve the performance of a multi-modal transportation system. Examples of strategies include increased emphasis on public transportation and rideshare programs, mitigating the impacts of new development, and better coordinating land use and transportation planning decisions. Based on the approval of Proposition 111 in 1990, regulations require the preparation, implementation, and annual updating of a CMP in each of California’s urbanized counties. One required element of the CMP is a process to evaluate the transportation and traffic impacts of large projects on the regional transportation system. That process is undertaken by local agencies, project applicants, and traffic consultants through a transportation impact report usually conducted as part of the CEQA project review process. Authority for local land use decisions including project approvals and any required mitigation remains the responsibility of local jurisdictions. Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is designated as the program administrator for the Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, which funds large regional infrastructure improvements, i.e., interchanges, major regional roadways, etc. The Western Riverside TUMF charges a development fee for each new single-family unit and multi-family unit in the City of Temecula. As administrator, WRCOG receives all fees generated from the TUMF as collected by the local jurisdictions, and invests, accounts for, and expends the fee in accordance with the TUMF ordinance, the administrative plan and applicable state laws. The project is exempt from the TUMF fee per the Development Agreement, Section 4.2.4.4. Audi of Temecula 3.6-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Southern California Association of Governments 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed the RTP/SCS which is a long-range transportation plan that encompasses its member counties, including Riverside County, and is updated every four years. The RTP/SCS provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using growth forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20-year period, the RTP/SCS considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address our mobility needs (SCAG, 2012). City of Temecula General Plan – Circulation Element The City of Temecula General Plan defines traffic congestion using the same LOS system described above. The minimum LOS deemed acceptable by the City of Temecula is LOS D. Goals, policies, and an implementation program in the Circulation Element of the General Plan that pertain to this project include the following (City of Temecula, 2005): Goal 1 Strive to maintain a Level of Service “D” or better at intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service “C” or better during non-peak hours. Policy 1.1 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City’s roadway system, including appropriate road width and median transitions when a roadway classification changes. Policy 1.2 Pursue trip reductions and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. Policy 1.5 Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions for approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future intersection improvements and turning movements. Implementation Program 6: Implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize the impacts of proposed development projects on the City’s circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation. • Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and infrastructure systems. • Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. • Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, Audi of Temecula 3.6-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate. 3.6.3 Impact Assessment Methodology For the proposed land uses within the project site, trip generation was determined using standard rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). Use of these rates is consistent with industry procedures for estimating traffic impacts. The project-level traffic impact analysis considered the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions (2015) With Project • Year 2016 Baseline With Project – Year 2016 Baseline is the anticipated completion date of the project and was calculated by applying a two percent ambient growth rate for one year to the existing (2015) traffic volumes. This scenario provides the basis for determining project-specific impacts, mitigation, and conditions of approval. No improvements to the existing intersection traffic controls and geometrics were assumed, and, thus, were not used to determine project completion year LOS estimates. • Year 2016 Baseline With Project and Cumulative Projects The target level of service to be maintained at the TIA study area intersections is LOS D. At intersections with a Level of Service E or F without project traffic volumes, a maximum impact of 2 seconds of additional intersection delay may be added after project traffic volumes are included. If more than 2 seconds of delay are added by the project traffic volumes, mitigation will be required at the intersection. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, traffic and circulation impacts would be considered significant if the project would: • Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; • Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; Audi of Temecula 3.6-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. According to the City of Temecula’s General Plan, the minimum level of service standard for signalized intersections has been established at LOS D. It should be noted that the City of Temecula has not established or adopted specific thresholds for significant impacts at intersections. Based on traffic engineering industry standards, as well as thresholds established by adjacent jurisdictions, the following significance thresholds have been established: • Intersections increasing from LOS D to LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project are considered a significant project impact. • Intersections operating at LOS E or F, where the proposed project increases the vehicle delay by two seconds or more are considered a significant project impact. • A cumulative impact is identified if the intersection is operating at LOS E or F and the proposed project increases the intersection delay by two seconds or more. Impacts Project Effect on Circulation System Existing Conditions (2015) With Project Roadway Segment Operations Existing Conditions With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour roadway segment volumes and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios within the TIA study area are shown on Figures 10A and 10B, respectively, in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR). The project would generate a total of 1,227 weekday vehicle trips; with 55 inbound and 18 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 40 inbound and 60 outbound trips during the peak P.M hours. All v/c ratios shown on Figures 10A, and 10B are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 10A and 10B show that all TIA study area roadway segments are operating at LOS D or better under the Existing Conditions With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are exclusive right-turn lanes and dual-left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity, and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. Intersection Operations Table 3.6-4 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the TIA study area intersections for Existing Conditions With Project weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 3.6-4 shows that all study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Audi of Temecula 3.6-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic TABLE 3.6-4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING (2015) WITH PROJECT Weekday Weekend Study Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Signal 14.1 B 19.1 B 17.7 B 2. Ynez Road/Waverly Lane Stop Sign 10.9 B 18.5 C 12.2 B 3. Ynez Road/Date Street Signal 30.5 C 26.9 C 40.1 D 4. Ynez Road/Winchester Road Signal 37.1 C 44.1 D 44.0 D 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Road Signal 16.4 B 24.2 C 40.0 D 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Road Signal 21.7 C 28.0 C 23.1 C SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Year 2016 Baseline with Project Roadway Segment Operations Year 2016 Baseline With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour roadway segment volumes and v/c ratios within the TIA study area are shown on Figures 15A and 15B, respectively, in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR). All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios shown on these figures are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 15A and 15B show that all TIA study area roadway segments are operating at LOS D or better under the Year 2016 Baseline With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. As previously discussed, the augmented capacity of this roadway that was not considered in the v/c analysis is anticipated to provide a minimum LOS D. Intersection Operations Table 3.6-5 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the TIA study area intersections for Year 2016 Baseline With Project weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 3.6-5 shows that all TIA study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Audi of Temecula 3.6-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic TABLE 3.6-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – YEAR 2016 BASELINE WITH PROJECT Weekday Weekend Study Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Signal 14.1 B 20.2 C 18.5 B 2. Ynez Road/Waverly Lane Stop Sign 11.0 B 18.8 C 12.4 B 3. Ynez Road/Date Street Signal 30.7 C 27.7 C 25.1 C 4. Ynez Road/Winchester Road Signal 37.8 D 44.7 D 45.9 D 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Road Signal 16.6 B 28.5 C 42.5 D 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester Road Signal 22.1 B 28.4 C 23.4 C SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Signal Warrants The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. Urban warrants were used for the intersections. A traffic signal warrant was prepared for the unsignalized intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane for Year 2016 Baseline With Project and cumulative traffic conditions and does not satisfy minimum thresholds for signalization. The proposed project is not anticipated to ever generate sufficient traffic volumes to warrant signalization, even if the site were to be served by only one driveway. The analysis showed that signalization was not warranted at this location. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Conformance with Congestion Management Program The focus of the CMP is the development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to evaluate the condition of the Congestion Management System (CMS) as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and federal levels. Per the adopted level of service target of LOS E, a deficiency plan is required when a CMS segment falls to LOS F. Preparation of a deficiency plan is the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency also will be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including Transportation Audi of Temecula 3.6-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Demand Management (TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule of mitigating the deficiency. To ensure that the CMS is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the CMS. A CMP analysis is not required for the project as the City requirements for a traffic study exceed the CMP requirements and the project will be subject to the City requirements for mitigation. Furthermore, there are no CMP arterials or roadway segments within the project area. CMP facilities within the City of Temecula are I-15, I-215, and SR-79. As such, the project would not result in impacts to CMP facilities. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Result In a Change in Air Traffic Patterns The project is over three miles from the nearest airport (French Valley Airport) and is not within any Airport Influence Area; therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Significance Determination: No impact. Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses All development within the project area would be required to be designed consistent with City standards and the Harveston Specific Plan, including street design, emergency access, and compatibility of uses. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Result In Inadequate Emergency Access As described above, primary vehicular access to the project site is located along the west side of Temecula Center Drive west of Ynez Road. Ingress and egress to the project site would be from Temecula Center Drive which would be extended/improved along the frontage of the site as part of the project. The project would construct half-width improvements of Temecula Center Drive along the frontage of the site and provide a new cul-de-sac terminus. Site access is to be provided from two driveways on either side of the site showroom and service buildings. A 24-foot wide drive aisle/fire lane transverses the site and connects the two access driveways on either side of the proposed project buildings. The proposed access/fire lane would provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to vehicular and emergency access. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 3.6-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities The project would be required to comply with City codes, policies and standards for transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the Development Standards in the Harveston Specific Plan pertaining to these types of facilities. Compliance with these codes, policies and standards would result in a less than significant impact on public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Significance Determination: Less than significant Audi of Temecula 3.6-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Audi of Temecula 3.7-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply This section identifies and analyzes issues related to hydrology, water quality and water supply in the context of the project. It includes the environmental and regulatory setting; the criteria used to determine the significance of potential impacts; the methods used in evaluating these impacts; and the results of the impact assessment. The analysis considers existing conditions and proposed conditions based on the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by RBF Consulting as well as the Preliminary Technical Drainage Study also prepared for the site by RBF Consulting (RBF, 2015a and RBF, 2015b). 3.7.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting The City of Temecula is located in a region characterized by a generally mild coastal climate, with an average annual temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit and average annual rainfall of 10 to 13 inches. Proceeding inland, temperature and rainfall intensity variations increase. Surface and ground waters within the region generally flow east to west toward the Pacific Ocean (San Diego County, 2005). The project site is located within the Santa Margarita River Watershed (SMRW) under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The SMRW consists of approximately 750 square miles within San Diego County and southwestern Riverside County, and is drained primarily by the Santa Margarita River, Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek. About two miles south of the project site, Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek converge to form the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River flows southwest into the Temecula Gorge, crosses the San Diego County line just north of the City of Fallbrook, flows through the coastal plain encompassing parts of Camp Pendleton, and then discharges into the Pacific Ocean through the Santa Margarita Estuary. The Temecula Gorge and the Santa Ana Mountains serve as a natural barrier between the upper and lower portions of the SMRW. The SMRW contains nine hydrologic basins delineated by the SDRWQCB and is primarily based on surface drainage boundaries (San Diego County, 2005). Presently, several waterbodies within SMRW are listed on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list due to excessive nutrients from a variety of sources including agriculture, nursery operations, municipal wastewater discharges, urban runoff, septic systems, and golf course operations. Other serious water quality and environmental concerns in the watershed include excessive sedimentation from development and agricultural areas, groundwater degradation and contamination with nitrates and other salts, habitat loss, channelization, flooding, and scour. Local Setting The project site is located in the upper portion of the SMRW, within the Murrieta Hydrologic Area. Two tributaries to Murrieta Creek, Warm Springs Creek, and Santa Gertrudis, lie roughly northwest and southeast of the site, respectively. The project site is currently vacant with poor vegetation cover and was previously rough graded as part of the Harveston development project. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Stormwater runoff currently flows overland towards the west where it is directed to a culvert that crosses Interstate 15 (RBF, 2015a). Additionally, storm drainage improvements are located within Margarita road and along Santa Gertrudis Creek. The project site is located in a 19 acre portion of the Harveston Specific Plan that has been identified as System A. System A is drained by a 24 inch drainage pipe which has an inlet capacity of 39 cubic feet per second (cfs). The peak flow for the 100 year storm event has been calculated at 27.1 cfs under existing conditions. Murrieta Creek and Warm Springs Creek are unlined and Santa Gertrudis Creek is concrete-lined. Murrieta Creek Channel and Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel are both considered drainage conveyances by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC, 2015). Water Quality The SDRWQCB lists water quality objectives for inland surface waters that must be protected against degradation. Table 3.7-1 shows the water quality objectives for the Murrieta and Auld hydrologic areas. Table 3.7-2 shows the beneficial uses associated with Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek, as designated by the SDRWCB Basin Plan. TABLE 3.7-1 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES1 FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS WITHIN THE MURRIETA HYDROLOGIC AREAS Constituent Murrieta Hydrologic Area2 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 750 Chloride (Cl) 300 Sulfate (SO4) 300 Percent sodium (%Na) 60 Nitrogen and Phosphorous (N&P) a3 Iron (Fe) 0.3 Manganese (Mn) 0.05 Methylene Blue-Activated Substances (MBAS) 0.5 Boron (B) 0.75 Tastes and Odors (ODOR) None Turbidity (Turb NTU) 20 Color Units 20 Fluoride (F) 1.0 1. Concentrations not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. 2. mg/L or as noted 3. Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, by themselves or in combination with other nutrients, shall be maintained at levels below those which stimulate algae and emergent plant growth. Threshold total Phosphorus (P) concentrations shall not exceed 0.05 mg/l in any stream at the point where it enters any standing body of water, or 0.025 mg/l in any standing body of water. A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisances in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/l total P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N: P=10:1 shall be used. SOURCE: SDRWQCB, 2011. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 TABLE 3.7-2 BENEFICIAL USES OF SURFACE WATER BODIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Beneficial Uses Mu r r i e t a C r e e k (2 . 3 1 ) Sa n t a G e r t r u d i s Cr e e k ( 2 . 4 2 ) Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) E E Agricultural Supply (AGR) E E Industrial Service Supply (IND) E E Industrial Process Supply (PROC) E E Groundwater Recharge (GWR) -- P Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH) -- -- Hydropower Generation (POW) -- -- Contact Water Recreation (REC-1) P E Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2) E E Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL) -- -- Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) E E Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) -- -- Wildlife Habitat (WILD) E E Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) -- -- Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) -- -- E = Existing beneficial use P = Potential beneficial use (a use which once existed and could potentially exist again) SOURCE: SDRWQCB, 2011. Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek are both listed as impaired on the State of California’s 2010 list of impaired water bodies pursuant to provisions of Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Murrieta Creek is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Santa Gertrudis Creek is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides. Table 3.7-3 shows the 303(d) impairments and potential pollutant sources for Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 TABLE 3.7-3 303(D) IMPAIRED WATERBODIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Waterbody Pollutant Potential Source Murrieta Creek Chlorpyrifos Natural Sources, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Nonpoint Source Copper Natural Sources, Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source Iron Natural Sources Manganese Source Unknown Nitrogen Urban Runoff, Point Source, Nonpoint Source Phosphorous Urban Runoff, Point Source, Nonpoint Source Toxicity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Point Source, Nonpoint Source Warm Springs Creek Chlorpyrifos Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers E. coli Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Fecal Coliform Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Iron Natural Sources Manganese Natural Sources Phosphorous Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Total Nitrogen as N Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Santa Gertrudis Creek Chlorpyrifos Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source Copper Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source E. coli Urban Runoff, Natural Sources, Nonpoint Source Fecal Coliform Natural Sources, Nonpoint Source, Urban Runoff Iron Nonpoint Source, Urban Runoff Manganese Source Unknown Phosphorous Nonpoint Source, Urban Runoff Toxicity Source Unknown SOURCE: SWRCB, 2010. Flood Zone The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identifies areas throughout the United States that are at risk for flooding. Flood Zone A identifies areas subject to inundation by the one percent-annual-chance (100-year) flood event. Murrieta Creek is the most flood-prone of the City’s creeks although there is a flood zone area identified along Warm Springs Creek (City of Temecula, 2005). However, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located just outside of the 100-year flood zone for Warm Springs Creek (FEMA, 2008). Groundwater Hydrology and Quality The project site overlies the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of about 137 square miles. The basin is bounded by nonwater-bearing crystalline rocks of the Penninsular Ranges. Natural recharge of the basin’s water-bearing alluvium is from direct precipitation and percolation in the Warm Springs, Tucalota, Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta, and 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Pechanga Creeks and the Temecula River. Groundwater flows to the southwestern part of the basin. Groundwater is generally unconfined, excluding beneath the Pauba Valley and near some faults that cut the basin. The Elsinore fault—which traverses the project area (City of Temecula, 2005)—may affect groundwater movement. Total storage capacity is estimated to be about 253,000 acre-feet (AF); the existing amount of groundwater storage is unknown (DWR, 2004). Groundwater in the basin is largely sodium bicarbonate by character, and is considered mostly suitable only for domestic and irrigation uses. The project site is underlain entirely by the Temecula Aquifer. Estimates of groundwater stored in the Temecula Aquifer range from 1.34 to 2 million AF (MWD, 2007). Percent sodium is the primary water quality concern within the lower Temecula Aquifer (San Diego County, 2005). Dams and Levees There are three dams located within the general proximity of the project site. Lake Skinner is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the project site which is held by a 43,800-acre feet earthen dam. Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road. The project area is also located 9 miles west of Vail Lake Dam, which contains a 51,000-acre foot storage reservoir. Failure of this facility would cause flooding in the Pauba and Temecula Valleys, along with I-15 and an adjacent three-mile area. Finally, the project site is approximately nine miles southwest of Diamond Valley Lake, which is the largest reservoir in Southern California and is impounded by two earthen dams. Failure of this facility would lead to flooding in the northern parts of the Temecula Planning Area (which includes the City of Temecula and some surrounded unincorporated communities) Both Lake Skinner and Vail Lake are considered as having a high downstream hazard potential ranking, which applies to dams whose failure or disoperation would probably cause loss of human life. However, the project site is located outside of any of these dam inundation areas (City of Temecula, 2005). 3.7.2 Regulatory Framework Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. The CWA required states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. The CWA was enacted to prohibit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from any point source, unless a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit authorizes the discharge. Regulatory and permitting processes have been established to control the quality of water runoff from urban development. The CWA was amended in 1987, requiring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to create specific requirements for storm water discharges. In response to the 1987 amendments to the CWA, the USEPA established Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program, which required NPDES permits for: (1) municipal separate storm sewer systems generally serving or located in incorporated cities with 100,000 or more people (referred to as municipal permits); (2) nine specific categories of industrial activity 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, Adopted April 1, 2014) (including landfills); and (3) construction activity that disturbs one acre or more of land. In March 2003, Phase II of the NPDES Program extended the requirements for NPDES permits to numerous small municipal separate storm sewer systems, construction sites of one to five acres, and industrial facilities owned or operated by small municipal separate storm sewer systems, all of which were previously exempted from permitting requirements. Section 402(p) of the CWA mandates that these municipal storm water permits must: (1) effectively prohibit the discharge of non-storm water to the system except under certain provisions, and (2) require controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from the system to the maximum extent practicable, including Best Management Practices (BMPs); control techniques; and system, design, and engineering methods. National Flood Insurance Program FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the Flood Insurance Rate Maps used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These maps identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplain. FEMA allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are restricted within flood hazard areas, depending on the potential for flooding within each area. Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, enabling FEMA to require municipalities that participate in the NFIP to adopt certain flood hazard reduction standards for construction and development in 100- year floodplains. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention Regulations detail methods and provisions for construction and development in 100-year floodplains. Construction General Permit The California Construction Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit, Order No. 2012- 006-DWQ, amends 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities that include clearing, grading, and excavation resulting in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The Construction General Permit authorizes the discharge of storm water to surface waters from construction activities. It prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water and authorized non-storm water discharges and all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable quantities established at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 117.3 or 40 Code of Federal Regulations 302.4, unless a separate NPDES Permit has been issued to regulate those discharges. The Construction General Permit requires that all developers of land where construction activities will occur over more than one acre do the following: Complete a Risk Assessment to determine pollution prevention requirements pursuant to the three Risk Levels established in the General Permit Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the Nation 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies BMPs that will reduce pollution in storm water discharges to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards Perform inspections and maintenance of all BMPs In order to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Legally Responsible Person must electronically file all Permit Registration Documents with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. Permit Registration Documents must include: Notice of Intent Risk Assessment Site Map SWPPP Annual Fee Signed Certification Statement Typical BMPs contained in SWPPP are designed to minimize erosion during construction (minimization of vegetation disturbance), stabilize construction areas (soil binders), control sediment (fiber rolls and sand bags), control pollutants from construction materials (vehicle fueling and maintenance only in designated areas), and address post construction runoff quantity (volume) and quality (treatment) (final site stabilization including hydroseeding). The SWPPP must also include a discussion of the program to inspect and maintain all BMPs. Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit The project area is currently under the jurisdiction of the SDRWQCB 2010 MS4 Permit issued to the Riverside County Copermittees in the Santa Margarita Region (Order No. R9-2010-0016). The MS4 Permit requires Copermittees to reduce the discharge of storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and ensure MS4 discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. The MS4 Permit also requires implementation of various site design BMPs and treatment control BMPs to reduce the possibility of pollutants stored or produced on- site from entering surface water. The MS4 Permit also includes Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs for Priority Development Projects. The following are Priority Development Project Categories as defined by the Permit: a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public or private land which fall under the planning and building authority of the Copermittees. b) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 c) Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (SIC code 5812), where the land area for development is greater than 5,000 square feet. Restaurants where land development is less than 5,000 square feet must meet all SSMP requirements except for structural treatment BMP and numeric sizing criteria requirement F.1.d.(6) and hydromodification requirement F.1.h. d) All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet. This category is defined as any development which creates 5,000 square feet of impervious surface which is located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, where the development will grade on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. e) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). All development located within, or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to an ESA (where discharges from the development or redevelopment will enter receiving waters within the ESA), which either creates 2,500 square feet of impervious surface on a proposed project site or increases the area of imperviousness of a proposed project site to 10 percent or more of its naturally occurring condition. “Directly adjacent” means situated within 200 feet of the ESA. “Discharging directly to” means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with flows from adjacent lands. f) Impervious parking lots 5,000 square feet or more and potentially exposed to runoff. Parking lot is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce. g) Street, roads, highways, and freeways. This category includes any paved impervious surface that is 5,000 square feet or greater used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. Where Copermittees develop revised standard roadway design and post-construction BMP guidance that comply with the provisions of Section F.1 of the Order, public works projects that implement the revised standard roadway sections do not have to develop a project specific SSMP. The standard roadway design and post-construction BMP guidance must be submitted with the Copermittee’s updated SSMP. h) Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. In June 2013, the SDRWQCB Regional MS4 Permit, or Fifth Term Permit (Order No. R9-2013- 0001; NPDES No. CAS0109266), was adopted and will uniformly regulate all three counties within the San Diego Region to maximize efficiency. The Regional MS4 Permit focuses less on completing specific actions and more on reaching goals and desired outcomes towards the improvement of water quality. The San Diego County Copermittees were made subject to this new permit in June of 2013. Orange County Copermittees became subject to the order following the expiration of their current MS4 permit on December 16, 2014. Riverside County Copermittees will become subject to the order following the expiration of the current MS4 Permit 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 (Order No. R9-2010-0016) on November 10, 2015. The Regional MS4 Permit requires a minimum set of BMPs for all development projects (regardless of project type or size), during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval and issuance of local permits), including unpaved roads and flood management projects. The Regional MS4 Permit also requires certain LID BMPs for all development projects, including conservation of natural areas and minimization of soil compaction. In addition, the Regional MS4 Permit includes additional specific requirements for Priority Development Projects. Priority Development Projects include the following: a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces c) New and redevelopment projects that create 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces and support one or more of the following uses: 1. Restaurants 2. Hillside development projects 3. Parking lots 4. Streets, roads, highways d) New or redevelopment projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface and discharge directly into an environmentally sensitive area e) New development projects that support either automotive repair shops or retail gasoline outlets f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction Additional requirements for priority projects include structural LID BMPs, (such as runoff filtration, hydromodification management, infiltration, and groundwater protection) and long- term maintenance plans for these BMPs. All developers are required to submit a construction BMP plan that details seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of a project site to the City for approval. Examples of construction BMPs include good housekeeping, erosion control, sediment control, and run-on and run-off control. The Regional MS4 Permit lists the following BMP requirements that must be implemented during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval and issuance of local permits) for all development projects (regardless of project type or size): (1) General Requirements: a) On-site BMPs must be located so as to remove pollutants from runoff prior to its discharge to any receiving waters, and as close to the source as possible. b) Structural BMPs must not be constructed within waters of the U.S. c) On-site BMPs must be designed and implemented with measures to avoid the creation of nuisance or pollution associated with vectors (e.g., mosquitos, rodents, or flies). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 (2) Source Control BMP Requirements: a) Prevention of illicit discharges into the MS4 b) Storm drain system stenciling or signage c) Protect outdoor material storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal d) Protect materials stored in outdoor work areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal e) Protect trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal f) Any additional BMPs determined to be necessary by the Copermittee to minimize pollutant generation at each project (3) Low Impact Development (LID) BMP Requirements: a) Maintenance or restoration of natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors (including topographic depressions, areas of permeable soils, natural swales, and ephemeral and intermittent streams) b) Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other buffers such as trees, access restrictions, etc.) c) Conservation of natural areas within the project footprint including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils d) Construction of streets, sidewalks, or parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provided public safety is not compromised e) Minimization of the impervious footprint of the project f) Minimization of soil compaction to landscaped areas g) Disconnection of impervious surfaces through distributed pervious areas h) Landscaped or other pervious areas designed and constructed to effectively receive and infiltrate, retain and/or treat runoff from impervious areas, prior to discharging to the MS4 i) Small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where storm water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of runoff and pollutants to the MS4 and receiving waters j) Use of permeable materials for projects with low traffic areas and appropriate soil conditions k) Landscaping with native or drought tolerant species l) Harvesting and using precipitation Furthermore, should the development be considered a priority project under Regional MS4 requirements, the applicant would be required to implement specific structural BMPs that conform to performance requirements described below: 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 a) Each Priority Development Project must be required to implement LID BMPs that are designed to retain (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire) on-site the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event (design capture volume). b) Post-project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) must not exceed pre-development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent (for the range of flows that result in increased potential for erosion, or degraded instream habitat downstream of Priority Development Projects). c) Each Priority Development Project must avoid critical sediment yield areas or implement measures that allow critical coarse sediment to be discharged to receiving waters, such that there is no net impact to the receiving water. d) A Priority Development Project may be allowed to utilize alternative compliance in lieu of complying with the performance requirements identified above. The Priority Development Project must mitigate for the post-project runoff conditions not fully managed on-site, if utilized. New elements in the Regional MS4 Permit include stormwater and non-stormwater action level compliance, development of a water quality improvement plan (WQIP) in each watershed management area, use of water quality action levels to prioritize actions under the WQIP, more specific monitoring and assessment programs, and updated jurisdictional runoff management programs (based off of WQIP strategies). The WQIP for the Santa Margarita River Watershed Management Area has yet to be developed; its deadline for completion is June of 2015. Once developed, the City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) for the Santa Margarita Region will be updated concurrently based off of WQIP principles. According to Regional MS4 Requirements, the WQIP will identify priority water bodies and water body improvement goals and schedules, along with a monitoring and assessment program that assess the progress towards achieving those goals. Riverside County Flood Control Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices The Riverside County Flood Control Water Conservation District Design Handbook for LID BMPs supplements the WQMP by providing guidance for the planning, design and maintenance of LID BMPs, which may be used to mitigate the water quality impacts of developments within Riverside County. The handbook highlights BMPs that are integrated into site design and passively remove pollutants from runoff through natural processes such as infiltration, biofiltration, and evapotranspiration; it also highlights BMPs that require little maintenance. The handbook contains detailed information and designs for seven LID BMPs that are designed to encourage replication of the site's natural hydrologic processes. The maximum tributary drainage area, siting considerations, design procedures, and maintenance requirements are detailed for each BMP. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-12 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program for the Santa Margarita Region In 2012, the City of Temecula released its JRMP for the Santa Margarita Region which describes the City of Temecula’s specific runoff management programs and activities to comply with Order No. R9-2010-0016, issued to the Riverside County Copermittees in the Santa Margarita Region by the SDRWQCB on November 10, 2010 (2010 SMR MS4 Permit). This JRMP is the principal document that comprehensively translates the 2010 SMR MS4 Permit requirements into actions within the City of Temecula. The JRMP lists minimum BMPs specific to construction activities (e.g., soil stabilization) and City (e.g., litter management), commercial (e.g., trash receptacle maintenance) and residential operations (e.g., automobile parking). For each BMP category, enhanced BMPs must also be implemented if the development is discharging to the hydrologic area of a 303(d) impaired waterbody where the City of Temecula has determined that the site/source generates pollutants for which the water body segment is impaired. The JRMP is the City of Temecula’s map for compliance with the 2010 MS4 Permit and associated WQMP. Per Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001) requirements, this JRMP will need to be updated according to WQIP policies. City of Temecula Storm Water Ordinance The City of Temecula adopted the Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance (TMC Title 8.28) with the purpose and intent of protecting the water quality of City watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the federal CWA, in order to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City by: Regulating non-stormwater urban runoff to the storm drain system Reducing pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable Establish requirements for development projects for permanent water quality control measures Establish requirements to reduce pollutant discharges from construction sites Establish requirements to reduce pollutants in runoff from existing development Prohibiting illicit connections and illegal discharges to the storm drain system New development and modifications to existing development is required to be designed to control pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the receiving waters. The City Engineer approves the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent deterioration and approves the manner of implementation. The ordinance requires a WQMP for all new development projects that meet the specified categories listed in the City of Temecula MS4 permit and modifications to existing development projects as defined in the MS4 permit. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-13 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 City of Temecula Flood Damage Prevention Regulations This ordinance applies to all areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards and areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards under the jurisdiction of the City (Ord. 91-12 § 3.1). “Special flood hazard area (SFHA)” means an area having special flood or flood-related erosion hazards and shown on a Federal Insurance Rate Map as zone A, AO, A1—A30, AE, A99 or AH. The Project site is located within flood zone A of Murrieta Creek, and is, therefore, subject to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 is intended to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed: To protect human life and health To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood-control projects To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public To minimize prolonged business interruptions To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas To insure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard To insure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. (Ord. 91-12 § 1.3) In order to accomplish its purposes, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 includes methods and provisions for: Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction Controlling the alteration of natural flood-plains, stream, channels and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters Controlling fill, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas (Ord. 91-12 § 1.4) 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-14 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 City of Temecula General Plan The following goals and policies from the City of Temecula General Plan would apply to the Project (City of Temecula, 2005): Open Space Element Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. Policy 2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development. Policy 2.4 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public landscaped areas and other feasible applications as service becomes available from Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board. Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of grading permits. Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and construction. Policy 2.9 Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Policy 2.10 Participate in water resource management planning to facilitate the long-term availability of water resources for western Riverside County. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-15 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Policy 2.11 Participate in outreach educational programs to educate the public about water conservation methods, new technologies and drought resistant landscapes. Policy 2.12 Work with appropriate agencies to encourage ground water recharge facilities along flood control channels and creeks. Public Safety Element Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. Policy 1.6 Provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas. Policy 1.7 Prohibit development of any kind within the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. Plan Growth Management and Public Facilities Element Goal 7 An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system. Policy 7.1 Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other agencies involved with Murrieta Creek flood control improvements to implement a solution that maximizes retention of natural resources and provision of recreation opportunities along the Creek. Policy 7.3 Wherever possible, give priority to flood control methods that maintain natural areas, maximize the beneficial uses of water through natural systems, and provide additional trail opportunities. 3.7.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The following analysis is based on proposed project plans, analysis prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR, a Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan and Preliminary Technical Drainage Study prepared by RBF Consulting (RBF, 2015a, 2015b), and existing regulatory requirements. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be considered significant if the project would: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-16 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff Otherwise substantially degrade water quality Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam The following topics are considered to have no impact from the project based on the project characteristics, geographical location, and underlying conditions according to several geotechnical investigations that have occurred within the Specific Plan area. No impact discussion is provided for these topics for the following reasons: Place Housing or other Structures in a 100-year Flood Zone The project site is located outside of the FEMA flood zone as identified in the FEMA FIRM map for the project area. The project also does not include any residential land use component. Therefore as a result of location outside of the flood zone and no housing structures proposed, there would not be any impact related to flood zone hazards. Flooding from Failure of a Levee or Dam The project site is not currently protected by any levees but is located downstream of Lake Skinner, and west of Vail Lake and Diamond Valley Lake. According to inundation mapping provided by the City of Temecula, the project site is located outside of the inundation hazard areas for these dams. Therefore, even in the unlikely event of catastrophic failure of any of these dams, the project site would have a very low probability of being affected by a sudden release of water. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. Therefore, this impact threshold was not studied further. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-17 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Impacts – Hydrology Stormwater Runoff and Drainage Capacity Operation Proposed development would involve the conversion of the current undeveloped lot into a new automobile dealership with the addition of new impermeable surfaces that would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during storm events. As part of NPDES requirements, overland flows and drainage volumes and rates at the site would be required to include LID BMPs that are designed to retain (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire) on-site the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event (design capture volume) and post-project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) must not exceed pre-development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. The proposed drainage improvements include bio-retention basins surrounding the parking areas as well as an underground storage basin which would ultimately connect to a 36-inch storm drain line that empties into the existing culvert which crosses beneath Interstate 15. A preliminary drainage study has been prepared for the site to determine the peak post-developed onsite 10-year (Q10) and 100-year (Q100) runoff for the site (RBF, 2015). The methodology of the study was in compliance with the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Hydrology Manual. The preliminary study determined that the Q10 peak flow with drainage improvements (i.e., four bio-retention features and an underground storage basin) would be 8.22 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the Q100 peak flow with drainage improvements would be 12.26 cfs (RBF, 2015b). The 36-inch storm drain would receive flows from the site as well as contributing flows from an inlet located on the east side of the cul-de-sac. The inlet connects to a 24-inch storm drain which continues along the southern boundary of the project site becoming a 36 inch storm drain that eventually connects to the existing culvert. The drainage improvements would be designed to ensure that the Design Capture Volume (DCV) would be addressed by the selected BMPs in accordance with LID BMP Design Handbook as found in the NPDES MS4 permit requirements. LID BMPs would be required prior to volume based conventional treatment methods and all drainage improvements would be required to accommodate calculated post-development peak flows for the 10-year and 100-year storm events using methodology that complies with RCFCWCD. Adherence to requirements of City and RCFCWCD drainage control requirements, as stated below in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, in effect at the time of construction would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff. Impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and drainage capacity would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-18 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 or onsite, public or private, 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. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impacts – Water Quality Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Construction Construction of the project would require earthwork activities that could expose and loosen surface soils and potentially expose them to mix with storm water runoff and degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction-related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to water quality. Implementation of the following mitigation measure in the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program would ensure that construction-related impacts on water quality would be less than significant. 1. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit a “Notice of Intent” (NOI), along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the developer’s identification number. The project would disturb more than one acre, and therefore the developer would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP for all construction activities. The SWPPP would identify site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to control construction activities. The SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction, and describes 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 storm water as well as non-storm water discharges. Erosion control is any source control practice that protects the soil surface and prevents soil particles from being detached by rainfall, flowing water, and wind. Sediment control is any practice that traps soil particles after they have been detached and moved by rain, flowing water, and wind. Sediment control measures are passive systems that rely on filtering or settling the particles out of the water or wind that is transporting them. Sediment control BMPs are most effective when used in combination with erosion control 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-19 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 BMPs and is the most effective means to prevent sediment from leaving the project site and potentially entering storm drains or receiving waters. Adherence to these conditions would ensure that potential water quality degradation associated with smaller construction activities would be minimized. With implementation of the above mitigation measure construction-related impacts to water quality from the project would be less than significant. Operation The project would develop the currently vacant site and create new impervious surfaces (approximately 135,656 square feet) that would introduce the potential for new or additional pollutants to be generated in the area (e.g., pathogens, nutrients, pesticides, sediment, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease). Operation of the new dealership would also include a car washing area and a service bay to perform light automobile maintenance that could potentially discharge associated pollutants into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, if not managed appropriately. The two waterbodies near the project area (Warm Springs and Murrieta Creek) are both currently listed as impaired on the EPA’s 303(d) list by point, nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including pesticides, building construction materials, heating systems, and fertilizer. Operation of the project could create new or exacerbate existing impairments within these waterbodies, which would result in a significant impact related to water quality. Best management practices proposed for storm water treatment include a system of water quality basins and an underground detention basin located at the perimeter of the site prior to releasing the water into the existing storm water system. In addition, porous pavement/pavers are proposed for the surface parking areas to allow storm water infiltration. However, per the following mitigation measures in the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program the operation of the project would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the current SDRWQCB MS4 permit drainage control requirements 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, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall, and vector avoidance strategies. The following mitigation measures from the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program would be required to be implemented for the proposed project: 2. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the developer shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) showing conformance to all NPDES requirements (enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management practices, control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-20 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 3. Catch Basin Filters: Storm water runoff may contain quantities of oil and grease from the use of vehicles. Catch basin filters could be installed on the on-site catch basins to absorb these contaminants before they get into the storm drain system. Catch basin filter is a filter which utilizes a natural absorbent material called Amorphous Alumina silicate (Fossil Rock) to filter out oil and grease and also maintain sufficient flow rate. Exact design of the filters may vary according to the characteristics of the proposed catch basins. A maintenance program would need to be developed, if possible to make this practice practical. Such a program typically includes periodic inspections, debris removal, local area cleanup, and replacement of filter absorbent materials. An entity would need to be identified to carry out the maintenance program. 4. Catch Basin Cleaning: Cleaning of catch basins would be performed regularly to remove debris and reduce pollutant concentrations before the first flush during storm seasons. Cleaning would also minimize clogging of the catch basin filter and underground drainage system. This catch basin cleaning practice should be at minimum provided once a year before the wet season to eliminate debris accumulated during the summer. 5. Storm Drain System Signage: The Standard “No Dumping” signs would be posted at all the catch basins onsite. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Erosion and Siltation Construction Runoff from the project area currently flows overland and into the culvert beneath Interstate 15 where it then empties into Murrieta Creek. Development of the project would not directly alter the course of Murrieta Creek. However, construction of the project would require activities such as earthwork activities, which could temporarily alter ground surface and drainage patterns resulting in additional stormwater runoff. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for all construction activities would minimize exposure of disturbed soils through implementation of BMPs; and would result in less than significant impacts from stormwater runoff during construction. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Operation As noted above, the project would develop the currently vacant site and create new impervious surfaces (approximately 127,800 square feet) that could create additional stormwater flows offsite potentially increasing the potential for increased erosion and siltation if not designed appropriately. However, as also noted above, the project is required to include drainage control features such as permeable paving, bio-retention basins and other features which promote onsite infiltration of stormwater runoff and thus minimizing the amount of runoff volumes. The 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-21 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 proposed plans include construction of four bio-retention basins as well as an underground storage detention basin which would be designed in accordance with drainage control requirements. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff through maximizing onsite infiltration through permeable paving and bio- retention basins and thereby minimizing the potential for erosion and siltation. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impacts – Water Supply Groundwater Supplies Construction The project would require use of water during construction for various activities and BMPs such as dust suppression, washing of heavy equipment prior to leaving the site and others. The estimated water usage during construction activities is 34,615 gallons, primarily for dust control across the 4.5 acre site. The use of the non-potable water for dust control is considered a temporary demand necessary to meet other environmental protections. The water would be supplied by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), which would be the water supplier for the project and could include use of reclaimed water for dust suppression in accordance with the water quality management plan for the project. Therefore considering that the RCWD should have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the short term need of the project’s water use during construction and use of reclaimed water where practical, the project would have a less than significant impact on water supplies. Impacts would be less than significant with regard to the impact of project construction on local groundwater supplies. Operation Development and operation of the project would represent new water demands for the currently undeveloped site. RCWD currently obtains water from the following primary water sources: (1) local groundwater from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin; (2) imported State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from Metropolitan through Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD); and (3) recycled water from both RCWD and EMWD facilities (RCWD, 2015a). RCWD receives its imported water (treated and untreated) directly through six Metropolitan water turnouts, three in EMWD’s service area and three in WMWD’s service area. The District pumps groundwater from 52 district wells and recycles water at its Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). Additional recycled water is available from EMWD’s Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). RCWD owns and operates 43 storage 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Audi of Temecula 3.7-22 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 reservoirs and one surface reservoir, Vail Lake. The storage capacity of Vail Lake is 45,207 acre feet (AF) and it is used to help recharge groundwater, through the use of infiltration basins downstream from the Vail Lake release facilities. Historically, groundwater has supplied between 25 to 40 percent of the EMWD’s total water supply and imported water has supplied between 60 to 70 percent (RCWD, 2015a). Recycled water has provided less than five percent; however, current and planned improvements will increase the use of recycled water. Water supplies for 2015 available to RCWD total 93,790 acre- feet (RCWD, 2015a). However, because of recent drought conditions, RCWD has recently issued a “Stage 4a– Extreme Water Supply Warning” according to the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Plan) (RCWD, 2015b). The Plan, which is required by law, provides how the District will respond to reduced water supply conditions for its customers. Among the requirements are reductions in use of water for outdoor uses and limitations of variance issuances. The estimated annual water usage for the project is approximately 70 hundred cubic feet (HCF) per month (1 Hundred Cubic Feet = 748 gallons) or approximately 840 HCF per year. Analysis of water supply projections for RCWD demonstrates that projected supplies exceed demand (9,978 acre-feet supply surplus for 2015) with planned projected growth of the City through the year 2041 (RCWD, 2015a). Surplus supplies are projected to grow as further recycled water supply improvements are brought online. The scope of the project does not meet the requirements of Senate Bill 610 necessary to warrant preparation of a water supply assessment because it would not employ more than 1,000 employees, create more than 250,000 square feet of commercial space, or require the equivalent water demand as a 500 unit residential development. In addition, the project would include LID features such as use of permeable pavers where feasible for onsite infiltration, use of reclaimed water for non-potable uses such as irrigation, and bio-retention basins that also encourage onsite infiltration. Therefore, considering the mixed source of water supplies, the total demand of the project, the use of LID into project design, and use of reclaimed water, the potential impact on local groundwater recharge and supplies from operation of the project would be less than significant on water supply. Significance Determination: Less than significant. CHAPTER 4 Cumulative Impacts 4.1 Introduction Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130” (Section 15065(c)). A cumulative effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed project is implemented or not. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee-payment programs. The EIR must examine “reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)). According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects “... need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either: (A) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. 4.2 Cumulative Projects This analysis considers the impacts of the proposed project in combination with the potential environmental effects of other projects in the general area. “Other projects,” also referred to as “cumulative projects,” include recently completed projects, projects currently under construction, Audi of Temecula 4-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts and future projects currently under review by the governmental jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both geographic location as well as project schedule. 4.2.1 Geographic Scope The project area is located in the southern portion of the city of Temecula. The potential for specific project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the geographic area that could be affected by the project and cumulative construction-related air emissions would include the entire air basin. For purposes of this SEIR, it was determined that other related projects located within an approximately 1.5-mile radius of the project site would provide an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts. The County of Riverside and cities of Temecula and Murrieta were contacted for a list of projects. This list of other projects used in the analysis of cumulative effects is provided in Table 4-1. 4.2.2 Project Timing In addition to the geographic scope, cumulative impacts are determined by the timing of the other projects relative to the proposed project. Schedule is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative construction-related impacts, since construction impacts tend to be relatively short- term. However, for future projects, construction schedules are often broadly estimated and can be subject to change. Although the timing of the other projects will likely fluctuate due to schedule changes or other unknown factors, this analysis assumes these projects would be implemented concurrently with construction of the proposed project in 2016. 4.2.3 Type of Projects Considered As described in Chapter 3 of this SEIR, the majority of impacts associated with implementation of the project are short-term and related to construction. Table 4-1 lists current and future projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the general vicinity of the project. Cumulative projects are also depicted on Figure 4-1. Audi of Temecula 4-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 4-1 PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA Figure Reference Planning Jurisdiction Type of Development Description Location 1 City of Temecula Commercial PA07-0132, Harveston Village: A Development Plan application for the construction of a one-story, 13,958 square-foot commercial building. Northwest corner of Landings Road and Village Road in the Harveston Specific Plan. 2 City of Temecula Mixed-use Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA): Pre- Incorporation Specific Plan which includes residential and commercial/industrial development. Approximately 1,495 single-family dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of commercial remain to be permitted. East side of Winchester Road, north of Margarita Road and south of Nicholas Road. 3 City of Temecula Assisted Living Facility Development Plan application for an 85,900 square-foot assisted living and memory care facility. North side of Nicholas Road approximately 1,000 feet east of Winchester Road. 4 City of Murrieta Office A 7,337 square-foot office building within the Margaritaville Shopping Center; approved. Southwest corner of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. 5 City of Murrieta Restaurant An 11,589 square-foot restaurant on 5.0 acres; approval pending. North side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of Alta Murrieta Road. 6 City of Murrieta Office 241,000 square feet of office buildings on 17 acres; approved. West side of Jackson Avenue at the southern City Limits. 7 City of Murrieta Nursing Facility A 170-bed skilled nursing facility on 5.3 acres; approval pending. East side of Jackson Avenue north of Fig Street. 8 City of Murrieta Restaurant A 2,213 square-foot drive-thru restaurant; approval pending. North side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of Alta Murrieta. 9 City of Murrieta Residential An 84-unit condominium development; approved. South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of Whitewood Road 10 City of Murrieta Residential A 184-unit condominium development; approved. South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of Whitewood Road 11 City of Murrieta Residential 54 single-family residences; approved and under construction. East of Jackson Avenue north of Sugarberry Lane 12 City of Murrieta Residential A 196-unit apartment complex; approval pending. South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of Via Princesa 13 City of Murrieta Residential A 112-unit apartment complex; approved. North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of Via Princesa SOURCE: City of Temecula Community Development Department, 2015. Audi of Temecula 4-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Figure 4-1Cumulative Projects Map SOURCE: Street Map USA; ESA 0 2 Miles Note: Refer to table 4-1 for cumulative project list Audi of Temecula . 150189 215 15 15 79 MURRIETA TEMECULA 1 6 7 45 9 10 11 13 12 2 8 W ashington Ave K a l m i a S t Ynez R d R ancho C a lifornia Rd Murrieta Hot Springs Rd N i c o la s R d Jefferson Ave L o s A l a m o s R d 3 Project Location 4. Cumulative Impacts 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects Aesthetics The proposed project site and surrounding area contains mixed residential and other commercial land uses. There are no eligible or officially-designated scenic highways affected by the proposed Project. No scenic vistas have been identified within the proposed project area, per the City’s General Plan. The cumulative projects list includes residential, office, commercial and mixed-use developments north of the project in Murrieta, as well as commercial, office and mixed use developments in Temecula. Like the project, these projects would represent an orderly, contiguous, and planned extension of the urban limit of the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. They would not involve ‘leap-frog’ development that would isolate pockets of agricultural lands within urban development and would therefore help preserve the more rural vistas and mountain views that extend further into Riverside County. In addition, the project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with City codes and regulations and the Harveston Specific Plan Development Standards governing light and glare. Therefore, the cumulative development scenario would not result in significant impacts on scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Air Quality The project site is located within the Southern Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. Because the Basin is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7, the project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds. Additionally, because the project is consistent with the AQMP, the emissions from the project have been taken into account with respect to regional emissions and the ability for the Basin to meet the required attainment status. Thus, because the project’s individual air quality impacts are less than significant, and the project is consistent with the AQMP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 4-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts Biological Resources The project site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by residential and commercial development. There is additional undeveloped land to the south and east of the project site that may be developed for future build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan. Since the undeveloped land surrounding the site has been previously disturbed from grading and weed abatement activities, little to no native vegetation or natural soil profiles exist that could support any sensitive natural communities or any sensitive plant and wildlife resources, with the exception of burrowing owl. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, incidental take and conservation measures are already set in place to conserve the species and larger areas of suitable habitat, through participation (payment of the development fee) and demonstrating project compliance with the MSHCP. As such, the potential cumulative impact to burrowing owl through construction of the proposed project is considered less than significant. Additionally, the payment of the mitigation fee for SKR HCP would offset the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of habitat and ensure the preservation of large blocks of high quality natural habitat elsewhere within western Riverside County. For these reasons, the combined effects on these species would not be cumulatively significant. The project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on any other biological resources including Critical Habitat, jurisdictional waters/wetlands, wildlife corridors and linkages, and any local HCP. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Therefore the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative construction- and operational-related impacts resulting from the emissions of GHG is worldwide. Construction and operation of the project would incrementally contribute to GHG emissions along with past, present, and future activities, and the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of GHG emissions as analyzed in Section 3.3 of this SEIR represent the cumulative analysis. As discussed in detail in the Section 3.3, annual emissions of GHGs from project implementation is 987.08 MTCO2e. This would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold. Therefore, the increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Noise Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the project. As noise is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the project to Audi of Temecula 4-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts result in cumulative noise impacts. The cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 have the potential to generate construction and/or operational noise in the vicinity of the project site. Development of the project in combination with the related projects would result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise in the City. However, each of the related projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for various types of land uses in the City. In addition, the construction activities associated with all related projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the project. The nearest related project is located east of Jackson Avenue and north of Elm Street, over 3,000 feet northwest of the project site. Due to this distance, and along with the numerous intervening structures located between these two sites, a substantial increase in construction noise levels would not occur should construction for this related project occur at the same time as the proposed project. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. As such, the project’s contribution to construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. As discussed above, the nearest related project is located over 3,000 feet northwest of the project site. Due to this distance, and the rapid attenuation of groundborne vibration, the proposed project and this related project are not in close enough proximity to each other to affect the same sensitive receptors should construction for this related project occur at the same time as the project. Only receptors located in the immediate vicinity of each construction site would be potentially impacted by each development. Therefore, future development would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact in terms of groundborne vibration. As such, the project’s contribution to groundborne vibration would not be cumulatively considerable. The project and other cumulative projects would generate operational noise primarily by adding more traffic to the area. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 show the future cumulative traffic noise with the project, and the difference between it and cumulative traffic noise without the project. As depicted in these tables, no roadway segment associated with cumulative development would result in a significant noise increase; and the project’s incremental contribution to operational noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 4-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 4-2 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (WEEKDAY) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Ldna Existing Project Traffic Volumes Future Without Project Traffic Volumes Future With Project Traffic Volumes Increase Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? Project Contribution to Cumulative Increase Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.7 67.8 67.8 1.1 5.0 No 0 Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.5 67.6 67.6 1.1 5.0 No 0 Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Residential/ Commercial 61.5 62.5 62.6 1.1 5.0 No 0.1 Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Residential/ Commercial 61.5 62.2 62.3 0.8 5.0 No 0.1 Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Residential 61.9 62.5 62.7 0.8 5.0 No 0.2 Ynez Road, north of Date St. Residential 61.9 62.5 62.7 0.8 5.0 No 0.2 Ynez Road, south of Date St. Residential 62.8 63.2 63.3 0.5 5.0 No 0.1 Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Church/ Commercial/Office 71.5 71.8 72.0 0.3 5.0 No 0.2 Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Commercial 69.6 70.0 70.0 0.4 5.0 No 0 Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Residential 60.9 61.3 61.3 0.4 5.0 No 0 Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Commercial 73.6 73.4 73.3 0.3 5.0 No (0.1) Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Commercial 70.0 70.6 70.6 0.6 5.0 No 0 N/A = Non-applicable a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015 TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Audi of Temecula 4-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 4-3 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (WEEKEND) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Ldna Existing Project Traffic Volumes Future Without Project Traffic Volumes Future With Project Traffic Volumes Increase Significance Threshold Exceed Threshold? Project Contribution to Cumulative Increase Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.1 66.8 66.9 0.8 5.0 No 0.1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Residential/ Commercial 66.0 66.7 66.7 0.7 5.0 No 0 Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Residential/ Commercial 61.0 61.8 61.9 0.9 5.0 No 0.1 Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Residential/ Commercial 59.9 60.5 60.7 0.8 5.0 No 0.2 Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Residential 60.5 61.0 61.5 0.5 5.0 No 0.5 Ynez Road, north of Date St. Residential 60.5 61.1 61.5 1 5.0 No 0.4 Ynez Road, south of Date St. Residential 61.4 61.7 61.9 0.5 5.0 No 0.2 Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Church/ Commercial/Office 70.2 70.5 70.7 0.5 5.0 No 0.2 Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Commercial 69.3 69.5 69.5 0.2 5.0 No 0 Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Residential 59.4 59.7 59.8 0.4 5.0 No 0.1 Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Commercial 73.7 73.9 74.0 0.3 5.0 No 0.1 Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Commercial 70.3 70.5 70.6 0.3 5.0 No 0.2 a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. Calculations were prepared by ESA; data and results are provided in Appendix C. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. SOURCES: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015 TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Transportation and Traffic Year 2016 Baseline With Project and Cumulative Projects Roadway Segment Operations Year 2016 Baseline With Project and Cumulative Projects weekday and Saturday 24-hour roadway segment volumes and v/c ratios within the study area are shown on Figures 16A and 16B, respectively, in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR). All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios shown on these figures are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 16A and 16B Audi of Temecula 4-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts show that all study area roadway segments are operating at LOS D or better under the Existing With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. As previously discussed, the augmented capacity of this roadway that was not considered in the v/c analysis is anticipated to provide a minimum LOS D. Intersection Operations Table 4-4 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area intersections for Year 2016 Baseline With Project And Cumulative Projects weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 4-4 shows that all study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better.. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. TABLE 4-4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – YEAR 2016 BASELINE WITH PROJECT AND CUMLATIVE PROJECTS Study Intersection Control Weekday Weekend AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue/ Murrieta Hot Springs Signal 15.7 B 36.3 D 20.6 C 2. Ynez Road/ Waverly Lane Stop Sign 13.9 B 28.4 D 13.8 B 3. Ynez Road/ Date Street Signal 33.5 C 31.1 C 27.5 C 4. Ynez Road/ Winchester Road Signal 53.7 D 52.2 D 48.4 D 5. I-15 NB Ramps/ Winchester Road Signal 18.9 B 42.8 D 46.0 D 6. I-15 SB Ramps/ Winchester Road Signal 23.6 C 33.4 C 24.1 C SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply As discussed in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of the project would disturb surface soils and result in an increase in impervious surfaces and thus stormwater runoff. Compliance with existing stormwater regulations, mitigation measures adopted in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1 in this SEIR would result in a less than significant impact on the local drainage system. Cumulative projects could also contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Any proposed development in the watershed that is larger than one acre would similarly have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Audi of Temecula 4-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts permits and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. Cumulative projects could have general construction-related impacts on water quality in the project area if not managed appropriately. Construction activities at other project sites could also increase erosion and subsequent sedimentation. As with the project, all related projects are subject to the same federal regulations (Clean Water Act), state regulations (Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and local regulations (Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan) that protect water quality and water resources. These regulations include NPDES permit requirements, stormwater pollution prevention plans, and post-development stormwater quality and quantity requirements. All of these regulations are designed to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact. Therefore, despite the potential for the related projects to alter drainage patterns and runoff conditions, the adherence to the aforementioned requirements and implementation of LID drainage improvements would ensure that they do not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to sedimentation, flooding, water quality, drainage system capacity, flood hazard areas, failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. When considered in combination with other developments similarly bound by the same regulations, the project’s incremental contribution to water quality and quantity impacts, with proposed mitigation, would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula 4-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 CHAPTER 5 Alternatives Analysis 5.1 Introduction According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant environmental effects. This alternatives analysis summarizes the alternatives screening process conducted to identify feasible alternatives that meet project objectives. As required by CEQA, this analysis first considers which alternatives can meet most of the basic project objectives, and then to what extent those remaining alternatives can avoid or reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Information used to select an “environmentally superior alternative” is also provided in this chapter. 5.2 CEQA Requirements Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction on the required alternatives analysis: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. The alternatives may include a different type of project, modification of the proposed project, or suitable alternative project sites. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the project. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or could be more costly. Audi of Temecula 5-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance on the extent of alternatives analysis required: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the information the Lead Agency relied on when making the selection. It also should identify any alternatives considered but rejected as infeasible by the Lead Agency during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons for the exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the No Project Alternative must be addressed in this analysis. The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the potential consequences of the proposed project with the consequences that would occur without implementation of the proposed project. Finally, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative may be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative must also achieve the project objectives in order to be selected as the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among other alternatives. As identified in Section 2.2, Project Objectives of this SEIR, the objectives of the Audi of Temecula project include the following: The City’s project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant’s project objectives are: • To better serve the existing Audi customer base in the City. • To expand Audi’s market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. Audi of Temecula 5-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. 5.3 Review of Significant Environmental Impacts Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. As there are no significant impacts associated with the project, the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen any impacts identified in Chapter 3 of this EIR were analyzed, in addition to the ability to meet project objectives, and the feasibility of the alternatives. 5.4 Alternatives Not Evaluated in this EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is “remote and speculative” such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location.” While other similar-sized areas of land could be found, based on the known general conditions, allowed uses in the area, and the magnitude of the proposal, an alternative site in the area would likely have the same or similar impacts after mitigation as the project. In addition, an alternative location is beyond the control of the applicant and would be difficult to still proceed within a reasonably similar time frame for project completion. 5.5 Alternatives Selected for Consideration Three alternative scenarios, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, were selected for detailed analysis. They are: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative; Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative; and Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative. The goal for evaluating any of these alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project, while attaining most of the project objectives. The following discussion provides a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the project objectives, and a qualitative discussion of its environmental impacts as compared to the project. As provided in Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the significant effects of these Audi of Temecula 5-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis alternatives are identified in less detail than the analysis of the proposed project in Chapter 3 of this EIR. Table 5-1 compares the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives. Table 5-2 provides a side-by-side comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives to the impacts of the project. TABLE 5-1 ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project Objectives Alt. 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Alt. 2: Reduced Project Alternative Alt.3: Retail Use Alternative Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. No Yes Yes Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serves the needs of the City residents. No Yes Yes Create job growth for the local economy. No Yes Yes To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. No No No To maximize Audi’s market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. No No No To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. No Yes Yes TABLE 5-2 IMPACT SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Potential Project Impacts Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative 3: Retail Use Aesthetics Fewer Similar Increased Air Quality Fewer Fewer Increased GHG Emissions/ Climate Change Fewer Fewer Increased Noise Fewer Fewer Increased Biological Resources Fewer Similar Similar Traffic Fewer Fewer Increased Hydrology and Water Quality Fewer Fewer Increased Audi of Temecula 5-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Under this alternative, the project would not be built and the project site would remain in its existing, undeveloped condition. The site would continue to contain a temporary storm water siltation basin and non-native grasses and ruderal forbs on a previously graded lot. The following discusses the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, in comparison to the impacts of the project. Aesthetics The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Under the No Project Alternative, potential aesthetic changes relating to the replacement of existing site features would not occur. Alternative 1 would not result in the development of the site or increase in nighttime lighting from vehicles, buildings, landscape features, and signage associated with a new car dealership under the project. As a result, the project site would continue in its existing form with its visual and aesthetic character unchanged. Even though the aesthetic changes resulting from the project would not be considered significant impacts, the No Project Alternative’s impacts to aesthetics would be less as compared to the project because no change, such as increased nighttime lighting, would occur. Air Quality The project would have a less than significant direct and cumulative air quality impact from construction and operational activities. The No Project Alternative would not result in construction of the proposed new car dealership; as such, no construction- or operational-related air quality impacts would occur. As such, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts to air quality as compared to the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. Under the No Project Alternative, no development would occur on the site and no greenhouse gas emissions would be produced. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts to global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the project. Noise The project would have a less than significant direct and cumulative noise impact from construction and operational activities. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped, with no noise-generating sources would occur onsite. The No Project Alternative would not alter the current noise environment at the site and it would not result in exposing future populations or adjacent sensitive receptors to new noise sources. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is considered to have fewer noise impacts as compared to the project. Audi of Temecula 5-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis Biological Resources The project would have a less then significant impact on biological resources with the implementation of mitigation measures. Under the No Project Alternative, ground disturbance from development would not happen and, as such, no impacts to existing flora and fauna would occur. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts to biological resources as compared to the project. Traffic The project would have a less than significant impact on traffic with the implementation of mitigation measures. The No Project Alternative would not result in any of the traffic-related impacts associated with the project, as no construction activities would occur. Therefore, there would be no increase in short-term impacts related to truck trips or worker commute trips on the regional roadways as required by the project. Additionally, there would be no long-term traffic impacts due to the operation of the car dealership. Thus, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on traffic as compared to the project. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply The project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Under the No Project Alternative, no development of the site would occur, and, therefore, no impact to hydrology and water quality above those associated with the existing conditions. Alternative 1 would not use potable or recycled water. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer hydrology and water quality impact as compared to the project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, and would maintain current conditions, as no development would take place on the undeveloped lot. Plans for the development of the Harveston Specific Plan Service Commercial area would not be fulfilled. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Under this alternative, the project’s building square footage would be reduced by one-third from approximately 37,470 square feet to approximately 24,730 square feet. The project components would be similar to the project as proposed, but at a smaller scale. Due to the smaller scale of the project, it is anticipated this alternative would result in a shortened construction period, less construction equipment usage, and reduced vehicle trips to the site generated by employees and patrons. Therefore, this project alternative would result in the following reduced impacts: Aesthetics The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the building square footage would be reduced; however, building heights would likely remain the same as the project. The foreground, middle ground, and back ground views of the reduced building mass would likely have similar effects as compared to the project when viewed during the daylight hours. Nighttime lighting and glare effects would be reduced under Audi of Temecula 5-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis Alternative 2 because this Alternative would require less on-site lighting, due to the reduced project footprint. Additionally, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts with the use of “sharp cut-off” fixtures designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little-to-no glare. Light fixtures would be parallel with the finished grade of the project site, and landscaping would be utilized to shield glare from the project site. Overall, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 would result in fewer aesthetic impacts as compared to the project. Air Quality The project would result in a less than significant direct and cumulative impact on air quality, and significant unavoidable impacts from construction activities. Construction activities under Alternative 2 would also generate temporary air quality impacts; however these temporary impacts from on-site construction emissions (ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would be reduced due to reduced construction equipment usage and a shortened construction phase because of a 33 percent reduction in building size. This reduction is project size would result in less intensive grading, paving, and building and architectural coating activities than those under the proposed project. Similar to the project, operational emissions under Alternative 2 would be generated primarily from on-road vehicular traffic, area sources, and indirectly by the energy consumption of the buildings onsite. Operational air quality impacts under this alternative would be less than those under the project as this alternative would generate fewer operational emissions due to a decrease in building square footage, resulting in less mobile source emissions from employees and patrons. As such, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 would result in fewer construction and operational air quality impacts as compared to the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The project would result in a less that significant cumulative impact on global climate from greenhouse gas emissions. With implementation of Alternative 2, the project’s building square footage would be reduced by one-third. Thus, the project’s construction period would be reduced and equipment use would be for a shorter duration under Alternative 2. Temporary short-term construction pollutant emissions that would be generated under Alternative 2 would be slightly less than the proposed project. This decrease in building square footage would also result in less vehicular traffic to the project site by motor vehicle trips generated by employees and patrons of the dealership as compared to the project. As such, Alternative 2 would result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, less impact on climate change as compared to the project. Noise The project would result in less than significant impacts to noise. Alternative 2 would reduce the development by one-third which would result in a shorter construction period. The amount of construction equipment necessary would also be reduced. Therefore, less equipment and a shorter construction period would result in less noise exposure to the area. Alternative 2 would result in less operational noise from vehicular trips than the project because of less motor vehicle trips generated by employees and patrons of the dealership. When compared to the project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer noise-related impacts. Audi of Temecula 5-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis Biological Resources The project would result in a less than significant impact on biological resources. Alternative 2 would reduce the development by one-third; however, it is anticipated that under Alternative 2 the whole site would be graded to accommodate buildings, parking, infrastructure, and storm water treatment and conveyance. Therefore, biological impacts associated with Alternative 2 would likely be similar as compared to the project. Traffic The project would generate an estimated 1,227 average daily t trips (ADT) during the week and would have a less than significant impact on the surrounding circulation system. Alternative 2 would reduce the project’s development by 33 percent (approximately 12,740 square feet). This reduction in building square footage would reduce the number of permanent employees and visitors to the site; it is anticipated to result in reduced ADT made by employees and patrons to the site and thus fewer impacts to the circulation system as compared to the project. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply The project would result in a less than significant impact on hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Alternative 2 would have a reduced building footprint and would result in reduced impervious surfaces at build out. This would result in less surface runoff and related effects on hydrology and water quality when compared to the project. Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that it also did not have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar as compared to the project. It is also expected that a reduction in building square footage would also reduce the demand for potable water. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality, but fewer impacts to water supply as compared to the project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 2 would meet several of the project objectives; however by reducing the size of the facility it fails to meet these specific project objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi’s market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed as a commercial retail center comprised of a typical mix of uses found in such centers, such as sales offices, restaurants, banks and financial institutions; and permitted in the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. Using the target floor area ratio (FAR) in the Harveston Specific Plan for Service Commercial of 0.4 FAR, the building square feet of commercial under this alternative would more than double to approximately 78,400 square feet as compared to the project’s approximately 37,470 square feet. Audi of Temecula 5-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis Aesthetics The project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics. Alternative 3 would result in a commercial development with a greater building intensity than the proposed project. This increase would result in greater building mass and increased light and glare effects. This alternative would introduce additional sources of light and glare on the new buildings. However, it is anticipated the developer would employee the use of “sharp cut-off” fixtures designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little-to-no glare. Similar to the proposed project, light fixtures would be parallel with the finished grade of the project site, and landscaping would be utilized to shield glare from the project site. Overall, due to the increase in intensity Alternative 3 would have an increased effect on aesthetics as compared to the project. Air Quality The project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality Alternative 3 would likely have a longer construction period and, therefore, an increase in temporary air quality impacts from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. Similar to the proposed project, operational emissions under Alternative 3 would be generated primarily from on-road vehicular traffic, area sources, and indirectly by the energy consumption of the commercial building onsite. A more than doubling of building square feet under Alternative 3 over the project would increase employees and patronage to the site result in greater operational emissions as compared to the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The project would result in a less that significant cumulative impact on global climate from greenhouse gas emissions. With implementation of Alternative 3, the project’s building square feet would more than double. This increase in building area would increase employees and patronage to the site which would result in an increase in vehicular traffic, area source emissions, and energy use as compared to the project.. Area and indirect sources associated with the project would primarily result from increased electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water to and from the project site), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed on the project site would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. As such, Alternative 3 would result in greater greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, an increased impact on climate change as compared to the project. Noise The project would result in less than significant impacts to noise. Alternative 3 would increase the development density by more than 100 percent which would result in a longer construction period and, therefore, would expose the area to construction noise for a longer period. In addition, Audi of Temecula 5-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis operational noise from vehicular traffic would increase from the increased trips associated with a commercial retail center as compared to the project. When compared to the project, Alternative 3 would result in greater noise-related impacts. Biological Resources The project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. Under Alternative 3, a similar area of ground would be disturbed as the project. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be similar as compared to the project. Traffic The project would generate an estimated 1,227 ADT during the week and would have a less than significant impact on the surrounding circulation system. Alternative 3 would increase the project’s development by approximately 12,740 square feet. This increase in building square footage and the introduction of a commercial use would generate an estimated 3,348 ADT during the week, nearly three times the rate of the project. As such, Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to the circulation system as compared to the project. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply The project would result in a less then significant impact on hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Alternative 3 would have a larger building footprint likely resulting in more impervious surface at build out than the project. This would result in more surface runoff and related effects on hydrology and water quality when compared to the project. However, similar to the project, Alternative 3 would be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that it also did not have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar as compared to the project. It is also expected that an increase in building square footage would require greater demand for potable water than the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality, but greater impacts to water supply as compared to the project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 3 would meet several of the project objectives; however by developing a use on the site other than a new car dealership, it fails to meet these specific objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi’s market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Audi of Temecula 5-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis A summary comparison of the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives and potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the project is provided in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, above. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet certain project objectives identified in Section 5.5, above. Audi of Temecula 5-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 CHAPTER 6 Other CEQA Considerations This chapter presents the evaluation of other types of environmental impacts required by CEQA that are not covered within the other chapters of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Other CEQA considerations addressed in this chapter include significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. 6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Section 21100(b)(2)(B) 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. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with projects. Irretrievable commitments of these resources are required to be evaluated in an EIR to ensure that such consumption is justified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). Approval of the project would cause irreversible environmental changes consisting of the following: • Commitment of land that will be physically altered to create a commercial use. The relatively small commitment of land to this use (4.5 acres) is considered less than significant when compared to other development in a local and regional context, and the surrounding urban built environment. • Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process. The project, which represents a commitment of land to a commercial use, changes the undeveloped, open land currently occurring on the project site. The project is consistent with the adopted Harveston Specific Plan land use and zoning designations. • Increased requirements of public services and utilities for the project, which represents a permanent commitment of these resources. Service providers have indicated adequate supply of water to service the project and the ability to provide fire protection, police protection, emergency medical service, and solid waste and wastewater services. Audi of Temecula 6-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 6. Other CEQA Considerations • Use of various nonrenewable natural resources for project construction and operations, such as diesel, gasoline, or oil for construction equipment and natural gas or other fossil fuels used to provide power and heating sources to the proposed commercial use. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining the site may be considered a permanent investment. The project would not use nonrenewable fossil fuels at a greater rate than other typical specific plan projects. If this project were not to occur, similar resources would likely be used to develop the project site per the Harveston Specific Plan. The project would not increase the overall rate of use of any nonrenewable natural resource or result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource. • Use of various renewable natural resources, such as water, lumber, and soil, for potential construction and operations. The project is a relatively minor consumer of these supplies when compared to other local and regional users. The project’s use of reclaimed water for landscaping and car wash service would also reduce demand for potable water. The project would not increase the overall rate of use of any renewable natural resource or result in the substantial depletion of any renewable resource. 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), an EIR must describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. Chapter 3 of this SEIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, where feasible. As discussed in this Draft SEIR, implementation of the project would result in significant impacts to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Noise, and Hydrology/Water Quality and Water Supply. However, these impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Draft SEIR. Based upon the analysis in Chapter 3, there were no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Audi of Temecula 6-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2015 CHAPTER 7 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.1 Acronyms AB Assembly Bill AC acres ADT Average Daily Traffic AMSL above mean sea level AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code CalEPA Environmental Protection Agency CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFCs chlorofluorocarbons CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CHP California Highway Patrol City City of Temecula Cl Chlorine CMP Congestion Management Program CMS federal Congestion Management System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNPSEI California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California Audi of Temecula 7-1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2/yr tons of carbon dioxide per year CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibels dBA A-Weighted Decibels DHS California Department of Health Services DIF Developer Impact Fees DNL 24-hour Day and Night A-weighted Noise Exposure Level DPM diesel particulate matter DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FCAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIP Federal Implementation Plan FIRM FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FRAB Fire and Resource Assessment Program ft feet FTA Federal Transit Administration GCP General Construction Permit GHG Greenhouse Gases GISP General Industrial Storm Water Permit HAP hazardous air pollutant HCM2000 Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HCF hundred cubic feet HCM Highway Capacity Manual HFCs hydrofluorocarbons HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Hz Hertz I-15 Interstate 15 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Audi of Temecula 7-2 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers JRMP City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan L50 median sound level L90 noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time period LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LCP Local Coastal Program LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Ldn ambient noise level without project Leq equivalent sound level LF linear feet LID Low Impact Development Lmax Instantaneous maximum noise level LOS Level of Service LSM significant levels with mitigation MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPH miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MT metric tons MWD Metropolitan Water District N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Statements NB northbound NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS nonpoint source NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service O3 ozone ODOR Tastes and Odors PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pb lead PFCs perflourocarbons PM particulate matter Audi of Temecula 7-3 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity RAFSS Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategies RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan RCFC Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Committee RCWD Rancho California Water District RGO Retail Gasoline Outlets RIVTAM Riverside Traffic Analysis Model RMS root mean square ROC reactive organic compounds ROG reactive organic gases RTA Riverside Transportation Authority RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB southbound SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCH State Clearinghouse SCIC South Coastal Information Center SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SF6 sulfur hexafluoride sf square feet SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas SIP State Implementation Plan SKR Stephen’s kangaroo rat SKRHCP Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan SMRW Santa Margarita River Watershed SO2 Sulfur dioxide SO3 Sulfur trioxide SOx Sulfur oxide SWAP Southwest Area Plan Audi of Temecula 7-4 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers SWMP Storm Water Management Plan SWP State Water Project SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminants TDS Total Dissolved Solids TES Threatened and Endangered Species TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TLMA Transportation and Land Management Agency TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TPO Traffic Phasing Ordinance TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSF total square footage TTM Tentative Tract Map TUMF Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee TVRWRF EMWD’s Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility UBC Uniform Building Code µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio VOC Volatile organic compound VMT Vehicle miles traveled WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WHR Wildlife-habitat Relationship WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments WMND Western Municipal Water District Audi of Temecula 7-5 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.2 References Aesthetics City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. City of Temecula, 2003. Harveston Specific Plan, prepared by EDAW, Inc., Amended August 2003. Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October. CARB, 2013a. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm/. Accessed March 30, 2015. CARB, 2013b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last revised: June 4, 2013. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2015. CARB, 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2009 Edition. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac09.htm. CARB, 2004a. Proposed List of Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter – PM10 and PM2.5 (Implementation of Senate Bill 656, Sheer 2003). October 18. CARB, 2004b. 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas. July 22. City of Temecula, 2015. Temecula Municipal Code. Title 18.Construction, Grading and Encroachments Chapter 18.06 Grading Permit, Applications and Requirements. Section 18.06.33 Dust Control and Prevention Plan. May. Available at: http://www.qcode.us/codes/temecula/. City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Air Quality Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. City of Temecula, 2003. Harveston Specific Plan. September, 1999.Amended August 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015. SCAQMD, 2013a. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. February. Audi of Temecula 7-6 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers SCAQMD, 2013b, 2012, 2011. Historical Data By Year. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year. Accessed March 30, 2015. SCAQMD, 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009. SCAQMD, 2008a. Mates III Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study. September. Available at: http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. Accessed April, 2015. SCAQMD, 2008b. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July, 2008. SCAQMD, 2004. An Air Toxics Control Plan for the Next Ten Years. Published March 2000, updated March 2004. UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies (UCD ITS). 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol- Revised 1997. USD-ITS-RR-99-21. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/InfoSvcs/EngApps/software.htm. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2015. VA Consulting, Inc. 2015. Hoehn Audi Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula California. May. WeatherCurrents.com , 2015. Temecula, California All-Time Records, Archive, and Climate Information. Available at: http://weathercurrents.com/temecula/Archive.do. Accessed March 30, 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 2012 — by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014- 03-24.pdf. CARB, 2014b. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. February. CARB, 2010. Proposed SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Targets: Documentation of the Resulting Emission Reductions based on MPO Data, August 9, 2010. CARB, 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Published December 2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11, 2009.available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Audi of Temecula 7-7 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers CARB, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. City of Temecula, 2010. City of Temecula’s Sustainability Plan. June. City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Air Quality Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005.. City of Temecula, 2003. Harveston Specific Plan. September, 1999. Amended August 2003. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Last revised 2001. Available at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc%5Ftar/wg1/032.htm#f5. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2009. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #14. November 19. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg- significance-thresholds. Accessed March 30, 2015. SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October. VA Consulting, Inc. 2015. Hoehn Audi Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula California. June 2015. Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, CDFW, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed May 2015. County of Riverside. 2015. The Riverside County Land Information System. Map My County. Available at: http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public. Accessed on May 11, 2015. Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2014. Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report Proposed Audi Dealership, Temecula, CA. October 30, 2014. Hickman, J.C. (ed.), 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, CA. Holland, Robert F. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 1986. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Audi of Temecula 7-8 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015a. Audi of Temecula Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report. On File at ESA. ESA. 2015b. Audi of Temecula Focused Burrowing Owl Report. On File at ESA. ESA, 2008a. Fletcher Jones Temecula Mercedes Benz Dealership Biological Assessment/Conformance Report. On File at ESA. ESA. 2008b. Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2008011052. On File at ESA. Sawyer, John O. and Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society. United Sates of America. The Weather Channel, 2015. Average Weather for Temecula, CA. Available at: www.weather.com. Accessed May 12, 2015. County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2015. Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator. Available at: http://rctlma.org/Online-Services/rcip-report-generator. Accessed on May 8, 2015. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003a. County of Riverside. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), June 17, 2003. Available at: http://www.wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/mshcp_vol1.html. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2003b. Western Riverside County MSHCP. Understanding the Plants and Animals of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan. Species List. Noise California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September. Caltrans, 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. November. City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Noise Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. City of Temecula, 2008. Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2008011052. May. Cunniff, Patrick F. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution. May 4. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Audi of Temecula 7-9 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California Genera Plan Guidelines. October. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. December 31. VA Consulting. Inc.,2015. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, CA. June. Hydrology and Water Quality City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Public Safety Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. Hydrologic South Coast: Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Available at:http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/9-5.pdf , 2004. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County, Map No. 06065C2720G, August 28, 2008 Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 2007. Chapter IV: Groundwater Reports. Accessed at http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/PDFs/EastsideMe tropolitanBasins/Temecula-MurrietaBasin.pdf, September 2007. Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2015a. Water Supply Assessment for Altair Specific Plan, May 14, 2015. RCWDb, May 14, 2015 News Release, May 14, 2015. RBF Consulting. 2015a. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Audi Dealership, Temecula, April 2015. RBF Consulting. 2015b. Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Audi of Temecula, April 6, 2015. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). Basin Plan, 2011. Available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ , 2011. San Diego County, 2005. Santa Margarita River Watershed Urban Water Management Plan. March 2005. Available at: http://www.projectcleanwater.org/pdf/smg/smrwmp_3-10- 05.pdf, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Audi of Temecula 7-10 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency – City of Temecula Aaron Adams, City Manager Luke Watson, Interim Director of Community Development Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Jerry Gonzales, Associate Engineer Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Consultants to the Lead Agency Environmental Science Associates (EIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Jack Gorzeman, Senior Managing Associate Michelle Irace, Associate Planner Terrance Wong, Managing Associate Heather Dubois, Managing Associate Courtney Casey, Associate Eric Schniewind, Managing Associate Tommy Molioo, Senior Associate Laura Rocha, Managing Associate VA Consulting (Traffic) Keith Rutherfurd, V.P. Traffic Engineering Stan Ng, Senior Design Engineer Audi of Temecula 7-11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Audi of Temecula ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 APPENDIX A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Audi of Temecula ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 APPENDIX B Air Quality / GHG Analysis Worksheets CalEEMod Inputs that are not modeling defaults: Project Location: County Riverside ‐ SCAQMD Climate Zone: 10 Operational Year:2016 Utility Company:Southern California Edison Land Use Type: Retail Automotive Care Center 37,468 square feet 37.468 Ksf 4.5 acres Phase Starte Date End Date # Days Days/week Grading 1/8/2016 2/25/2016 42 6 Paving 2/6/2016 3/17/2016 18 6 Building Construction 3/18/2616 8/19/2016 133 6 Architectural Coating 8/20/2016 9/9/2016 18 6 Grading Maximum daily acres of disturbance:1 acres (Based on CalEEMod) Staging area onsite or offsite? Onsite Total soil to be excavated:3,000 cubic yards How much soil imported:0 cubic yards How much soil exported:0 cubic yards Equipment: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance Excavators 1 8 162 0.38 0 Graders 1 8 174 0.41 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 255 0.4 0.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 0 Hoehn Audi of Temecula Assumptions * Because the exact construction schedule is unknown the most conservative schedule was used for modeling. 1 Number of days is based on the project having a 5 day work week. CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION Construction timeline uses default phase durations within the CalEEMod scaled to project duration Equipment used represents CalEEMod Defaults. Per the Municipal Code, construction activities associated with the project would not be allowed to occur between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, and would only be allowed between 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. Further, no construction activity is allowed to occur on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays (Section 9.20.060 of the City’s Municipal Code). While it is anticipated that Paving will overlap with building construction and in addition architectural coating will overlap with building construction, for the ease of modeling the phases were modeled consecutively. Hoehn Audi of Temecula Assumptions 1 Asphalt Paving: How many acres to be paved? 3.89 Equipment: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6 9 0.56 0 Pavers 1 8 125 0.42 0 Paving Equipment 2 6 130 0.36 0 Rollers 2 6 80 0.38 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 0 Building Construction: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance Cranes 1 7 226 0.29 0 Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 0 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 0 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 0 Arcitectural Coating: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance air compressor 1 6 78 0.48 0 Operational Mobile Sources Trip Rate: Retail 32.300 trips/DU1 weekday 29.740 Saturday1 29.740 Sunday3 37.468 Ksf 1,227 daily trips 1,130 Water Use: 1,270 gallons/day Potable water* All indoor usage as outdoor usage would be recycled 463,550 gallons/year * As a worst case used defaults in CalEEMod to account for recycled water use. "Mitigation" Measures applied to make project consistent with existing regulation requirements and achievements. Construction: To achieve SCAQMD standard dust control minimum requiremnts: Soil Stabilizers (69% reduction) Replace ground cover (5% reduction) Water exposed area (4x per day) (Anticipated for increased wind activities.) Unpaved roads (15 mph) Traffic Included as part of trip rate Area: Use of only Natural Gas Hearths Energy: Water: 20% reduction in indoor water use to account for 2013 Title 24 requirements. 3 Sunday rates are based on the ratio of project specific weekday trips to CalEEMod Defaults for weekday trips. Hoehn Audi of Temecula Assumptions PROJECT OPERATIONAL INFORMATION 1 Trips Rates based on the project specific traffic study which used a building square footage of 38,000 square foot building. Source: VA Consulting Inc. Hoehn Audi Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula, CA May 2015. 15% exceedence of Title 24 to account for the Title 24 efficiencey increase between 2008 (CalEEMod default usage) and 2013 regulations currently in effect. Unmitigated Construction Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Onsite (including Fugitive)52.01 46.85 31.07 0.05 3.07 2.87 Offsite 0.93 2.10 16.63 0.04 3.74 1.01 Total 52.94 48.95 47.70 0.09 6.81 3.88 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant No No No No No No *Columns may not add due to rounding. Mitigated Construction None Required Hoehn Audi of Temecula Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions Pollutant Daily (lbs/day) Unmitigated Emissions Source NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 2016 38.45 26.08 4.47 3.25 SCAQMD Thresholds 460 4850 67 20 Significant No No No No Source: ESA CalEEMod Modeling March2015 Mitigated Construction None Required Hoehn Audi of Temecula Localized Significance Pollutant Daily (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 2016 Total 52.94 48.95 47.70 0.09 6.81 3.88 Fugitive ----0.00 0.00 Onsite 52.01 46.85 31.07 0.05 3.07 2.87 Offsite Grading Fugitive ‐‐‐‐2.2686 1.2305 Onsite 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 2.98E‐02 2.1984 2.0225 Offsite 0.0548 0.0723 0.733 1.84E‐03 1.69E‐01 0.0454 Paving Fugitive ‐‐‐‐ Onsite 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 1.86E‐02 1.1065 1.0198 Offsite 0.3217 0.4241 4.3007 1.08E‐02 0.9898 0.2665 Building Construction Onsite 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 2.68E‐02 1.9674 1.8485 Offsite 0.927 1.6729 12.327 3.06E‐02 2.747 0.7467 Architectural Coating Onsite 48.6085 2.3722 1.8839 2.97E‐03 0.1966 0.1966 Offsite 7.31E‐06 9.64E‐03 0.0977 2.40E‐04 0.0225 6.60E‐03 Added Mobile Emissions for LSTs ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Grading 5.74E‐03 1.54E‐03 Building Architectural Coating Hoehn Audi of Temecula Construction Output From CalEEMod By Phase lbs/day Winter 2016 Additionally, to account for the combustion emissions associated with vehicles traveling on-site within the Project site during construction, a separate CalEEMod model run was performed where the one-way travel distance for the worker vehicles and vendor and haul trucks were modified to 0.1 miles. Winter MAX ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 2016 Total 52.99 48.84 50.20 0.09 6.81 3.88 Fugitive ----0.00 0.00 Onsite 52.01 46.85 31.07 0.05 3.07 2.87 Offsite Grading Fugitive ‐‐‐‐2.2686 1.2305 Onsite 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 2.98E‐02 2.1984 2.0225 Offsite 0.0575 0.0679 0.8507 2.01E‐03 0.1687 0.0454 Paving Fugitive ‐‐‐‐ Onsite 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 1.86E‐02 1.1065 1.0198 Offsite 0.3372 0.3982 4.9905 1.18E‐02 0.9898 0.2664 Building Construction Onsite 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 2.68E‐02 1.9674 1.8485 Offsite 0.9663 1.5894 14.1378 3.35E‐02 2.7469 0.7446 Architectural Coating Onsite 48.6085 2.3722 1.8839 2.97E‐03 0.1966 0.1966 Offsite 7.66E‐03 9.05E‐03 0.1134 2.70E‐04 0.0225 6.63E‐03 Hoehn Audi of Temecula Construction Output From CalEEMod By Phase lbs/day Summer Summer MAX 2016 Unmitigated Operations Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Area 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.03 0.31 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 Mobile 3.78 7.21 27.86 0.49 3.53 1.00 Total 4.79 7.52 28.12 0.49 3.55 1.02 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant No No No No No No Source: ESA CalEEMod Modeling March, 2015 Mitigated Operations (Mitigation Not Required) Pollutant Hoehn Audi of Temecula Criteria Pollutant Operational Emissions Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Unmitigated Emissions Source NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project 0.95 1.82 0.21 0.09 SCAQMD Thresholds 521 5641 18 6 Significant No No No No Source: ESA CalEEMod Modeling May 2015 Mitigated Operations None Required Trip % Miles Total Miles H‐W 40.2 14.7 590.94 H‐S 19.2 5.9 113.28 H‐O 40.6 8.7 353.22 Total 100 1057.44 overall average per trip 10.5744 average per trip. onsite travel 0.25 % overall average onsite 2.36% Hoehn Audi of Temecula Operational Localized Significance *LST emissions are only associated with onsite emissions. LST calculations assume a 0.5 mile (conservative) onsite travel distance). Pollutant Daily (lbs/day) Proposed Operational ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.03 0.31 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 Mobile 3.71 7.21 27.86 0.49 3.53 1.00 Total 4.73 7.52 28.12 0.49 3.55 1.02 Area 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.03 0.31 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 Mobile 3.78 6.96 27.80 0.05 3.53 1.00 Total 4.79 7.28 28.06 0.05 3.55 1.02 LST ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 0.64 1.55 0.19 0.07 521 5,641 18 6 LST fraction Miles % Total Miles Average CW 16.6 33 547.8 CC 8.4 48 403.2 CNW 6.9 19 131.1 1082.1 10.821 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 lbs/mile 0.666213843 2.574235283 0.32582941 0.0924406 onsite trip 0.5 miles 0.333106922 1.287117642 0.1629147 0.0462203 lbs/day Winter Unmitigated lbs/day Summer Unmitigated Hoehn Audi of Temecula Operational CalEEMod Raw Information Project Characteristics - Land Use - Based on project description Construction Phase - Based on a 9 month construction schedule and a 42 day grading period. Trips and VMT - Based on a peak daily worker estimate of 164 workers (or 328 one way trips) Vehicle Trips - Based on project specific traffic study Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Based on SCAQMD Rule 403 Energy Mitigation - Upgrade from 2008 Title 24 to 2013 Title 24 Water Mitigation - Consistent with 2013 Title 24 Off-road Equipment - Default equipment decreased to one dozer and 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes because site is currently vacant with small patches of scrub. There will be limited site preperation activities. Off-road Equipment - Riverside-South Coast County, Winter Audi of Temecula - Unmitigated 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Automobile Care Center 37.47 1000sqft 4.50 37,468.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 1 of 20 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 142.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 42.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/20/2016 9/9/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/31/2016 8/20/2016 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 21.00 4.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 37,470.00 37,468.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.86 4.50 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 88.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 12.00 240.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 62.00 29.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 62.00 29.74 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 62.00 32.30 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 2 of 20 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2016 52.9490 38.5189 32.8153 0.0607 6.2908 2.1995 8.4902 3.3656 2.0697 5.3891 0.0000 5,530.253 8 5,530.253 8 0.9404 0.0000 5,550.001 7 Total 52.9490 38.5189 32.8153 0.0607 6.2908 2.1995 8.4902 3.3656 2.0697 5.3891 0.0000 5,530.253 8 5,530.253 8 0.9404 0.0000 5,550.001 7 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2016 52.9490 38.5189 32.8153 0.0607 2.7427 2.1995 4.9335 1.2750 2.0697 3.2984 0.0000 5,530.253 8 5,530.253 8 0.9404 0.0000 5,550.001 7 Total 52.9490 38.5189 32.8153 0.0607 2.7427 2.1995 4.9335 1.2750 2.0697 3.2984 0.0000 5,530.253 8 5,530.253 8 0.9404 0.0000 5,550.001 7 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.40 0.00 41.89 62.12 0.00 38.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 3 of 20 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Energy 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 Mobile 3.7110 7.2091 27.8558 0.0491 3.4348 0.0910 3.5258 0.9166 0.0836 1.0003 4,309.866 8 4,309.866 8 0.1652 4,313.334 9 Total 4.7280 7.5442 28.1411 0.0511 3.4348 0.1165 3.5513 0.9166 0.1091 1.0258 4,711.908 7 4,711.908 7 0.1729 7.3700e- 003 4,717.824 1 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Energy 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 Mobile 3.7110 7.2091 27.8558 0.0491 3.4348 0.0910 3.5258 0.9166 0.0836 1.0003 4,309.866 8 4,309.866 8 0.1652 4,313.334 9 Total 4.7253 7.5198 28.1207 0.0510 3.4348 0.1146 3.5494 0.9166 0.1073 1.0239 4,682.634 8 4,682.634 8 0.1723 6.8300e- 003 4,688.372 0 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 4 of 20 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 1/8/2016 2/25/2016 6 42 2 Paving Paving 2/26/2016 3/17/2016 6 18 3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/18/2016 8/30/2016 6 142 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/20/2016 9/9/2016 6 18 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.06 0.32 0.07 0.29 0.00 1.59 0.05 0.00 1.70 0.18 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.33 7.33 0.62 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 56,202; Non-Residential Outdoor: 18,734 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 5 of 20 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 88.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 240.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 6 of 20 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1231 0.0000 6.1231 3.3211 0.0000 3.3211 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 6.1231 2.1984 8.3215 3.3211 2.0225 5.3437 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 7 of 20 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0548 0.0723 0.7330 1.8400e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 152.0980 152.0980 7.1800e- 003 152.2488 Total 0.0548 0.0723 0.7330 1.8400e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 152.0980 152.0980 7.1800e- 003 152.2488 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.2686 0.0000 2.2686 1.2305 0.0000 1.2305 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 0.0000 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.2686 2.1984 4.4670 1.2305 2.0225 3.2530 0.0000 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 8 of 20 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0548 0.0723 0.7330 1.8400e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 152.0980 152.0980 7.1800e- 003 152.2488 Total 0.0548 0.0723 0.7330 1.8400e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 152.0980 152.0980 7.1800e- 003 152.2488 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 9 of 20 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.3217 0.4241 4.3001 0.0108 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 892.3085 892.3085 0.0421 893.1929 Total 0.3217 0.4241 4.3001 0.0108 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 892.3085 892.3085 0.0421 893.1929 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 0.0000 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 0.0000 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 10 of 20 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.3217 0.4241 4.3001 0.0108 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 892.3085 892.3085 0.0421 893.1929 Total 0.3217 0.4241 4.3001 0.0108 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 892.3085 892.3085 0.0421 893.1929 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Total 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 11 of 20 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0497 0.5161 0.5995 1.2500e- 003 0.0378 9.8600e- 003 0.0476 0.0108 9.0700e- 003 0.0199 125.6710 125.6710 8.5000e- 004 125.6889 Worker 0.8773 1.1567 11.7276 0.0294 2.6826 0.0168 2.6994 0.7115 0.0154 0.7269 2,433.568 6 2,433.568 6 0.1149 2,435.980 6 Total 0.9270 1.6729 12.3270 0.0306 2.7204 0.0266 2.7470 0.7222 0.0245 0.7467 2,559.239 6 2,559.239 6 0.1157 2,561.669 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 0.0000 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Total 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 0.0000 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 12 of 20 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0497 0.5161 0.5995 1.2500e- 003 0.0378 9.8600e- 003 0.0476 0.0108 9.0700e- 003 0.0199 125.6710 125.6710 8.5000e- 004 125.6889 Worker 0.8773 1.1567 11.7276 0.0294 2.6826 0.0168 2.6994 0.7115 0.0154 0.7269 2,433.568 6 2,433.568 6 0.1149 2,435.980 6 Total 0.9270 1.6729 12.3270 0.0306 2.7204 0.0266 2.7470 0.7222 0.0245 0.7467 2,559.239 6 2,559.239 6 0.1157 2,561.669 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 48.2401 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 48.6085 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 13 of 20 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 7.3100e- 003 9.6400e- 003 0.0977 2.4000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 20.2797 20.2797 9.6000e- 004 20.2998 Total 7.3100e- 003 9.6400e- 003 0.0977 2.4000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 20.2797 20.2797 9.6000e- 004 20.2998 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 48.2401 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 48.6085 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 14 of 20 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.7110 7.2091 27.8558 0.0491 3.4348 0.0910 3.5258 0.9166 0.0836 1.0003 4,309.866 8 4,309.866 8 0.1652 4,313.334 9 Unmitigated 3.7110 7.2091 27.8558 0.0491 3.4348 0.0910 3.5258 0.9166 0.0836 1.0003 4,309.866 8 4,309.866 8 0.1652 4,313.334 9 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 7.3100e- 003 9.6400e- 003 0.0977 2.4000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 20.2797 20.2797 9.6000e- 004 20.2998 Total 7.3100e- 003 9.6400e- 003 0.0977 2.4000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 20.2797 20.2797 9.6000e- 004 20.2998 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 15 of 20 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Automobile Care Center 1,210.28 1,114.36 1114.36 1,584,522 1,584,522 Total 1,210.28 1,114.36 1,114.36 1,584,522 1,584,522 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-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Automobile Care Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 21 51 28 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.462438 0.069856 0.176572 0.170752 0.045136 0.007399 0.012745 0.042494 0.000970 0.001060 0.006446 0.000893 0.003237 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 16 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Automobile Care Center 3417.29 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 Total 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 17 of 20 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Unmitigated 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Automobile Care Center 3.16846 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 Total 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 18 of 20 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7419 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Total 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7419 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Total 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 19 of 20 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Apply Water Conservation Strategy 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:17 PMPage 20 of 20 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Based on project description Construction Phase - Based on a 9 month construction schedule and a 42 day grading period. Trips and VMT - Based on a peak daily worker estimate of 164 workers (or 328 one way trips) Vehicle Trips - Based on project specific traffic study Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Based on SCAQMD Rule 403 Energy Mitigation - Upgrade from 2008 Title 24 to 2013 Title 24 Water Mitigation - Consistent with 2013 Title 24 Off-road Equipment - Default equipment decreased to one dozer and 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes because site is currently vacant with small patches of scrub. There will be limited site preperation activities. Off-road Equipment - Riverside-South Coast County, Summer Audi of Temecula - Unmitigated 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Automobile Care Center 37.47 1000sqft 4.50 37,468.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 1 of 20 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 142.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 42.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/20/2016 9/9/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/31/2016 8/20/2016 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 21.00 4.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 37,470.00 37,468.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.86 4.50 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 88.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 12.00 240.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 62.00 29.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 62.00 29.74 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 62.00 32.30 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 2 of 20 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2016 52.9887 38.5145 34.6418 0.0635 6.2908 2.1995 8.4902 3.3656 2.0696 5.3891 0.0000 5,762.690 1 5,762.690 1 0.9404 0.0000 5,782.438 0 Total 52.9887 38.5145 34.6418 0.0635 6.2908 2.1995 8.4902 3.3656 2.0696 5.3891 0.0000 5,762.690 1 5,762.690 1 0.9404 0.0000 5,782.438 0 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2016 52.9887 38.5145 34.6418 0.0635 2.7427 2.1995 4.9334 1.2750 2.0696 3.2984 0.0000 5,762.690 1 5,762.690 1 0.9404 0.0000 5,782.437 9 Total 52.9887 38.5145 34.6418 0.0635 2.7427 2.1995 4.9334 1.2750 2.0696 3.2984 0.0000 5,762.690 1 5,762.690 1 0.9404 0.0000 5,782.437 9 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.40 0.00 41.89 62.12 0.00 38.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 3 of 20 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Energy 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 Mobile 3.7788 6.9644 27.7970 0.0526 3.4348 0.0901 3.5250 0.9166 0.0829 0.9995 4,602.180 0 4,602.180 0 0.1647 4,605.639 7 Total 4.7958 7.2994 28.0823 0.0546 3.4348 0.1156 3.5504 0.9166 0.1083 1.0250 5,004.222 0 5,004.222 0 0.1725 7.3700e- 003 5,010.128 8 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Energy 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 Mobile 3.7788 6.9644 27.7970 0.0526 3.4348 0.0901 3.5250 0.9166 0.0829 0.9995 4,602.180 0 4,602.180 0 0.1647 4,605.639 7 Total 4.7932 7.2750 28.0619 0.0545 3.4348 0.1138 3.5486 0.9166 0.1065 1.0231 4,974.948 0 4,974.948 0 0.1719 6.8300e- 003 4,980.676 7 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 4 of 20 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 1/8/2016 2/25/2016 6 42 2 Paving Paving 2/26/2016 3/17/2016 6 18 3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/18/2016 8/30/2016 6 142 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/20/2016 9/9/2016 6 18 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.06 0.33 0.07 0.27 0.00 1.60 0.05 0.00 1.71 0.18 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.33 7.33 0.59 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 56,202; Non-Residential Outdoor: 18,734 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 5 of 20 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 88.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 240.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 6 of 20 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1231 0.0000 6.1231 3.3211 0.0000 3.3211 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 6.1231 2.1984 8.3215 3.3211 2.0225 5.3437 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 7 of 20 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0575 0.0679 0.8507 2.0100e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 166.4372 166.4372 7.1800e- 003 166.5880 Total 0.0575 0.0679 0.8507 2.0100e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 166.4372 166.4372 7.1800e- 003 166.5880 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.2686 0.0000 2.2686 1.2305 0.0000 1.2305 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.1984 2.1984 2.0225 2.0225 0.0000 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Total 3.6669 38.4466 26.0787 0.0298 2.2686 2.1984 4.4670 1.2305 2.0225 3.2530 0.0000 3,093.788 9 3,093.788 9 0.9332 3,113.386 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 8 of 20 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0575 0.0679 0.8507 2.0100e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 166.4372 166.4372 7.1800e- 003 166.5880 Total 0.0575 0.0679 0.8507 2.0100e- 003 0.1677 1.0500e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e- 004 0.0454 166.4372 166.4372 7.1800e- 003 166.5880 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 9 of 20 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.3372 0.3982 4.9905 0.0118 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 976.4318 976.4318 0.0421 977.3162 Total 0.3372 0.3982 4.9905 0.0118 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 976.4318 976.4318 0.0421 977.3162 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 0.0000 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7956 18.3417 12.5623 0.0186 1.1065 1.1065 1.0198 1.0198 0.0000 1,902.221 2 1,902.221 2 0.5588 1,913.955 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 10 of 20 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.3372 0.3982 4.9905 0.0118 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 976.4318 976.4318 0.0421 977.3162 Total 0.3372 0.3982 4.9905 0.0118 0.9836 6.1500e- 003 0.9898 0.2609 5.6500e- 003 0.2665 976.4318 976.4318 0.0421 977.3162 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Total 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 11 of 20 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0467 0.5035 0.5272 1.2600e- 003 0.0378 9.7700e- 003 0.0475 0.0108 8.9900e- 003 0.0198 126.7681 126.7681 8.2000e- 004 126.7854 Worker 0.9196 1.0859 13.6105 0.0322 2.6826 0.0168 2.6994 0.7115 0.0154 0.7269 2,662.995 9 2,662.995 9 0.1149 2,665.407 9 Total 0.9663 1.5894 14.1378 0.0335 2.7204 0.0265 2.7469 0.7222 0.0244 0.7466 2,789.764 0 2,789.764 0 0.1157 2,792.193 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 0.0000 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Total 3.4062 28.5063 18.5066 0.0268 1.9674 1.9674 1.8485 1.8485 0.0000 2,669.286 4 2,669.286 4 0.6620 2,683.189 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 12 of 20 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 0.0467 0.5035 0.5272 1.2600e- 003 0.0378 9.7700e- 003 0.0475 0.0108 8.9900e- 003 0.0198 126.7681 126.7681 8.2000e- 004 126.7854 Worker 0.9196 1.0859 13.6105 0.0322 2.6826 0.0168 2.6994 0.7115 0.0154 0.7269 2,662.995 9 2,662.995 9 0.1149 2,665.407 9 Total 0.9663 1.5894 14.1378 0.0335 2.7204 0.0265 2.7469 0.7222 0.0244 0.7466 2,789.764 0 2,789.764 0 0.1157 2,792.193 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 48.2401 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 48.6085 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 13 of 20 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 7.6600e- 003 9.0500e- 003 0.1134 2.7000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 22.1916 22.1916 9.6000e- 004 22.2117 Total 7.6600e- 003 9.0500e- 003 0.1134 2.7000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 22.1916 22.1916 9.6000e- 004 22.2117 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 48.2401 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Total 48.6085 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e- 003 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 14 of 20 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.7788 6.9644 27.7970 0.0526 3.4348 0.0901 3.5250 0.9166 0.0829 0.9995 4,602.180 0 4,602.180 0 0.1647 4,605.639 7 Unmitigated 3.7788 6.9644 27.7970 0.0526 3.4348 0.0901 3.5250 0.9166 0.0829 0.9995 4,602.180 0 4,602.180 0 0.1647 4,605.639 7 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 7.6600e- 003 9.0500e- 003 0.1134 2.7000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 22.1916 22.1916 9.6000e- 004 22.2117 Total 7.6600e- 003 9.0500e- 003 0.1134 2.7000e- 004 0.0224 1.4000e- 004 0.0225 5.9300e- 003 1.3000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 22.1916 22.1916 9.6000e- 004 22.2117 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 15 of 20 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Automobile Care Center 1,210.28 1,114.36 1114.36 1,584,522 1,584,522 Total 1,210.28 1,114.36 1,114.36 1,584,522 1,584,522 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-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Automobile Care Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 21 51 28 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.462438 0.069856 0.176572 0.170752 0.045136 0.007399 0.012745 0.042494 0.000970 0.001060 0.006446 0.000893 0.003237 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 16 of 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Automobile Care Center 3417.29 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 Total 0.0369 0.3350 0.2814 2.0100e- 003 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 402.0338 402.0338 7.7100e- 003 7.3700e- 003 404.4805 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 17 of 20 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Unmitigated 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Automobile Care Center 3.16846 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 Total 0.0342 0.3106 0.2609 1.8600e- 003 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 372.7598 372.7598 7.1400e- 003 6.8300e- 003 375.0284 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 18 of 20 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7419 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Total 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.2379 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7419 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Total 0.9802 4.0000e- 005 3.9200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 003 8.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 19 of 20 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Apply Water Conservation Strategy 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:22 PMPage 20 of 20 CalEEMod Inputs that are not modeling defaults: Project Location: County Riverside ‐ SCAQMD Climate Zone: 10 Operational Year:2016 Utility Company:Southern California Edison Land Use Type: Retail Automotive Care Center 37,468 square feet 37.468 Ksf 4.5 acres Phase Starte Date End Date # Days Days/week Grading 1/8/2016 2/25/2016 42 6 Paving 2/6/2016 3/17/2016 18 6 Building Construction 3/18/2616 8/19/2016 133 6 Architectural Coating 8/20/2016 9/9/2016 18 6 Grading Maximum daily acres of disturbance:1 acres (Based on CalEEMod) Staging area onsite or offsite? Onsite Total soil to be excavated:3,000 cubic yards How much soil imported:0 cubic yards How much soil exported:0 cubic yards Equipment: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance Excavators 1 8 162 0.38 0 Graders 1 8 174 0.41 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 255 0.4 0.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 0 Hoehn Audi of Temecula Assumptions * Because the exact construction schedule is unknown the most conservative schedule was used for modeling. 1 Number of days is based on the project having a 5 day work week. CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION Construction timeline uses default phase durations within the CalEEMod scaled to project duration Equipment used represents CalEEMod Defaults. Per the Municipal Code, construction activities associated with the project would not be allowed to occur between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, and would only be allowed between 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. Further, no construction activity is allowed to occur on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays (Section 9.20.060 of the City’s Municipal Code). While it is anticipated that Paving will overlap with building construction and in addition architectural coating will overlap with building construction, for the ease of modeling the phases were modeled consecutively. Hoehn Audi of Temecula Assumptions 1 Asphalt Paving: How many acres to be paved? 3.89 Equipment: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6 9 0.56 0 Pavers 1 8 125 0.42 0 Paving Equipment 2 6 130 0.36 0 Rollers 2 6 80 0.38 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 0 Building Construction: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance Cranes 1 7 226 0.29 0 Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 0 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 0 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 0 Arcitectural Coating: Equipment piece #/day Hrs HP LF Acres disturbance air compressor 1 6 78 0.48 0 Operational Mobile Sources Trip Rate: Retail 32.300 trips/DU1 weekday 29.740 Saturday1 29.740 Sunday3 37.468 Ksf 1,227 daily trips 1,130 Water Use: 1,270 gallons/day Potable water* All indoor usage as outdoor usage would be recycled 463,550 gallons/year * As a worst case used defaults in CalEEMod to account for recycled water use. "Mitigation" Measures applied to make project consistent with existing regulation requirements and achievements. Construction: To achieve SCAQMD standard dust control minimum requiremnts: Soil Stabilizers (69% reduction) Replace ground cover (5% reduction) Water exposed area (4x per day) (Anticipated for increased wind activities.) Unpaved roads (15 mph) Traffic Included as part of trip rate Area: Use of only Natural Gas Hearths Energy: Water: 20% reduction in indoor water use to account for 2013 Title 24 requirements. 3 Sunday rates are based on the ratio of project specific weekday trips to CalEEMod Defaults for weekday trips. Hoehn Audi of Temecula Assumptions PROJECT OPERATIONAL INFORMATION 1 Trips Rates based on the project specific traffic study which used a building square footage of 38,000 square foot building. Source: VA Consulting Inc. Hoehn Audi Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula, CA May 2015. 15% exceedence of Title 24 to account for the Title 24 efficiencey increase between 2008 (CalEEMod default usage) and 2013 regulations currently in effect. Unmitigate GHG Construction Emissions CO2 CH4 CH4 (CO2e)N2O N2O (CO2e)CO2e 2016 426.21 0.07 1.83 0.00 0.00 428.04 Total Project:428.04 Amortized Emissions:14.27 Hoehn Audi of Temecula GHG Summary Emissions Hoehn Audi of Temecula GHG Summary Emissions Unmitigated GHG Emissions CO2 CH4 CH4 (CO2e)N2O N2O (CO2e)CO2e Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 176.08 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.66 176.90 Mobile 702.34 0.03 0.67 0.00 0.00 703.00 Waste 29.06 1.72 42.93 0.00 0.00 71.99 Water 17.91 0.09 2.32 0.00 0.69 20.92 Sub Total 972.81 Amoritized Construction 14.27 Operational Emissions 972.81 Total Project Emissions 987.08 SCAQMD Brightline Threshold 3,000 Significant No Source: ESA CalEEMod modeling 2015 Mitigation:None Required MT/year Annual Unmitigated Project Characteristics - Land Use - Based on project description Construction Phase - Based on a 9 month construction schedule and a 42 day grading period. Trips and VMT - Based on a peak daily worker estimate of 164 workers (or 328 one way trips) Vehicle Trips - Based on project specific traffic study Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Based on SCAQMD Rule 403 Energy Mitigation - Upgrade from 2008 Title 24 to 2013 Title 24 Water Mitigation - Consistent with 2013 Title 24 Off-road Equipment - Default equipment decreased to one dozer and 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes because site is currently vacant with small patches of scrub. There will be limited site preperation activities. Off-road Equipment - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual Audi of Temecula - Unmitigated 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Automobile Care Center 37.47 1000sqft 4.50 37,468.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 1 of 25 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 142.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 42.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/20/2016 9/9/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/31/2016 8/20/2016 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 21.00 4.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 37,470.00 37,468.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.86 4.50 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 20.00 88.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 12.00 240.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 62.00 29.74 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 62.00 29.74 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 62.00 32.30 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 2 of 25 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2016 0.8384 3.1464 2.9554 5.0700e- 003 0.3309 0.1995 0.5304 0.1235 0.1865 0.3100 0.0000 426.2062 426.2062 0.0732 0.0000 427.7432 Total 0.8384 3.1464 2.9554 5.0700e- 003 0.3309 0.1995 0.5304 0.1235 0.1865 0.3100 0.0000 426.2062 426.2062 0.0732 0.0000 427.7432 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2016 0.8384 3.1464 2.9554 5.0700e- 003 0.2499 0.1995 0.4495 0.0796 0.1865 0.2661 0.0000 426.2059 426.2059 0.0732 0.0000 427.7429 Total 0.8384 3.1464 2.9554 5.0700e- 003 0.2499 0.1995 0.4495 0.0796 0.1865 0.2661 0.0000 426.2059 426.2059 0.0732 0.0000 427.7429 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.46 0.00 15.26 35.55 0.00 14.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 3 of 25 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1789 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Energy 6.7300e- 003 0.0611 0.0514 3.7000e- 004 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 0.0000 185.2549 185.2549 6.7300e- 003 2.3500e- 003 186.1245 Mobile 0.6224 1.3105 5.1080 8.8300e- 003 0.6009 0.0161 0.6170 0.1606 0.0148 0.1754 0.0000 702.3351 702.3351 0.0266 0.0000 702.8933 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0561 0.0000 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1184 20.0049 21.1233 0.1158 2.9000e- 003 24.4546 Total 0.8080 1.3716 5.1599 9.2000e- 003 0.6009 0.0207 0.6217 0.1606 0.0194 0.1800 30.1745 907.5958 937.7703 1.8663 5.2500e- 003 978.5900 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 4 of 25 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1789 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Energy 6.2400e- 003 0.0567 0.0476 3.4000e- 004 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 0.0000 176.0819 176.0819 6.4400e- 003 2.2200e- 003 176.9050 Mobile 0.6224 1.3105 5.1080 8.8300e- 003 0.6009 0.0161 0.6170 0.1606 0.0148 0.1754 0.0000 702.3351 702.3351 0.0266 0.0000 702.8933 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0561 0.0000 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8947 17.0130 17.9077 0.0927 2.3300e- 003 20.5768 Total 0.8075 1.3671 5.1561 9.1700e- 003 0.6009 0.0204 0.6213 0.1606 0.0191 0.1797 29.9508 895.4309 925.3818 1.8429 4.5500e- 003 965.4927 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.06 0.32 0.07 0.33 0.00 1.64 0.05 0.00 1.75 0.19 0.74 1.34 1.32 1.25 13.33 1.34 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 5 of 25 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 1/8/2016 2/25/2016 6 42 2 Paving Paving 2/26/2016 3/17/2016 6 18 3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/18/2016 8/30/2016 6 142 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/20/2016 9/9/2016 6 18 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 56,202; Non-Residential Outdoor: 18,734 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 6 of 25 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 88.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 240.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 7 of 25 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1286 0.0000 0.1286 0.0697 0.0000 0.0697 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0770 0.8074 0.5477 6.2000e- 004 0.0462 0.0462 0.0425 0.0425 0.0000 58.9394 58.9394 0.0178 0.0000 59.3127 Total 0.0770 0.8074 0.5477 6.2000e- 004 0.1286 0.0462 0.1748 0.0697 0.0425 0.1122 0.0000 58.9394 58.9394 0.0178 0.0000 59.3127 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 8 of 25 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 1.0800e- 003 1.5800e- 003 0.0160 4.0000e- 005 3.4600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.4800e- 003 9.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9371 2.9371 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9400 Total 1.0800e- 003 1.5800e- 003 0.0160 4.0000e- 005 3.4600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.4800e- 003 9.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9371 2.9371 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9400 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0476 0.0000 0.0476 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0770 0.8074 0.5477 6.2000e- 004 0.0462 0.0462 0.0425 0.0425 0.0000 58.9393 58.9393 0.0178 0.0000 59.3127 Total 0.0770 0.8074 0.5477 6.2000e- 004 0.0476 0.0462 0.0938 0.0258 0.0425 0.0683 0.0000 58.9393 58.9393 0.0178 0.0000 59.3127 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 9 of 25 3.2 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 1.0800e- 003 1.5800e- 003 0.0160 4.0000e- 005 3.4600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.4800e- 003 9.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9371 2.9371 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9400 Total 1.0800e- 003 1.5800e- 003 0.0160 4.0000e- 005 3.4600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.4800e- 003 9.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9371 2.9371 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.9400 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0162 0.1651 0.1131 1.7000e- 004 9.9600e- 003 9.9600e- 003 9.1800e- 003 9.1800e- 003 0.0000 15.5310 15.5310 4.5600e- 003 0.0000 15.6268 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0162 0.1651 0.1131 1.7000e- 004 9.9600e- 003 9.9600e- 003 9.1800e- 003 9.1800e- 003 0.0000 15.5310 15.5310 4.5600e- 003 0.0000 15.6268 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 10 of 25 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 2.7200e- 003 3.9800e- 003 0.0401 1.0000e- 004 8.7100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.7600e- 003 2.3100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3847 7.3847 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.3920 Total 2.7200e- 003 3.9800e- 003 0.0401 1.0000e- 004 8.7100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.7600e- 003 2.3100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3847 7.3847 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.3920 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0162 0.1651 0.1131 1.7000e- 004 9.9600e- 003 9.9600e- 003 9.1800e- 003 9.1800e- 003 0.0000 15.5310 15.5310 4.5600e- 003 0.0000 15.6268 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0162 0.1651 0.1131 1.7000e- 004 9.9600e- 003 9.9600e- 003 9.1800e- 003 9.1800e- 003 0.0000 15.5310 15.5310 4.5600e- 003 0.0000 15.6268 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 11 of 25 3.3 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 2.7200e- 003 3.9800e- 003 0.0401 1.0000e- 004 8.7100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.7600e- 003 2.3100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3847 7.3847 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.3920 Total 2.7200e- 003 3.9800e- 003 0.0401 1.0000e- 004 8.7100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.7600e- 003 2.3100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3847 7.3847 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.3920 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2418 2.0240 1.3140 1.9000e- 003 0.1397 0.1397 0.1312 0.1312 0.0000 171.9291 171.9291 0.0426 0.0000 172.8245 Total 0.2418 2.0240 1.3140 1.9000e- 003 0.1397 0.1397 0.1312 0.1312 0.0000 171.9291 171.9291 0.0426 0.0000 172.8245 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 12 of 25 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 3.4900e- 003 0.0374 0.0437 9.0000e- 005 2.6400e- 003 7.0000e- 004 3.3400e- 003 7.6000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 003 0.0000 8.1355 8.1355 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.1366 Worker 0.0586 0.0856 0.8631 2.1200e- 003 0.1873 1.1900e- 003 0.1885 0.0497 1.0900e- 003 0.0508 0.0000 158.8837 158.8837 7.4000e- 003 0.0000 159.0390 Total 0.0621 0.1230 0.9068 2.2100e- 003 0.1899 1.8900e- 003 0.1918 0.0505 1.7300e- 003 0.0522 0.0000 167.0191 167.0191 7.4500e- 003 0.0000 167.1756 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2418 2.0240 1.3140 1.9000e- 003 0.1397 0.1397 0.1312 0.1312 0.0000 171.9288 171.9288 0.0426 0.0000 172.8243 Total 0.2418 2.0240 1.3140 1.9000e- 003 0.1397 0.1397 0.1312 0.1312 0.0000 171.9288 171.9288 0.0426 0.0000 172.8243 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 13 of 25 3.4 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 3.4900e- 003 0.0374 0.0437 9.0000e- 005 2.6400e- 003 7.0000e- 004 3.3400e- 003 7.6000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 003 0.0000 8.1355 8.1355 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.1366 Worker 0.0586 0.0856 0.8631 2.1200e- 003 0.1873 1.1900e- 003 0.1885 0.0497 1.0900e- 003 0.0508 0.0000 158.8837 158.8837 7.4000e- 003 0.0000 159.0390 Total 0.0621 0.1230 0.9068 2.2100e- 003 0.1899 1.8900e- 003 0.1918 0.0505 1.7300e- 003 0.0522 0.0000 167.0191 167.0191 7.4500e- 003 0.0000 167.1756 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.4342 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.3200e- 003 0.0214 0.0170 3.0000e- 005 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.3036 Total 0.4375 0.0214 0.0170 3.0000e- 005 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.3036 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 14 of 25 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 6.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1678 0.1678 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1680 Total 6.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1678 0.1678 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1680 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.4342 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.3200e- 003 0.0214 0.0170 3.0000e- 005 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.3036 Total 0.4375 0.0214 0.0170 3.0000e- 005 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.3036 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 15 of 25 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.6224 1.3105 5.1080 8.8300e- 003 0.6009 0.0161 0.6170 0.1606 0.0148 0.1754 0.0000 702.3351 702.3351 0.0266 0.0000 702.8933 Unmitigated 0.6224 1.3105 5.1080 8.8300e- 003 0.6009 0.0161 0.6170 0.1606 0.0148 0.1754 0.0000 702.3351 702.3351 0.0266 0.0000 702.8933 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 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 6.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1678 0.1678 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1680 Total 6.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1678 0.1678 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1680 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 16 of 25 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Automobile Care Center 1,210.28 1,114.36 1114.36 1,584,522 1,584,522 Total 1,210.28 1,114.36 1,114.36 1,584,522 1,584,522 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-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Automobile Care Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 21 51 28 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.462438 0.069856 0.176572 0.170752 0.045136 0.007399 0.012745 0.042494 0.000970 0.001060 0.006446 0.000893 0.003237 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 17 of 25 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 114.3673 114.3673 5.2600e- 003 1.0900e- 003 114.8149 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 118.6937 118.6937 5.4600e- 003 1.1300e- 003 119.1582 NaturalGas Mitigated 6.2400e- 003 0.0567 0.0476 3.4000e- 004 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 0.0000 61.7146 61.7146 1.1800e- 003 1.1300e- 003 62.0902 NaturalGas Unmitigated 6.7300e- 003 0.0611 0.0514 3.7000e- 004 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 0.0000 66.5612 66.5612 1.2800e- 003 1.2200e- 003 66.9663 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Automobile Care Center 1.24731e +006 6.7300e- 003 0.0611 0.0514 3.7000e- 004 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 0.0000 66.5612 66.5612 1.2800e- 003 1.2200e- 003 66.9663 Total 6.7300e- 003 0.0611 0.0514 3.7000e- 004 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 4.6500e- 003 0.0000 66.5612 66.5612 1.2800e- 003 1.2200e- 003 66.9663 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 18 of 25 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Automobile Care Center 1.15649e +006 6.2400e- 003 0.0567 0.0476 3.4000e- 004 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 0.0000 61.7146 61.7146 1.1800e- 003 1.1300e- 003 62.0902 Total 6.2400e- 003 0.0567 0.0476 3.4000e- 004 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 4.3100e- 003 0.0000 61.7146 61.7146 1.1800e- 003 1.1300e- 003 62.0902 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Automobile Care Center 414771 118.6937 5.4600e- 003 1.1300e- 003 119.1582 Total 118.6937 5.4600e- 003 1.1300e- 003 119.1582 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 19 of 25 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.1789 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Unmitigated 0.1789 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Automobile Care Center 399652 114.3673 5.2600e- 003 1.0900e- 003 114.8149 Total 114.3673 5.2600e- 003 1.0900e- 003 114.8149 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 20 of 25 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0434 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1354 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Total 0.1789 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0434 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1354 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Total 0.1789 0.0000 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 21 of 25 Apply Water Conservation Strategy 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 17.9077 0.0927 2.3300e- 003 20.5768 Unmitigated 21.1233 0.1158 2.9000e- 003 24.4546 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Automobile Care Center 3.52522 / 2.16062 21.1233 0.1158 2.9000e- 003 24.4546 Total 21.1233 0.1158 2.9000e- 003 24.4546 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 22 of 25 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Automobile Care Center 2.82018 / 2.16062 17.9077 0.0927 2.3300e- 003 20.5768 Total 17.9077 0.0927 2.3300e- 003 20.5768 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Unmitigated 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 23 of 25 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Automobile Care Center 143.14 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Total 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Automobile Care Center 143.14 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Total 29.0561 1.7172 0.0000 65.1167 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 24 of 25 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 5/29/2015 12:23 PMPage 25 of 25 Audi of Temecula ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 APPENDIX C Noise Analysis Worksheets Su m m a r y Fi l e Na m e Lx T _ D a t a . 0 0 8 Se r i a l Nu m b e r 00 0 4 1 6 1 Mo d e l So u n d T r a c k Lx T ® Fi r m w a r e Ve r s i o n 2. 3 0 1 Us e r Lo c a t i o n Jo b De s c r i p t i o n No t e Me a s u r e m e n t De s c r i p t i o n 15 Mi n u t e Lo g g i n g St a r t 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 2 0 : 4 0 St o p 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 3 5 : 4 0 Du r a t i o n 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Ru n Ti m e 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Pa u s e 0: 0 0 : 0 0 . 0 Pr e Ca l i b r a t i o n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 1 7 : 3 6 Po s t Ca l i b r a t i o n No n e Ca l i b r a t i o n De v i a t i o n ‐‐ ‐ Ov e r a l l Se t t i n g s RM S We i g h t A We i g h t i n g Pe a k We i g h t Z We i g h t i n g De t e c t o r Sl o w Pr e a m p PR M L x T 1 Mi c r o p h o n e Co r r e c t i o n Of f In t e g r a t i o n Me t h o d Ex p o n e n i t a l Ov e r l o a d 14 5 . 0 d B AC Z Un d e r Ra n g e Pe a k 10 1 . 2 9 8 . 2 10 3 . 2 dB Un d e r Ra n g e Li m i t 37 . 6 35 . 6 4 3 . 6 d B No i s e Fl o o r 24 . 7 2 5 . 2 3 2 . 8 d B Re s u l t s LA S e q 63 . 3 d B LA S E 92 . 8 d B EA S 21 1 . 4 1 8 µ P a ² h EA S 8 6. 7 6 5 m P a ² h EA S 4 0 33 . 8 2 7 m P a ² h LZ S p e a k (m a x ) 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 2 1 : 2 4 1 1 0 . 5 d B LA S m a x 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 2 8 : 3 1 8 0 . 8 d B LA S m i n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 2 7 : 3 0 5 0 . 3 d B SE A ‐99 . 9 dB LA S > 11 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LA S > 12 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 7 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 14 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LC S e q 72 . 7 d B LA S e q 63 . 3 d B LC S e q ‐ LA S e q 9. 5 d B LA I e q 66 . 9 d B LA e q 63 . 2 d B LA I e q ‐ LA e q 3. 6 d B # Ov e r l o a d s 0 Ov e r l o a d Du r a t i o n 0. 0 s Do s e Se t t i n g s Do s e Na m e OS H A ‐1 O S H A ‐2 Ex c h a n g e Ra t e 33 d B Th r e s h o l d 90 80 d B Cr i t e r i o n Le v e l 90 90 d B Cr i t e r i o n Du r a t i o n 88 h Re s u l t s Do s e 0. 0 1 0 . 0 1 % Pr o j e c t e d Do s e 0. 2 1 0 . 2 1 % TW A (P r o j e c t e d ) 63 . 3 6 3 . 3 d B TW A (t ) 48 . 2 4 8 . 2 d B Le p (t ) 48 . 2 4 8 . 2 d B St a t i s t i c s LA S 5 . 0 0 68 . 5 d B LA S 1 0 . 0 0 66 . 3 d B LA S 5 0 . 0 0 58 . 9 d B LA S 9 0 . 0 0 53 . 7 d B LA S 9 5 . 0 0 52 . 5 d B LA S 9 9 . 0 0 50 . 9 d B Su m m a r y Fi l e Na m e Lx T _ D a t a . 0 0 9 Se r i a l Nu m b e r 00 0 4 1 6 1 Mo d e l So u n d T r a c k Lx T ® Fi r m w a r e Ve r s i o n 2. 3 0 1 Us e r Lo c a t i o n Jo b De s c r i p t i o n No t e Me a s u r e m e n t De s c r i p t i o n 15 Mi n u t e Lo g g i n g St a r t 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 3 8 : 3 6 St o p 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 5 3 : 3 6 Du r a t i o n 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Ru n Ti m e 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Pa u s e 0: 0 0 : 0 0 . 0 Pr e Ca l i b r a t i o n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 1 7 : 3 2 Po s t Ca l i b r a t i o n No n e Ca l i b r a t i o n De v i a t i o n ‐‐ ‐ Ov e r a l l Se t t i n g s RM S We i g h t A We i g h t i n g Pe a k We i g h t Z We i g h t i n g De t e c t o r Sl o w Pr e a m p PR M L x T 1 Mi c r o p h o n e Co r r e c t i o n Of f In t e g r a t i o n Me t h o d Ex p o n e n i t a l Ov e r l o a d 14 5 . 0 d B AC Z Un d e r Ra n g e Pe a k 10 1 . 2 9 8 . 2 10 3 . 2 dB Un d e r Ra n g e Li m i t 37 . 6 35 . 6 4 3 . 6 d B No i s e Fl o o r 24 . 7 2 5 . 2 3 2 . 8 d B Re s u l t s LA S e q 61 . 3 d B LA S E 90 . 8 d B EA S 13 4 . 5 6 7 µ P a ² h EA S 8 4. 3 0 6 m P a ² h EA S 4 0 21 . 5 3 1 m P a ² h LZ S p e a k (m a x ) 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 5 2 : 2 0 1 0 3 . 1 d B LA S m a x 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 4 4 : 5 6 7 8 . 5 d B LA S m i n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 4 1 : 5 1 5 0 . 0 d B SE A ‐99 . 9 dB LA S > 11 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LA S > 12 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 7 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 14 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LC S e q 72 . 3 d B LA S e q 61 . 3 d B LC S e q ‐ LA S e q 11 . 0 d B LA I e q 63 . 2 d B LA e q 61 . 3 d B LA I e q ‐ LA e q 1. 9 d B # Ov e r l o a d s 0 Ov e r l o a d Du r a t i o n 0. 0 s Do s e Se t t i n g s Do s e Na m e OS H A ‐1 O S H A ‐2 Ex c h a n g e Ra t e 33 d B Th r e s h o l d 90 80 d B Cr i t e r i o n Le v e l 90 90 d B Cr i t e r i o n Du r a t i o n 88 h Re s u l t s Do s e 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 % Pr o j e c t e d Do s e 0. 1 3 0 . 1 3 % TW A (P r o j e c t e d ) 61 . 3 6 1 . 3 d B TW A (t ) 46 . 2 4 6 . 2 d B Le p (t ) 46 . 2 4 6 . 2 d B St a t i s t i c s LA S 5 . 0 0 66 . 8 d B LA S 1 0 . 0 0 64 . 0 d B LA S 5 0 . 0 0 57 . 7 d B LA S 9 0 . 0 0 53 . 4 d B LA S 9 5 . 0 0 52 . 2 d B LA S 9 9 . 0 0 50 . 9 d B Su m m a r y Fi l e Na m e Lx T _ D a t a . 0 1 0 Se r i a l Nu m b e r 00 0 4 1 6 1 Mo d e l So u n d T r a c k Lx T ® Fi r m w a r e Ve r s i o n 2. 3 0 1 Us e r Lo c a t i o n Jo b De s c r i p t i o n No t e Me a s u r e m e n t De s c r i p t i o n 15 Mi n u t e Lo g g i n g St a r t 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 0 4 : 1 4 St o p 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 1 9 : 1 4 Du r a t i o n 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Ru n Ti m e 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Pa u s e 0: 0 0 : 0 0 . 0 Pr e Ca l i b r a t i o n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 1 7 : 3 2 Po s t Ca l i b r a t i o n No n e Ca l i b r a t i o n De v i a t i o n ‐‐ ‐ Ov e r a l l Se t t i n g s RM S We i g h t A We i g h t i n g Pe a k We i g h t Z We i g h t i n g De t e c t o r Sl o w Pr e a m p PR M L x T 1 Mi c r o p h o n e Co r r e c t i o n Of f In t e g r a t i o n Me t h o d Ex p o n e n i t a l Ov e r l o a d 14 5 . 0 d B AC Z Un d e r Ra n g e Pe a k 10 1 . 2 9 8 . 2 10 3 . 2 dB Un d e r Ra n g e Li m i t 37 . 6 35 . 6 4 3 . 6 d B No i s e Fl o o r 24 . 7 2 5 . 2 3 2 . 8 d B Re s u l t s LA S e q 59 . 2 d B LA S E 88 . 7 d B EA S 82 . 2 7 9 µ P a ² h EA S 8 2. 6 3 3 m P a ² h EA S 4 0 13 . 1 6 5 m P a ² h LZ S p e a k (m a x ) 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 1 9 : 0 5 1 0 3 . 7 d B LA S m a x 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 0 9 : 1 4 6 4 . 4 d B LA S m i n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 0 7 : 3 4 5 3 . 1 d B SE A ‐99 . 9 dB LA S > 11 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LA S > 12 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 7 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 14 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LC S e q 68 . 7 d B LA S e q 59 . 2 d B LC S e q ‐ LA S e q 9. 6 d B LA I e q 60 . 2 d B LA e q 59 . 2 d B LA I e q ‐ LA e q 1. 1 d B # Ov e r l o a d s 0 Ov e r l o a d Du r a t i o n 0. 0 s Do s e Se t t i n g s Do s e Na m e OS H A ‐1 O S H A ‐2 Ex c h a n g e Ra t e 33 d B Th r e s h o l d 90 80 d B Cr i t e r i o n Le v e l 90 90 d B Cr i t e r i o n Du r a t i o n 88 h Re s u l t s Do s e 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 % Pr o j e c t e d Do s e 0. 0 8 0 . 0 8 % TW A (P r o j e c t e d ) 59 . 2 5 9 . 2 d B TW A (t ) 44 . 1 4 4 . 1 d B Le p (t ) 44 . 1 4 4 . 1 d B St a t i s t i c s LA S 5 . 0 0 62 . 1 d B LA S 1 0 . 0 0 61 . 2 d B LA S 5 0 . 0 0 58 . 8 d B LA S 9 0 . 0 0 56 . 6 d B LA S 9 5 . 0 0 55 . 5 d B LA S 9 9 . 0 0 54 . 2 d B Su m m a r y Fi l e Na m e Lx T _ D a t a . 0 1 1 Se r i a l Nu m b e r 00 0 4 1 6 1 Mo d e l So u n d T r a c k Lx T ® Fi r m w a r e Ve r s i o n 2. 3 0 1 Us e r Lo c a t i o n Jo b De s c r i p t i o n No t e Me a s u r e m e n t De s c r i p t i o n 15 Mi n u t e Lo g g i n g St a r t 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 4 1 : 0 7 St o p 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 5 6 : 0 7 Du r a t i o n 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Ru n Ti m e 0: 1 5 : 0 0 . 0 Pa u s e 0: 0 0 : 0 0 . 0 Pr e Ca l i b r a t i o n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 10 : 1 7 : 3 2 Po s t Ca l i b r a t i o n No n e Ca l i b r a t i o n De v i a t i o n ‐‐ ‐ Ov e r a l l Se t t i n g s RM S We i g h t A We i g h t i n g Pe a k We i g h t Z We i g h t i n g De t e c t o r Sl o w Pr e a m p PR M L x T 1 Mi c r o p h o n e Co r r e c t i o n Of f In t e g r a t i o n Me t h o d Ex p o n e n i t a l Ov e r l o a d 14 5 . 0 d B AC Z Un d e r Ra n g e Pe a k 10 1 . 2 9 8 . 2 10 3 . 2 dB Un d e r Ra n g e Li m i t 37 . 6 35 . 6 4 3 . 6 d B No i s e Fl o o r 24 . 7 2 5 . 2 3 2 . 8 d B Re s u l t s LA S e q 59 . 0 d B LA S E 88 . 5 d B EA S 78 . 8 7 2 µ P a ² h EA S 8 2. 5 2 4 m P a ² h EA S 4 0 12 . 6 1 9 m P a ² h LZ S p e a k (m a x ) 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 4 1 : 2 1 1 1 4 . 4 d B LA S m a x 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 4 1 : 0 7 7 8 . 9 d B LA S m i n 20 1 5 ‐05 ‐12 11 : 5 4 : 2 6 5 3 . 7 d B SE A ‐99 . 9 dB LA S > 11 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LA S > 12 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 5 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 13 7 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LZ S p e a k > 14 0 . 0 dB (E x c e e d a n c e Co u n t s / Du r a t i o n ) 0 0. 0 s LC S e q 71 . 5 d B LA S e q 59 . 0 d B LC S e q ‐ LA S e q 12 . 5 d B LA I e q 63 . 3 d B LA e q 58 . 6 d B LA I e q ‐ LA e q 4. 7 d B # Ov e r l o a d s 0 Ov e r l o a d Du r a t i o n 0. 0 s Do s e Se t t i n g s Do s e Na m e OS H A ‐1 O S H A ‐2 Ex c h a n g e Ra t e 33 d B Th r e s h o l d 90 80 d B Cr i t e r i o n Le v e l 90 90 d B Cr i t e r i o n Du r a t i o n 88 h Re s u l t s Do s e 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 % Pr o j e c t e d Do s e 0. 0 8 0 . 0 8 % TW A (P r o j e c t e d ) 59 . 0 5 9 . 0 d B TW A (t ) 43 . 9 4 3 . 9 d B Le p (t ) 43 . 9 4 3 . 9 d B St a t i s t i c s LA S 5 . 0 0 61 . 8 d B LA S 1 0 . 0 0 60 . 0 d B LA S 5 0 . 0 0 57 . 2 d B LA S 9 0 . 0 0 55 . 4 d B LA S 9 5 . 0 0 55 . 1 d B LA S 9 9 . 0 0 54 . 3 d B OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Name: Audi of Temecula Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Existing Weekday Conditions Source of Traffic Volumes: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Community Noise Descriptor:Ldn: X CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph)Receptor1 Factor dB(A)Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Existing Weekday Traffic Conditions Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 41,770 45 80 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.7 East of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 38,780 45 78 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.5 Jackson Avenue South of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.Residential/Commercial 6 7 0 10,130 45 67 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.5 Ynez Road North of Waverly Ln. Residential/Commercial 4 13 0 11,390 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.5 South of Waverly Ln. Residential 4 13 0 12,430 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.9 North of Date St. Residential 4 13 0 12,420 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.9 South of Date St. Residential 4 16 0 17,680 45 79 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.8 North of Winchester Rd.Church/Commercial/Office 4 13 0 20,990 45 45 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 71.5 South of Winchester Rd. Commercial 9 5 0 33,170 35 71 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.6 Date Street East of Ynez Rd. Residential 4 20 0 12,620 50 111 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.9 Windchester Road West of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 52,740 40 67 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 73.6 East of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 41,480 40 93 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.0 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the nearest receptor location property line. Existing Noise Levels - Weekday.xls ESA 6/3/2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Name: Audi of Temecula Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Existing Plus Project Weekday Conditions Source of Traffic Volumes: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Community Noise Descriptor:Ldn: X CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph)Receptor1 Factor dB(A)Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Existing Plus Project Weekday Traffic Conditions Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 41,970 45 80 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.7 East of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 38,880 45 78 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.5 Jackson Avenue South of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.Residential/Commercial 6 7 0 10,430 45 67 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.6 Ynez Road North of Waverly Ln. Residential/Commercial 4 13 0 11,690 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.6 South of Waverly Ln. Residential 4 13 0 13,080 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.1 North of Date St. Residential 4 13 0 13,070 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.1 South of Date St. Residential 4 16 0 18,230 45 79 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.9 North of Winchester Rd.Church/Commercial/Office 4 13 0 21,540 45 45 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 71.6 South of Winchester Rd. Commercial 9 5 0 33,220 35 71 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.6 Date Street East of Ynez Rd. Residential 4 20 0 12,720 50 111 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 Windchester Road West of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 53,140 40 67 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 73.6 East of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 41,580 40 93 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.0 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the nearest receptor location property line. Existing Plus Project Noise Levels - Weekday.xls ESA 6/3/2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Name: Audi of Temecula Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Future With Project Weekday Conditions Source of Traffic Volumes: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Community Noise Descriptor:Ldn: X CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph)Receptor1 Factor dB(A)Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Future With Project Weekday Traffic Conditions Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 54,230 45 80 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.8 East of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 49,610 45 78 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 67.6 Jackson Avenue South of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.Residential/Commercial 6 7 0 13,080 45 67 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.6 Ynez Road North of Waverly Ln. Residential/Commercial 4 13 0 13,570 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.3 South of Waverly Ln. Residential 4 13 0 14,980 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.7 North of Date St. Residential 4 13 0 14,860 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 62.7 South of Date St. Residential 4 16 0 19,870 45 79 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 63.3 North of Winchester Rd.Church/Commercial/Office 4 13 0 23,220 45 45 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 72.0 South of Winchester Rd. Commercial 9 5 0 36,480 35 71 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.0 Date Street East of Ynez Rd. Residential 4 20 0 13,850 50 111 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.3 Windchester Road West of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 61,610 40 67 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 74.3 East of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 47,410 40 93 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.6 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the nearest receptor location property line. Future With Project Noise Levels - Weekday.xls ESA 6/3/2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Name: Audi of Temecula Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Existing Weekend Conditions Source of Traffic Volumes: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Community Noise Descriptor:Ldn: X CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph)Receptor1 Factor dB(A)Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Existing Weekend Traffic Conditions Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 36,140 45 80 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.1 East of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 34,180 45 78 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.0 Jackson Avenue South of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.Residential/Commercial 6 7 0 9,080 45 67 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 Ynez Road North of Waverly Ln. Residential/Commercial 4 13 0 7,840 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.9 South of Waverly Ln. Residential 4 13 0 9,010 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.5 North of Date St. Residential 4 13 0 9,010 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.5 South of Date St. Residential 4 16 0 12,660 45 79 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.4 North of Winchester Rd.Church/Commercial/Office 4 13 0 15,650 45 45 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.2 South of Winchester Rd. Commercial 9 5 0 31,190 35 71 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.3 Date Street East of Ynez Rd. Residential 4 20 0 8,850 50 111 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.4 Windchester Road West of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 53,560 40 67 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 73.7 East of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 44,000 40 93 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.3 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the nearest receptor location property line. Existing Noise Levels - Weekend.xls ESA 6/3/2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Name: Audi of Temecula Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Existing Plus Project Weekend Conditions Source of Traffic Volumes: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Community Noise Descriptor:Ldn: X CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph)Receptor1 Factor dB(A)Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Existing Plus Project Weekend Traffic Conditions Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 36,440 45 80 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.1 East of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 34,340 45 78 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.0 Jackson Avenue South of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.Residential/Commercial 6 7 0 9,540 45 67 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.2 Ynez Road North of Waverly Ln. Residential/Commercial 4 13 0 8,300 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.2 South of Waverly Ln. Residential 4 13 0 10,010 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 North of Date St. Residential 4 13 0 10,010 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.0 South of Date St. Residential 4 16 0 13,500 45 79 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.6 North of Winchester Rd.Church/Commercial/Office 4 13 0 16,490 45 45 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.5 South of Winchester Rd. Commercial 9 5 0 31,270 35 71 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.3 Date Street East of Ynez Rd. Residential 4 20 0 9,010 50 111 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.5 Windchester Road West of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 54,160 40 67 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 73.7 East of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 44,160 40 93 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.3 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the nearest receptor location property line. Existing Plus Project Noise Levels - Weekend.xls ESA 6/3/2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Project Name: Audi of Temecula Background Information Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Analysis Scenario(s): Future With Project Weekend Conditions Source of Traffic Volumes: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Community Noise Descriptor:Ldn: X CNEL: Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Traffic Noise Levels Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hou 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph)Receptor1 Factor dB(A)Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Future With Project Weekend Traffic Conditions Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 43,540 45 80 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.9 East of Jackson Ave. Residential/Commercial 6 10 0 40,480 45 78 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 66.7 Jackson Avenue South of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.Residential/Commercial 6 7 0 11,260 45 67 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.9 Ynez Road North of Waverly Ln. Residential/Commercial 4 13 0 9,470 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 60.7 South of Waverly Ln. Residential 4 13 0 11,200 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.5 North of Date St. Residential 4 13 0 11,220 45 69 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.5 South of Date St. Residential 4 16 0 14,460 45 79 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 61.9 North of Winchester Rd.Church/Commercial/Office 4 13 0 17,370 45 45 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.7 South of Winchester Rd. Commercial 9 5 0 32,700 35 71 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 69.5 Date Street East of Ynez Rd. Residential 4 20 0 9,680 50 111 0 -5 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 59.8 Windchester Road West of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 57,530 40 67 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 74.0 East of Ynez Rd. Commercial 8 18 0 46,780 40 93 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 0.0 70.6 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the nearest receptor location property line. Future With Project Noise Levels - Weekeend.xls ESA 6/3/2015 Audi of Temecula ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 APPENDIX D Biological Assessment / MSHCP Consistency Report Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report Prepared forCity of Temecula May 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA 550 West C StreetSuite 750San Diego, CA 92101619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report Prepared forCity of Temecula May 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA Audi of Temecula i ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision TABLE OF CONTENTS Audi of Temecula Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report Page 1. Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. Project and Property Description .................................................................................. 1 2.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................... 4 3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Habitat Assessment Survey ..................................................................................... 5 3.3 Plant Community/Habitat Classification and Mapping ............................................. 6 3.4 General Wildlife Inventory ........................................................................................ 6 3.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Habitat Linkages ..................................................... 6 3.6 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters ......................................................................... 6 4. Results .............................................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Site Conditions ......................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Soils .......................................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Vegetation and Plant Communities ......................................................................... 9 4.4 Wildlife .................................................................................................................... 11 4.5 Rare, Threatened, Endangered, or Special-Status Species and Natural Communities of Special Concern .................................................................................... 11 5. Consistency with the MSHCP ...................................................................................... 17 5.1 MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cores, and Linkages ........................................................ 17 5.2 Statement of Findings –Consistency with the MSHCP .......................................... 19 5.3 Stephens’Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan .............................................. 21 6. Impacts and Recommendations .................................................................................. 22 7. References ..................................................................................................................... 27 Appendices A. Site Photos B. Species Table Audi of Temecula ii ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Page Figures 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 2 2 Project Vicinity ..................................................................................................................... 3 3 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 8 4 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 10 5 CNDDB Map ...................................................................................................................... 12 6 MSHCP Criteria Cells ........................................................................................................ 18 Audi of Temecula 1 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision AUDI OF TEMECULA Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report 1. Purpose The purpose of the research, field surveys, and analysis conducted to develop this Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report is threefold. First, this report meets the requirements set forth by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the proposed project (which is located within this conservation area) and outlines its consistency with the MSHCP. Second, this report documents the existing conditions of the biological resources on the proposed project site and potential biological constraints to development of the proposed 4.50-acre Audi of Temecula project site. Third, in addition to meeting the MSHCP requirements, this report is intended to support the preparation of required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review documentation and other regulatory compliance efforts that may be needed to proceed with the proposed project. 2. Project and Property Description 2.1 Project Location The Audi of Temecula project site is located east of Interstate 15 (I-15) in the city of Temecula, adjacent to the city of Murrieta, within Riverside County. The site can be accessed via Ynez Road to the east. The project site lies within a disturbed but undeveloped parcel that has been subject to previous disturbance from grading activities that have removed much of the native soils and vegetation. The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development in the Temecula city limits. To the south and east is vacant land. An existing Mercedes-Benz dealership is located to the immediate north. Beyond the Mercedes-Benz dealership to the north is an undeveloped parcel within the city of Murrieta, which abuts Warm Springs Creek. Further to the east are residential homes and to the west is the I-15, beyond which are commercial developments. Figures 1 and 2 show aerial and topographic views of the site and surrounding areas. Audi of Temecula. D150189Figure 1 Project Location SOURCE: 0 1,680 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and theGIS User CommunitySources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributorsEsri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISuser community Pa t h : U : \ G I S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n _ B T R . m x d , j y l 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 5 PROJECTLOCATION !\ AREA OFDETAIL Legend Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer) Y n e z R d M u r r i e t a C r e e k Audi Dealership. D150189Figure 2 Project Vicinity SOURCE: 0 1,460 Feet Pa t h : U : \ G I S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 2 _ T o p o _ V i c i n i t y . m x d , j y l 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 5 USGS Legend Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer) Audi of Temecula 4 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision 2.2 Project Description The proposed project involves the development of 4.5 acres as an automotive dealership (Audi) as part of the Harveston Specific Plan (Harveston Plan). The Harveston Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned community that was initially approved by the City Council in 2001. The Harveston Plan includes parks and open space, an elementary school, low- to high-density residential areas, a service commercial area, and a business park. The project is located within the service commercial area of the Harveston Plan. The project involves the construction of a 37,468-square-foot (sq.ft.) Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts, and repair services and a service bay for car washing and detailing. The site is part of Lot 7, Tentative Parcel Map 36336, located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. 3. Methodology 3.1 Literature Review This study was initiated with a review of relevant literature of the biological resources on the site and in the vicinity of the proposed project. The MSHCP was reviewed with regard to the stipulations, conservation goals, and biological issues and considerations that apply to the Southwest Area Plan. Table 2-2 of the MSHCP was also reviewed with regard to covered species potentially occurring on-site (MSHCP 2004). In addition, federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were reviewed in conjunction with anticipated federally listed species potentially occurring at the project site. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) were also reviewed for pertinent information regarding the location of known occurrences of sensitive species in the vicinity of the property (CDFW 2015; CNPS 2015). In addition, numerous regional floral and faunal field guides were used in the identification of species and suitable habitats. Additional documents not cited in text but consulted regarding potential on-site biological conditions are listed in the references section at the end of this report. Prior to the site visit, a review of all available and relevant data on the biological characteristics, sensitive habitats, and special-status species potentially present on or adjacent to the project site was conducted. This includes a review of the 2005 Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) plant community geographic information system (GIS) database. Special-status species are defined as plants and animals that are legally protected under the MSHCP, California Endangered Species Act (CESA)/Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), or other regulations and species that are considered sufficiently rare or sensitive by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. These species are categorized as follows: Plants or animals covered by the MSHCP Audi of Temecula 5 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Plants or animals listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under FESA (50 Code of Federal regulations CFR 17.12 listed plants, 17.11 listed animals) Plants or animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (61 CFR 40, February 28, 1996) Plants or animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 California Code of Regulations CCR 670.5) Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.) Plants that meet the definitions of rare and endangered under CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380) Plants considered by the CNPS to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in CNPS Inventory 2015) Plants listed by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4 in CNPS 2015), which may be included as special-status species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information Animals fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 birds, 4700 mammals, and 5050 reptiles and amphibians) The site assessor’s parcel number (APN) was searched using the MSHCP Conservation Report Summary Generator and the RCLIS database. This was to determine if the property falls within a Criteria Cell and if additional surveys for endemic plant species or wildlife not adequately conserved by the MSHCP may be required. The Conservation Report Summary Generator was also queried to determine any conservation goals as well as biological issues and considerations that may apply to the project. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, current and historical aerial photographs, and other data (including digital images derived from aerial photography with orthographic projection properties) were used in conjunction with ESA’s in-house GIS database as a base layer to identify soils, topography, previously mapped vegetation communities, previously recorded locations of sensitive plant and animal species, and USFWS-designated critical habitat boundaries. After reviewing the available background data, ESA conducted a general biological habitat assessment (described below). 3.2 Habitat Assessment Survey The project site was surveyed by ESA biologist Tommy Molioo on May 5, 2015. The survey included complete coverage of the site and a 500-foot buffer (study area), with special attention to habitats potentially supporting sensitive flora or fauna that would be essential to efficiently implementing the terms and conditions of the MSHCP, and features potentially subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and County jurisdiction. Aerial photography Audi of Temecula 6 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision and Geographic Positioning System (GPS) technology was used to accurately locate and survey the study area. General plant communities were preliminarily mapped directly on the aerial photographs using visible landmarks in the field. Representative photographs of the natural resources observed within the study area were also taken during the field survey. The survey also included an assessment of suitable habitat to support MSHCP-covered species such as burrowing owl, as well as other protected Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) species, including Stephens’ kangaroo rat as a result of the project site’s location within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP) boundaries. 3.3 Plant Community/Habitat Classification and Mapping On-site plant communities/vegetation were mapped by ESA during the May 2015 habitat assessment survey to assess the current site conditions and evaluate the potential for special-status plants and wildlife to use the project site. Mapping was conducted with the aid of aerial photographs and GPS. All plants observed during the reconnaissance survey either were identified in the field or a sample was collected and later identified with the aid of taxonomic keys. Plant taxonomy follows Hickman (1993), as updated in Baldwin et al. (2012). 3.4 General Wildlife Inventory A general wildlife inventory was conducted during the May 2015 habitat assessment survey; no focused wildlife surveys were conducted at that time. Wildlife identified during the reconnaissance surveys by sight, call, tracks, nests, scat, remains, or other sign were recorded in field notes. All wildlife was identified in the field with the aid of binoculars and taxonomic keys (if applicable). Vertebrate taxonomy followed in this report is according to Stebbins (1985) for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithologists’ Union (1983, and supplemental) for birds, and Jones et al. (1997) for mammals. 3.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Habitat Linkages The analysis of wildlife habitat linkages associated with the study area is based on information compiled from literature, including the MSHCP-mapped habitat linkages (MSHCP 2004); an analysis of aerial photographs; and direct observations made in the field during the May 2015 habitat assessment survey (such as sign, tracks, and physical movement barriers, including recent development). This information was crucial to assessing the relationship of the study area to large open space areas in the immediate vicinity and was also evaluated in terms of the study area’s connectivity and habitat linkages. The discussions in this report are intended to focus on wildlife movement associated with the property and the immediate vicinity. 3.6 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters The study area was assessed for its potential to support jurisdictional areas based on the presence of definable channels (bed and bank), ordinary flow (ordinary high water mark [OHWM]), hydrology, and other indicators of waters of the United States and/or CDFW/County jurisdictional wetland vegetation. Historical aerial photographs (as far back as 2002) and topographic maps were consulted prior to the May 2015 field visit. Audi of Temecula 7 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted for the project site because no jurisdictional features were observed during the desktop analysis. The following report provides a summary of topographic features, soils, and vegetation types observed and determines whether these resources are subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, RWQCB, and MSHCP jurisdiction pursuant to Section 6.1.2 (MSHCP 2004). 4. Results 4.1 Site Conditions The project site includes 4.5 acres of undeveloped land that shows evidence of previous disturbance from grading activities to install basins for stormwater runoff, as well as weed abatement activities. The topography of the site is relatively flat with a small hill in the southeastern portion of the study area. Elevation on the site ranges from approximately 1,090 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,110 feet AMSL. Previously occurring native scrub vegetation has been removed from the site and now non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs dominate. The project site has been graded with what appears to be stormwater management tiers that direct on-site generated stormwater over the edge of the graded slopes in areas covered in black plastic sheeting and sandbags. Stormwater is then directed toward Warm Springs Creek at the toe of the slopes through a plastic sheet and sandbag system. The proposed project site is composed of compacted fill material and no longer has a native soil profile. The project site was surveyed in early May during a period of drought in the region. No puddles or ponding was observed on the project site during the habitat assessment survey. Representative photographs of the project site are included in Appendix A. Seasonal climate conditions on-site vary considerably, and are representative of the California mediterranean climate with cold rainy winters and hot summers. Average temperatures during the winter range from 36 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit. Average temperatures during the hottest summer months range from 62 to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Average precipitation is 11.4 inches per year (The Weather Channel, 2015). Weather conditions at the time of the habitat assessment survey (9:15 A.M.) included a temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit, winds of 1 to 3 miles per hour (mph), and overcast skies. 4.2 Soils Soils on the project site were generally soft and friable. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, soils on the project site are mapped as Ramona and Buren loam. Three other soils are mapped for the study area but are outside of the project site boundary—Ramona and Buren sandy loams, Hanford coarse sandy loam, and Chino silt loam. As a result of previous disturbances, the natural soil profile no longer exists. Figure 3 provides a map of soil types on and surrounding the proposed project site. Cf HcC RnE3 RmE3 HcC RnE3 Audi of Temecula. D150189Figure 3 Soils SOURCE:NAIP, 2014; SSURGO 0 300 Feet Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer) Soil Types within Study Area Cf: Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali) HcC: Hanford coarse sandy loam (2 to 8 percent slopes) RmE3: Ramona and Buren sandy loams (15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded) RnE3: Ramona and Buren loams (5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded) Audi of Temecula 9 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision 4.3 Vegetation and Plant Communities Plant communities are generally described by the assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Descriptions of vegetation were generally characterized based on dominant species, according to Holland (1986) and Sawyer Keeler-Wolf (1995). Details of each habitat type, disturbed areas, and land use observed within the project site are described below. Plant names used in this report follow the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993). The entire project site is mapped as containing ruderal habitat with basins and scattered trees. Developed land is mapped within the study area, outside of the project site boundary (Figure 4). Ruderal The entire project site consists of a graded, filled, and compacted land composed almost entirely of ruderal (weedy) vegetation with areas of bare ground. The entire project site and the eastern portion of the surrounding study area contain ruderal habitat. Two stormwater basins that are also characterized as ruderal habitat are located in the center of the project site. Plant species observed during the habitat assessment include a mixture of non-native grasses and herbaceous forbs. Dominant species include short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and red brome (Bromus rubens). Two native species, clustered tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata) and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), were also dominant throughout the project site and are common in disturbed settings. Other commonly observed species include prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordaceous), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Scattered native and non-native trees are located along the western border of the project site adjacent to I-15, including western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Representative site photographs are included in Appendix A. Developed Land Developed land does not occur within the project site boundary, but is mapped within the study area on adjacent surrounding properties, including the existing Mercedes-Benz dealership to the north and I-15 to the west. The developed land is characterized by concrete surfaces with associated buildings and infrastructure. No natural soils or vegetation exists within the developed land. Only landscaped ornamental trees were observed in areas mapped as developed land. Representative site photographs are included in Appendix A. Audi of Temecula.D150189 Figure 4 Vegetation SOURCE:NAIP, 2014 0 250 Feet Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer)Vegetation/Land Cover Developed Land Ruderal Trees Basin Audi of Temecula 11 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision 4.4 Wildlife The project site is characterized by disturbed ruderal habitat located within an undeveloped area surrounded by development that provides suitable habitat to support common wildlife species known to occur in upland and urban environments. Wildlife species observed or detected during the habitat assessment survey include common avian and mammal species typical of disturbed upland habitats and urban environments. Avian species observed or detected include western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common raven (Corvus corax), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Mammal species observed include domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). No amphibian or reptile species were observed during the survey. 4.5 Rare, Threatened, Endangered, or Special-Status Species and Natural Communities of Special Concern Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under FESA; those considered “species of concern” by USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW under CESA; animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2015). Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the CNDDB by the CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. A list of 114 special-status species and natural communities of special concern that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site was compiled based on data in the CNDDB (CDFW, 2015) and CNPS literature (CNPS, 2015). Table B-1 in Appendix B provides a list of special-status species and habitats with recorded occurrences within approximately 3 miles of the project site or that may otherwise have the potential to occur in the region surrounding the project area. Conclusions regarding habitat suitability and species occurrence are based on a reconnaissance-level survey conducted by ESA biologists and information in the CNDDB. Figure 5 provides a visual representation of the nearest recorded occurrences of special- status species within a 3-mile radius. 4.5.1 Special-Status Plants The project site does not provide suitable habitat to support special-status plant species because of the relative amount of previous disturbance on the site, which removed all native soils and vegetation. A total of 81 species of plants and 3 species of mosses/lichens were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site based on elevations and the type and quality of soils and habitats present at the project site. The majority of species evaluated for the project are included on the CNPS list of species, although a few are federally listed and state-listed species. A list of special-status plants evaluated for the project site as well as their specific life history requirements and potential for occurrence on the project site are included in Table B-1 in Appendix B. Plant species for this study can be grouped based on habitat type, soil type, and elevation requirements. !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D e P o r t o l a R d STUDYAREA burrowingowl San Diegoblack-tailedjackrabbit CaliforniaOrcuttgrass quinocheckerspotbutterfly coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher Stephens'kangaroo rat western spadefoot Stephens'kangaroo rat westernspadefootsouthern CArufous-crownedsparrow coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher Palmer'sgrapplinghook quinocheckerspotbutterfly Bell's sagesparrow San Diegoblack-tailedjackrabbit quinocheckerspotbutterfly leastBell'svireosmoothtarplant coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher leastBell'svireo Coulter'sgoldfields coasthornedlizard Stephens'kangaroo rat Stephens'kangaroo rat smoothtarplant smoothtarplant smoothtarplant Rainbowmanzanita San Diegoblack-tailedjackrabbit burrowingowl chaparralsand-verbena quinocheckerspotbutterfly Los Angelespocket mouse red-diamondrattlesnake burrowingowl smoothtarplant smoothtarplant smoothtarplant San Miguelsavory coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher Californiahorned lark long-spinedspineflower Dulzurapocketmouse round-leavedfilaree burrowing owl San Diegoambrosia spreadingnavarretia spreadingnavarretia long-spinedspineflower SanBernardinoaster San Diegoblack-tailedjackrabbit burrowingowl burrowingowl smoothtarplant leastBell'svireo leastBell'svireo leastBell'svireo leastBell'svireo Riversidefairyshrimp Riversidefairyshrimp least Bell's vireo Audi Dealership. D150189Figure 5 CNDDB Map SOURCE: USGS; DFG 0 4,000 Feet Pa t h : U : \ G I S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 5 _ C N D D B _ 3 m i l e . m x d , j y l 5 / 7 / 2 0 1 5 Legend Study Area (500-ft buffer) CNDDB 3-mile Search Buffer CNDDB Centroids !Plant !Wildlife Audi of Temecula 13 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision The following 81 species are considered to have no potential to occur because they depend on vernal pool, coastal strand, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian and/or forest habitats, which are not found on the proposed project site: chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) Munz’ onion (Allium munzii) San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) rainbow manzanita (Archtostaphylos rainbowensis) Jaeger’s bush milk-vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri) San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) South Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) Parish’s brittlescale(Atriplex parishii) Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) California ayenia (Ayenia compacta) Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius) Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) Buxbaum’s sedge (Carex buxbaumii) Payson’s jewel-flower (Caulanthus simulans) lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothus cyaneus) Vail Lake ceanothus (Ceanothus ophiochilus) smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) Orcutt’s pincushion (Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana) southern mountain misery (Chamaebatia australis) peninsular spineflower (Chorizanthe leptotheca) Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri) small-flowered morning-glory (Convolvulus simulans) Wiggins’ cryptantha (Cryptantha wigginsii) paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) sticky dudleya (Dudleya viscida) San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) Campbell’s liverwort (Geothallus tuberosus) Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri) Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii) graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata) vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens) Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula) Ramona horkelia (Horkelia truncata) Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) Audi of Temecula 14 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis) Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum) heart-leaved pitcher sage (Lepechinia cardiophylla) Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) lemon lily (Lilium parryi) Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes alba ssp. parishii) small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) Shevock’s copper-moss (Mielichhoferia shevockii) Palomar monkeyflower (Mimulus diffusus) intermediate monardella (Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia) felt-leaved monardella (Monardella hypoleuca spp. lanata) Hall’s monardella (Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii) little mousetail (Myosurus minimus spp. apus) spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) prostate navarretia (Navarretia prostrate) chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontane) California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) Gander’s ragwort (Packera ganderi) woolly chaparral-pea (Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa) chaparral rein orchid (Piperia cooperi) Fish’s milkwort (Polgala cornuta var. fishiae) white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri) southern skullcap (Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. Austromontana) ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Hammitt’s clay-cress (Sibarosis hammittii) bottle liverwort (Sphaerocarpos drewei) San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus) woven-spored lichen (Texosporium sancti-jacobi) California screw-moss (Tortula californica) San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) The remaining three species are grassland-dwelling species that are not dependent on vernal pools or mesic conditions. The site lacks woodland and shale habitats, which are required for Douglas’ fiddleneck (Amsinckia douglasiana); basalt soils, which is required for Santa Rosa Basalt brodiaea (Brodiaea santarosae); and clay soils, required for the round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla). Therefore, no special-status plant species, including MSHCP-listed Narrow Endemic Plants, have the potential to occur on the project site. Audi of Temecula 15 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision 4.5.2 Special-Status Wildlife The project site is dominated by ruderal vegetation that is present on-site as a result of the previous grading and weed abatement activities. The project site provides habitat to potentially support three special-status species, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and black-tailed jackrabbit. A total of 24 special-status wildlife species were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site based on the type and quality of habitat present at the project site. The majority of species evaluated for the project area are former federal species of concern and California species of special concern, although a few are federally listed and state-listed species. A list of special-status wildlife evaluated for the project site as well as their specific habitat requirements and potential for occurrence on the project site are included in Table B-1 in Appendix B. Wildlife species evaluated for this study can be grouped by habitat type or ecological niche (including coastal sage scrub, grassland, aquatic, and riparian habitats) or as ground dwelling or wide-ranging resident or migratory bird species. The following nine species have no potential to be on-site because of their dependence on water sources, including marshes, open water, aquatic, wetland, and/or riparian habitats—which are not present on-site: Crustaceans Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi) Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) Fish Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii) Amphibians coast range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) Reptiles western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) Two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii) Birds Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Mammals Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) The project site also lacks chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities, which are required by the following species: orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), Coast (San Diego) horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii),southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), coastal California Audi of Temecula 16 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetopidus californicus femoralis), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Grassland and scrub-foraging predatory bird species include the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). These species are unlikely to be found on-site because of the lack of suitable habitat and lack of abundant prey species. Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), a desert-dwelling species, is unlikely to be found at the project site because of a lack of suitable habitat, including rocky areas, dense vegetation, and surface-cover objects. Grassland species evaluated include the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). The site is composed of disturbed undeveloped land that has been previously graded and now contains ruderal vegetation with non-native grasses and forbs. Burrowing owl has a moderate potential to occur on the project site, and focused surveys for this species were conducted in May 2015 by ESA. The focused surveys resulted in negative findings of burrowing owl and thus this species is currently considered absent from the project site. California horned lark has a moderate potential to occur on the project site; however, this species was not observed or detected during the reconnaissance-level survey or the focused burrowing owl surveys. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit occurs only on the coastal side of the Southern California mountains; therefore, the project site is outside the known range of this species. However, the common black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) was observed on-site. The project site occurs within the SKRHCP because of suitable habitat for this species in the local vicinity. The project site lacks suitable habitat and preferred plants to support this species. Los Angeles pocket mouse is not likely to occur on the site because of the lack of suitable habitat and compacted soils which are not suitable for digging. 4.5.3 Natural Communities of Special Concern As a result of the amount of previous disturbances on the project site that have significantly altered the soils and vegetation on the site, there is no potential for any sensitive natural communities to occur on the project site. The CNDDB tracks the occurrence of what the CDFW terms “Terrestrial Natural Communities” that are “considered rare and worthy of consideration by CNDDB.” The following six communities/habitats are recorded in the CNDDB within a 3-mile radius/nine-quad CNDDB search for the project site: Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub Valley Needlegrass Grassland Audi of Temecula 17 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision None of these six natural communities were found on the proposed project site or study area. 5. Consistency with the MSHCP Per Section 7.1 of the Riverside County MSHCP, public and private development (including construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure, and all alterations of the land) that are carried out by permittees, participatory special entities, third parties granted take authorization, and others within the Plan Area that are outside of the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands are permitted under the Plan, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply outside the Criteria Area. These policies are outlined in the following pages. The project site is located within the community of Harveston, which holds a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula; as such, the proposed project is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP since the Development Agreement for the area (2001) permits developers to comply only with pre-2003 regulations prior to the implementation of the MSHCP. However, to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP conservation goals and guidelines, particularly pertaining to burrowing owl, the proposed project will analyze and address potential impacts to the MSHCP. 5.1 MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cores, and Linkages MSHCP Criteria Cells The project site falls within the boundaries of the MSHCP but is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP. However, since the site is located within a required habitat assessment survey area for burrowing owl, this species and other MSHCP-covered species, Narrow Endemic Plants, Criteria Cells, Core Areas, linkages, riparian/riverine areas, and land use adjacency guidelines are addressed to demonstrate consistency. The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP, and is not located within any Subunits, Criteria Cells, or Cell Groups. The western portion of the study area, outside of the project site boundary, occurs partially within Criteria Cell 6525. Figure 6 depicts the project site in relation to the MSHCP Conservation Areas in the vicinity. Criteria Cell 6525 Conservation within Criteria Cell 6525 will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 and will focus on conserving Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat along Warm Springs Creek and adjacent grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to RAFSS habitat proposed for conservation in Criteria Cell 6409 to the north. Conservation within this Criteria Cell 6525 will be approximately 5% of the Criteria Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Criteria Cell. STUDYAREA 61826185 62976299 59745977 6075 6779 6780 6781 6782 6783 6407640964166422 652565286530 66566658 6887 6888 6890 6891 7005 7008 0 7021 7069 7075 7076 7077 7078 7079 Audi Dealership. D150189Figure 6 MSHCP Criteria Cells SOURCE: Pa t h : J : \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 6 _ C r i t e r i a C e l l s . m x d , j l n 5 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 5 USGS; DFG Legend Project Site Study Area (500-ft MSHCP Criteria Cells Existing Cores, HabitatBlocks and Linkages Constrained Linkage Core Linkage MSHCP Cell Groups D' J' K' L' V W 0 2,400 Feet Audi of Temecula 19 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision The proposed project will not result in any direct impacts to this Criteria Cell, and only a small portion of the northwestern part of the project study area occurs within the eastern boundary of the Criteria Cell. Conservation focuses on the northeastern portion of the Criteria Cell, the project site is not part of Warm Springs Creek, and there is no RAFSS habitat with adjacent grasslands on the site. Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to cell criteria under the MSHCP. MSHCP Cores and Linkages The proposed project site occurs within approximately 0.5 mile south of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15, which extends from I-15 to Proposed Core 2, north of the site. Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 – This linkage is located to the north of the project site, outside of project boundaries but partially within the northwest corner of the study area that includes the Mercedes-Benz dealership parcel to the north. Approximately 150 acres of the total 180 acres of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 is considered edge habitat and is surrounded by the city of Murrieta’s urban development. This linkage provides habitat for the western pond turtle and Los Angeles pocket mouse, and is considered an important linkage area for bobcat. Construction of the project will not result in any direct impacts to this linkage, and Best Management Practices implemented as part of the Urban/Wildlands Interface discussed in Section 5.2 will reduce any potential indirect impact to a less-than-significant level. Proposed Core 2 – This Core covers approximately 5,050 acres and consists largely of private lands with a few small portions of Public/Quasi-Public Lands. Proposed Core 2 connects to other areas through Proposed Constrained Linkages 15, 16, 17, and 18 and is surrounded by agricultural and urban development. This core is used by several species; in particular, it provides important habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Proposed Core 2 is located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast and will not be impacted by the proposed project. 5.2 Statement of Findings –Consistency with the MSHCP Criteria Areas No portion of the proposed project site occurs within any designated Criteria Cells; however, a small portion of the study area falls within Criteria Cell 6525. Conservation within this Criteria Cell is focused on RAFSS habitat limited to 5% of the northeastern portion. This Criteria Cell was established to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15, which follows Warm Springs Creek. The proposed project will not result in any impacts to this Criteria Cell. The proposed project site is not part of Warm Springs Creek and does not support RAFSS habitat; therefore, the proposed project is not subject to cell criteria and is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Amphibian Species Survey Area The proposed project does not fall within an Amphibian Species Survey Area and no suitable amphibian habitat is present on-site; therefore, no surveys are required and the proposed project is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Audi of Temecula 20 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Burrowing Owl Survey Area The proposed project site falls within a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Based on observations conducted during the habitat assessment survey, there is suitable habitat to support this species and thus focused surveys are required to determine if any burrowing owls are present prior to project construction. Focused surveys were conducted from May 13, 2015, to May 26, 2015, by ESA Biologist Tommy Molioo in accordance with MSHCP survey protocol. The focused survey resulted in negative findings. The details of the focused burrowing owl survey, including methodology and findings, is presented in the MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report for the project, included as an appendix to this report. Mammalian Species Survey Area The proposed project does not fall within a Mammalian Species Survey Area and no suitable mammalian habitat for special-status species is present on-site; therefore, no surveys are required and the proposed project is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area The proposed project site does not fall within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area; therefore, no surveys are required and the proposed project is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Riparian/riverine areas can be found along Warm Springs Creek, north of the proposed project site and separated by existing development. Based on distance and existing barriers, impacts to these areas would not occur and riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools are not found on the proposed project site as a result of previous grading activities that significantly altered the topography and soils on-site; therefore, surveys are not required. Species associated with these habitats would not be impacted and the proposed project is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Special Linkage Area The proposed project site does not fall within a Special Linkage Area, but it is located near Proposed Constrained Linkage 15. Special precautions must be taken to minimize edge effects to biological resources and disturbance to wildlife using this linkage. Refer to the Urban/Wildlands Interface section below for specific guidelines for the management of edge effects. Audi of Temecula 21 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Urban/Wildlands Interface The following describes the MSHCP guidelines for minimizing edge effects associated with the project’s proximity to Proposed Constrained Linkage 15. Drainage A stormwater system shall be designed and measures shall be incorporated to ensure that runoff from the proposed project would not affect the surrounding environment. Toxics Measures consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program shall be incorporated to ensure that toxic chemicals, such as petroleum products, would not affect the conservation areas to the further north of the site within Warm Springs Creek. Lighting Ambient lighting in the MSHCP conservation area shall be minimized to the extent possible. Lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the conservation area north of the site. Noise Setbacks, berms, or walls shall be incorporated into project to minimize the effects of noise on the MSHCP conservation area. During construction, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation area must not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. Invasives Though the project site is not directly adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the invasive non-native plant species list within the MSHCP shall be consulted to avoid the use of invasive plant species for the portion of the development closest to the conservation area. Barriers The project site is not directly adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area and therefore does not necessarily require barriers. Grading/Land Development The proposed project site has already been graded and leveled and does not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. 5.3 Stephens’Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan The project site does not contain any suitable habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat; however, the site is located within the SKRHCP area but outside of any Core Reserve areas. Project impacts to Stephens’ kangaroo rat are mitigated through an existing HCP under an existing incidental take permit. Adherence to the SKRHCP’s Implementing Agreement will fully mitigate any potentially significant project-related impacts regardless of presence of suitable or occupied habitat. The Implementing Agreement requires payment of the County’s per-acre mitigation fee based on the size of an individual project. The project is not subject to this fee as it was previously paid at the time of mass grading of the Harveston Specific Plan area in 2003. 6. Impacts and Recommendations Impact 1: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside MSHCP or the Long-Term SKRHCP. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project site does not lie in designated critical habitat for any special-status species. However, the project site does lie within the areas covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Long-Term SKRHCP. These plans promote the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside County and provide coverage for FESA and CESA incidental take for listed species. The Western Riverside County MSHCP is broken into Area Plans and Cell Groups. The project site falls within the Southwest Area Plan; however, no portions of the site occur within in Criteria Cells, Cell Groups, Subarea Plans, Core Areas, and linkages. A small portion of the study area for the project (a 500-foot buffer around the project boundary) occurs within the eastern portion of Criteria Cell 6525, but no project impacts will occur within this Criteria Cell. Criteria Cell 6525 was established to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15, which follows Warm Springs Creek. Conservation for this Criteria Cell focuses on RAFSS habitat along Warm Springs Creek and the adjacent grassland habitat. Chapter 15.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes mitigation fees for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems within Temecula city limits in accordance with the MSHCP. However, the project applicant is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP because a development agreement was obtained for the project in 2001,1 prior to the adoption of the MSHCP in 2004. Government Code Section 65864 states that only those policies, rules, and regulations that were existing at the time of approval for a developmental project must be followed by the applicant. The proposed project site is also not part of Warm Springs Creek and does not support RAFSS or grassland habitat. Because the project site contains only non- native ruderal habitat with scattered native and non-native trees and because of the absence of any special-status species or sensitive biological resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code states that all applicants within the SKRHCP plan area shall conduct a biological survey for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat and pay the required impact and mitigation fee. ESA conducted a habitat assessment for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat during the reconnaissance-level survey. No kangaroo rat signs were observed during the site visit and, because of the high levels of disturbance and the origin of site soils, no suitable habitat exists 1 On August 28, 2001, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the agreement titled “Development Agreement By And Between The City Of Temecula And Lennar Homes, Inc., A California Corporation And Winchester Hills I LLC, A California Limited Liability Company” by the adoption of Ordinance No. 01-08 (the Development Agreement). The Development Agreement was recorded on January 16, 2002, as Document No. 2002-026470 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. Audi of Temecula 22 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision on-site. County Ordinance 663.10 regarding the SKRHCP states that “impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat are not limited to loss or degradation of actually occupied habitat only.” Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to the Stephen’s kangaroo rat, including habitat destruction, should be mitigated either by on-site preservation of land or by payment of the mitigation fee. Mitigation of the project has been satisfied by the previous payment this mitigation fee prior to the mass grading of the Harveston Specific Plan area in 2003. Because of the lack of suitable native habitat on the project site, and with the previous payment of relevant mitigation fees, the project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project also would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. _________________________ Impact 2: Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any listed, candidate, or special-status plant species, including the listed San Diego ambrosia, Nevin’s barberry, and slender-horned spineflower. This impact is considered less than significant. The project site has been previously graded, leveled, and compacted; non-native ruderal (weedy) grass and herbaceous species are currently the dominant vegetation on the project site. As such, the site does not support any listed, candidate, or special-status plant species, nor does it have suitable habitat for such species. Because of a lack of suitable habitat, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are recommended. _________________________ Impact 3: Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on listed, candidate, or special-status ground dwelling wildlife species including the Stephens’ kangaroo rat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, burrowing owl, and coast patch-nosed snake. This impact is considered less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would not have any adverse affects on any listed, candidate, or special-status ground-dwelling wildlife species. The project site lacks suitable habitat required to support a majority of the above-mentioned species, with the exception of burrowing owl, which was determined to be absent from the project site during focused surveys conducted by ESA in May 2015. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are recommended. No mitigation measures for any ground-dwelling wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, are required and the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications. No impacts would occur. Although the project is not subject to the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, ESA’s biologist conducted a habitat assessment survey for burrowing owl on the project site Audi of Temecula 23 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision because the site falls within the Western Riverside County MSHCP-specified habitat assessment areas for burrowing owl. As a result of the site’s location within a burrowing owl survey area and suitable habitat on-site, focused surveys were conducted to determine the presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with the MSHCP. The focused survey conducted in May 2015 by ESA resulted in negative findings of burrowing owl; therefore, the project site is currently considered absent of any burrowing owls and no impacts to this species will occur. However, because there is suitable habitat on the site, there is a potential for burrowing owl to move onto the project site prior to the start of construction activities; therefore, additional mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to this species to a less-than-significant level. Recommended Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 1: Because there is suitable habitat on the project site, a pre- construction clearance survey for burrowing owl must be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of construction to determine if any burrowing owls occupy the site that may be impacted by ground-disturbing project activities. The 1-day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the project site and study area, and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat. If no burrowing owls are observed, construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed, additional measures will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP, burrowing owls (fewer than three pairs) that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move off-site. _________________________ Impact 4: Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on listed, candidate, or special-status bird species nesting near the project area. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, including take of bird nests and eggs. All birds and birds of prey specifically are protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order 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 this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Project impacts to these species would not be considered significant unless they are known or have a high potential to nest in the project area or to rely on the project site for primary foraging activities during the breeding season. Although there are no trees or suitable habitat present within the proposed project site, there are several ornamental trees adjacent to the western border of the site interspersed within the ruderal habitat and developed areas associated with I-15. Although it is unlikely because of the level of automotive activity near the trees, construction activities could cause disturbance to birds nesting/foraging adjacent to the project site. No nests were observed during the May 2015 habitat Audi of Temecula 24 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision assessment and burrowing owl surveys. The project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on bird species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Impacts to nesting birds are potentially significant, but can be prevented via pre-construction surveys and associated avoidance measures, as described in recommended Mitigation Measure 2. Recommended Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 2: Construction and vegetation removal activities shall be conducted outside of the avian breeding season of February 1 through August 31 to avoid any potential impact to nesting common and special-status avian species. If construction- related activities must occur during the breeding season, a City-approved biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey within 2 weeks prior to construction. The results of the survey will be provided in a letter report of findings to the City. If no active nests or nesting activity is observed, construction may continue without potential impacts to nesting birds. If an active nest is observed, a suitable buffer will be established around the nest and no construction activities may encroach into the buffer without the consent of a biological monitor or until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. The biological monitor shall be on-site as needed and will have the authority to halt construction activities in order to ensure no direct or indirect impacts to the nest occur as a result of construction activities. Breeding season avoidance, pre-construction surveys, establishing a buffer, and on-site monitoring will reduce any potential impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. _________________________ Impact 5: Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and would not interfere with any established wildlife corridors or nursery sites. This impact is considered less than significant. The project site is located on a graded, leveled, and compacted parcel of land. The site contains mostly non-native fill that supports mainly non-native ruderal vegetation. The site is immediately bordered by undeveloped land to the east and south, and surrounded by residential and commercial development in all directions, including an existing automotive dealership to the immediate north. Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 is located to the north of the automotive dealership within Warm Springs Creek that contains native vegetation to support the movement of wildlife north toward Proposed Core 2. The project site is separated from this linkage by existing development and the site does not function to facilitate the movement of wildlife between areas of larger undeveloped land. The project site is also not located within any established wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor would the project impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures are required. Audi of Temecula 25 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision _________________________ Impact 6: Implementation of the proposed project would not have substantial effects on any sensitive natural communities or on any federally protected wetlands. No impact. The project site is located on a graded, leveled, and compacted parcel of land that is dominated by non-native ruderal (weedy) vegetation. No federally protected wetlands, waters of the United States or waters of the state; riparian habitats; or other sensitive natural communities are located within or immediately adjacent to the project site: therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impact to sensitive natural communities, protected waters of the United States/state, and/or wetlands. No mitigation measures are recommended. _________________________ Impact 7: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project site lies within the Riverside County MSHCP and SKRHCP fee areas. The project is subject to Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code involving implementation of the SKRHCP but is not subject to Chapter 15.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code for the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, as the MSHCP was adopted after the development agreement was obtained for the project site in 2001. The mitigation for the SKRHCP has been satisfied through the previous payment of the mitigation fee prior to the mass grading of the site in 2003. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No mitigation measures are recommended. _________________________ Impact 8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to biological resources in the project vicinity. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation. The project site is located on an undeveloped parcel surrounded by residential and commercially developed areas that have little native habitat in the project vicinity. Limited native habitat occurs within Warm Springs Creek to the north of the project site, but this area is separated from the project site by existing development. In the immediate vicinity, the project site is surrounded by housing developments, commercial buildings, and areas of ruderal vegetation and cleared bare ground. Because of the disturbed and ruderal nature of the project site, impacts to native habitat or other common and potentially sensitive biological resources would be less than significant with project implementation. The likelihood that construction of the proposed project would impact any special-status species is very low. The previous payment of the mitigation fee for SKRHCP would offset the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of habitat and ensure the preservation of large blocks of high-quality natural habitat elsewhere within western Riverside County. This impact is considered less than significant. Audi of Temecula 26 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 7. References American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983 (and supplements 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995). The A.O.U. Check-List of North American Birds. 6th ed. Allen Press. Lawrence, Kansas. Baldwin, et al. 2012. Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California; Second Edition. University of California Press. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, CDFW, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Fish and Game Code of California, Sections 3503 and 3503.5. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Species. Online Database Search. County of Riverside. Ordinance No. 810.2: Establishing an Interim Open Space Mitigation Fee. County of Riverside. Ordinance No. 663.10: Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and Setting Mitigation Fees. County of Riverside. The Riverside County Land Information System. Map My County. http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public Accessed on May 11, 2015. County of Riverside. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Retrieved from http://www.wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/mshcp_vol1.html. Hickman, J.C. (ed.), 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, CA. Holland, Robert F. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 1986. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Jones, C., R. S. Hoffmann, D. W. Rice, R. J. Baker, M. D. Engstrom, R. D Bradley, D. J. Schmidly, and C. A. Jones. 1997. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1997. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 173. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989). Stebbens, Robert. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. The Weather Channel, 2007. Average Weather for Temecula, CA. www.weather.com. Accessed May 12, 2015. Audi of Temecula 27 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). 2003. Understanding the Plants and Animals of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan. Species List. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator. http://rctlma.org/Online-Services/rcip- report-generator Accessed on May 8, 2015. Audi of Temecula 28 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/ MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Audi of Temecula ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision APPENDIX A Site Photos Audi of Temecula . D150189 Site Photo AppendixSOURCE: ESA Photograph 1: Taken from the northwestern corner of the project site, facing east towards the project site. Note existing basin and culvert in background. Photograph 2: Taken from the southwestern corner of the project site, facing northeast towards the project site. Note existing smaller basin in foreground. Audi of Temecula . D150189 Site Photo AppendixSOURCE: ESA Photograph 3: Taken from the eastern portion of the study area, facing west towards the project site. Note the site and study area are dominated by ruderal vegetation. Photograph 4: Taken from the northeastern corner of the project site, facing west towards the project site. Audi of Temecula ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision APPENDIX B Species Table Audi of Temecula B-1 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision TABLE B-1 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITY OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Plants Abronia villosa var.aurita Chaparral sand-verbena --/--/1B.1 Found in sandy areas, chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Allium munzii Munz’ onion FE/ST/1B.1 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland, usually in heavy clay soils between elevations of 300-1035 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia FE/--/1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland in alkali sandy loam or clay soils. Persist where disturbance has been superficial, sometimes near margins. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Amsinckia douglasiana Douglas’ fiddleneck --/--/1B.1 Found in cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on Monterey shale substrate in dry conditions. Elevations between 0-1,950 m. Low potential. Moderately suitable vegetation communities on site but lacks suitable substrate. Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Rainbow manzanita --/--/1B.1 Found with chaparral, usually found in grabbro chaparral in Riverside and San Diego counties at elevations of 270-790 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger’s milk-vetch --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands and cismontane woodlands. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Atriplex coronata var. notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale FE/--/1B.1 Found in playas, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Prefers dry, alkali flats in the San Jacinto River Valley at elevations of 400-500 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, playas and chenopod scrub in alkali soils at elevations of 1-500 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Atriplex parishii Parish’s brittlescale --/--/1B.1 Found in alkali meadows, vernal pools, playas and chenopod scrub. Associated with alkali soils, coastal scrub and coastal brush scrub. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson’s saltscale --/--/1B.2 Associated with alkali soils, coastal scrub and coastal brush scrub. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Ayenia compacta California ayenia --/--/2B.3 Occurs on rocky soils in Mojavean desert scrub and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations between 150-1,095 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry FE/SE/1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub. Often on steep north facing slopes or in the banks of sandy washes No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Table B-1 Audi of Temecula B-2 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved brodiaea FT/SE/1B.1 Found in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Usually associated with annual grassland and vernal pools often surrounded by shrubland habitats. Clay soils and at elevations of 25-860 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s brodiaea --/--/1B.1 Found in vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, and meadows. Mesic, clay habitats, sometimes serpentine; usually in vernal pools and small drainages at elevations of 30-1615 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Brodiaea santarosae Santa Rosa Basalt brodiae --/--/1B.2 Can be found on basaltic soils within valley and foothill grassland habitats between 565 and 1,045 m. in elevation. Low potential. Moderately suitable vegetation communities on site but lacks suitable substrate. California macrophylla Round-leaved filaree --/--/1B.1 Found in clay soils and associated with cismontane woodlands and valley-foothill grasslands No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa lily --/--/4.2 Found in a variety of habitats including chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland from elevations between 15 and 700 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Calochortus plummerae Plummer’s mariposa lily --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane woodlands and lower montane coniferous forests; occurs on rocky or sandy sites, usually of alluvial or granitic material; common after fire No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Intermediate mariposa lily --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland on dry, rocky open slopes and rock outcrops at elevations of 120-850 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis’ evening-primrose --/--/3 Found in a variety of habitats including, coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. It is restricted to sandy or clay soils between 0 and 300 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s sedge --/--/4.2 This perennial rhizomatous herb occurs in mesic environments in association with bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. Known to occur between 3 and 3,300 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Caulanthus simulans Payson’s jewel-flower --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats on sandy and granitic soils between 90 and 2,200 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chapter or Section Title Audi of Temecula B-3 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside ceanothus --/--/1B.2 Found in closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral at elevations of 100-1515 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus FT/SE/1B.1 Found in chaparral on grabbro seams on north-facing ridges on the eastern sides of mountains at elevations of 620-825 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Centromadia punegns ssp. laevis Smooth tarplant --/--/1B.1 Associated with valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub, meadows, playas and riparian woodlands. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt’s pincushion --/--/1B.1 Found in coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes, on sandy sites at elevations of 3-100 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chamaebatia australis southern mountain misery --/--/4.2 This perennial evergreen shrub is found only in chaparral habitats on gabbroic or metavolcanic soils at elevations of 300 – 1,020 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Not observed during surveys. Chorizanthe leptotheca peninsular spineflower Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest habitats on alluvial fans and granitic soils. Between 300 and 1,900 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower --/--/3.2 Found in coastal scrub and chaparral, sometimes on the interface of two vegetation types. Associated with dry, sandy soils, dry slopes and flats. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina Long-spined spineflower --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows, valley and foothill grassland in gabbroic clay soils. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory --/--/1B.2 Found in a variety of habitats including chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands. Specific to rocky, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils between 120 – 1,075 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning-glory --/--/4.2 Found in openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on clay and serpentine seeps. Between 30 – 700 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Cryptantha wigginsii Wiggins’ cryptantha --/--/1B.2 This annual herb occurs in coastal scrub habitats on clay soils at 20 -275 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant --/--/4.2 Found in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. It is restricted to vernally mesic sites on sandy soils between 25-940 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Dodecahema leptoceras Slender-horned spineflower FE/SE/1B.1 Sandy soils of alluvial origin in chaparral, cismontane woodland, alluvial fan coastal scrub maintained by infrequent flooding. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Table B-1 Audi of Temecula B-4 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed dudleya --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. Microhabitat includes clayey soils and grassy slopes. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Dudleya viscida Sticky dudleya --/--/1B.2 Found in coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub and chaparral on north and south-facing cliffs and banks at elevations of 10-550 m. No potential. No suitable /habitat present on site. Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery FE/SE/1B.1 Found in vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego mesa hardpan and claypan vernal pools and southern interior basal flow vernal pools, usually surrounded by scrub at elevations of 15-620 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Geothallus tuberosus Campbell’s liverwort --/--/1B.1 Found in coastal scrub and vernal pools. Known from mesic soil at elevations of 10-600 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Harpagonella palmeri Palmer’s grapplinghook --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland communities on clay soils and openings in grassy areas within shrubland. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress --/--/1B.1 Found in closed-cone coniferous forests and chaparral habitats, on clay, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils. Between 80 – 1,500 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata graceful tarplant --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation limits 60 – 1,100 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Hordeum intercedens vernal barley --/--/3.2 Found in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands (specifically saline flats and depressions), and vernal pools. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula Mesa horkelia --/--/1B.1 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub habitats; found in gravelly or sandy sites. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Horkelia truncata Ramona horkelia --/--/1B.3 Found in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Habitats in California include mixed chaparral, vernal streams, and disturbed areas near roads. Clay soils at elevations of 400-1300 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Juglans californica Southern California black walnut --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, and riparian woodlands, on alluvial systems. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush --/--/4.2 Found in coastal dunes in mesic situations, meadows and seeps (alkaline), and marshes and coastal salt swamps, between 3 – 900 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chapter or Section Title Audi of Temecula B-5 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia dwarf rush --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools, between 300 – 2,040 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal salt marshes, playas, valley foothills and grasslands, and vernal pools. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Lepechinia cardiophylla heart-leaved pitcher sage --/--/1B.2 Found in closed-cone coniferous forests, chaparral, and cismontane woodlands between 520 – 1,370 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson’s pepper-grass --/--/1B.2 Found in scrublands- chaparral and coastal scrub; dry, sandy soils. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Lillium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily --/--/4.2 Found in openings in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, and riparian woodlands between 30 – 1,800 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Lilium parryi Lemon lily --/--/1B.2 Found in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, riparian forest. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Limnanthes alba ssp. parishii Parish’s meadowfoam --/SE/1B.2 Found in meadows, seeps and vernal pools. Vernally moist areas and temporary seeps of highland meadows and plateaus; often bordering lakes and streams at elevations of 600-1760 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha small-flowered microseris --/--/4.2 Found on clay soils in cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools, between 15 – 1,070 m. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia intermediate monardella --/--/1B.3 Found usually in the understory of chaparral, cismontane woodland, and sometimes in lower montane coniferous forests between 400 – 1,250 m. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lenata Felt-leaved monardella --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and cismontane woodlands. Occurs in understory in mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, and southern oak woodland; sandy soil at elevations of 300-1575 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Hall’s monardella --/--/1B.3 Found in broadleafed upland forests, chaparral, cismontane woodlands, lower montane coniferous forests, and valley and foothill grasslands, between 730 – 2,195 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Little mousetail --/--/3.1 Found in vernal pools and alkaline soils at elevations of 20-640 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Navarretia fossalis Spreading navarretia FT/--/1B.1 Associated with vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes, swamps and playas. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Table B-1 Audi of Temecula B-6 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Navarretia prostrata Prostrate navarretia --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Nolina cismontana Chaparral nolina --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub primarily on sandstone and shale substrates, also known from gabbro, at elevations of 140-1275 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass FE/SE/1B.1 Associated with vernal pools at elevations of 15-660 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Packera ganderi Gander’s ragwort --/Rare/1B.2 Found in chaparral, recently burned sites and gabbro outcrops at elevations of 400-1200 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa woolly chaparral-pea --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, rip woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Prefers rocky, gabbroic or meravolcanic substrate at elevations of 120-1005 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Piperia cooperi chaparral rein orchid --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands between 15 – 1,585 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Fish’s milkwort --/--/4.3 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and riparian woodlands between 100 – 1,000 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit-tobacco --/--/2B.2 Found on sandy, gravelly soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 50 – 1,300 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Romneya coulteri Coulter’s matilija poppy --/--/4.2 Found often in burned areas in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 20 – 1,200 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana Southern skullcap --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and lower montane coniferous forest. In gravelly soils on streambanks or in mesic sites in oak and pine woodlands at elevations of 425-2000 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Sibaropsis hammittii Hammitt’s clay-cress --/--/1B.2 Found in valley and foothill grassland, and chaparral. Mesic microsites in open areas on clay soils in stipa grassland. Often surrounded by adenostoma chaparral at elevations of 730-1065 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Sphaerocarpos drewei Bottle liverwort --/--/1B.1 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub. Much of suitable habitat lost to urbanization. Found on soil at elevations of 90-600 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Tretracoccus dioicus Parry’s tetracoccus --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub in stony, decomposed gabbro soil. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Chapter or Section Title Audi of Temecula B-7 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Viguiera laciniata San Diego County viguiera --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 60 – 750 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Mosses/Lichens Schizymenium shevockii Shevock’s copper-moss --/--/1B.2 Found in cismontane woodland. Grows on metamorphic rocks, mesic sites and on rocks along road at elevations of 750-1400 m. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Selaginella cinerascens ashy spike-moss --/--/1B.3 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 20 – 640 m. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Texosporium sacti-jacobi Woven-spored lichen --/--/-- Found in chaparral on open sites. In California, associated with Adenostoma fasciculatum, Eriogonum spp. and Selaginella spp. At pinnacles and on small mammal pellets at elevations of 290-660 m. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Tortula californica California screw-moss --/--/1B.2 Found in chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Grows on sandy soils at elevations of 10-1460 m. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Crustaceans Brachinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT/--/-- Endemic to the grasslands of the central valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Brachinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp FE/--/-- Endemic to San Diego and Orange County mesas. Found in vernal pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Linderiella santarosae Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp --/--/-- Found only in the vernal pools on Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County. Found in southern basalt-flow vernal pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE/--/-- Endemic to western Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools filled by winter/spring rains. Hatch in warm water later in the season. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Fish Gila orcuttii Arroyo chub --/SSC/-- Prefers slow water stream sections with muddy or sandy bottoms. Feeds on aquatic vegetation, insects, and associated invertebrates. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Amphibians Anaxyrus californicus Arroyo toad FE/SSC/-- Rivers with sandy banks, willow, cottonwoods and sycamores, loose gravelly areas No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Table B-1 Audi of Temecula B-8 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog FT/SSC/-- Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development and must have access to estivation habitat. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Spea hammondii Western spadefoot --/SSC/-- Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools or shallow temporary pools, which do not contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Taricha torosa torosa Coast range newt --/SSC/-- Found in coastal drainages from Mendocino to San Diego county; lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1km to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Reptiles Emys marmorata Southwestern pond turtle --/SSC/-- Found in ponds and small lakes with abundant vegetation. Also seen in marshes, slow-moving streams, reservoirs, and occasionally in brackish water. Prefers permanent freshwater ponds and slow streams edged with sandy soils for laying eggs. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange-throated whiptail --/SSC/-- Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral and valley-foothill hardwood habitats, prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and rocks. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal western whiptail --/--/-- Found in deserts and semi-arid areas with sparse vegetation; also found in woodland and riparian areas. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Charina trivirgata Rosy boa --/--/-- Found in desert and chaparral, from the coast to the Mojave and Colorado deserts, prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Coleonyx variegates abbotti San Diego banded gecko --/--/-- Found in granite or rocky outcrops in coastal scrub and chaparral habitats. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Crotalus ruber red-diamond rattlesnake --/SSC/-- Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland and desert areas. Occurs in rocky, dense vegetation, requires rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chapter or Section Title Audi of Temecula B-9 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake --/--/-- Found in open, relatively rocky areas, often in moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Prefers movement through surface litter or herbaceous vegetation, avoids open/barren areas. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Diadaphis punctatus similis San Diego ringneck snake --/--/-- Most common in open, relatively rocky areas, often in somewhat moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Avoids moving through open or barren areas by restricting movements to areas of surface litter or herbaceous vegetation. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Phrynosoma blainvillei Coast horned lizard --/SSC/-- Found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub grassland, and wash habitats. Sandy, rocky or gravelly soils; friable soils. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Coast patch-nosed snake --/SSC/-- Found in bush or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern California. Requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Thamnophis hammondii Two-striped garter snake --/SSC/-- Highly aquatic, found in or near permanent or freshwater, often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. Ideal habitat is characterized as having dense emergent vegetation for escape from predation, deep and shallow pools of water, open areas along the margins to allow for basking, and upland habitat with access to structures suitable for hibernation and escape from flooding. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Birds Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk --/SSC /-- Found in riparian areas, and open woodlands, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal type. Nests in riparian growths of deciduous trees and live oak woodlands No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow --/SSC/-- Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse, mixed chaparral, frequents relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle --/SSC/-- Nests in canyons and large trees in open habitats No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell’s sage sparrow --/WL/-- Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise and found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Nest located on the ground beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above ground. Territories about 50 yards apart. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Table B-1 Audi of Temecula B-10 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl --/SSC/-- Found in a variety of habitats that contain small mammal burrows, including open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, agricultural, rangelands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation Moderate Potential. Marginal habitat is present on site but the presence of small mammal burrows increases the suitability for burrowing owl to occur. Focused surveys resulted in negative findings. Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk --/SSC/-- Found in open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Also documented in dry and irrigated croplands. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk --/ST/-- Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Campylorhyncus brunneicapillus sandiegensis Coastal cactus wren --/SSC/-- Found in southern California coastal sage scrub. Require tall opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover FT/SSC/-- Will nest beside or near tidal waters, and includes all nesting colonies on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays and estuaries from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico Historic records suggest that nesting western snowy plovers were once more widely distributed in coastal California. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Circus cyaneus Northern harrier --/SC/-- Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge, nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. Forages in grassland, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain marshes. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo FC/SE/-- Prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in riparian forest and woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. Low riparian vegetation near river bottoms No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite --/FPS/-- Nests near wet meadows and open grasslands, dense oak, willow or other tree stands No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark --/SSC/-- Found in short-grass prairie, “bald” hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields and alkali flats. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chapter or Section Title Audi of Temecula B-11 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle --/SE/-- Found along open shore, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting and wintering, usually nests within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree w/open branches, especially ponderosa pine. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron --/--/-- Colonial nester, usually in trees and occasionally in tule patches. Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis --/SSC/-- Frequents marshes, swamps, ponds and rivers. Prefers dense tule thickets for nesting, interspersed with areas of shallow water for foraging. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Polioptila californica californica Coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC/-- Coastal sage scrub habitat in arid washes, on mesas or on slopes of coastal hills. Permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell’s vireo FE/SE/-- Low riparian vegetation near vicinity of water or dry river bottoms, below 2000ft. Nests are placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, baccharis or mesquite. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat --/SSC/-- Found in deserts, grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chaetodipus californicus femoralis Dulzura pocket mouse --/SSC/-- Found in a variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral and grassland in San Diego County. Is attracted to grass-chaparral edges. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Chaetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse --/SSC/-- Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, etc. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Dipodomys stephensi Stephens’ kangaroo rat FE/ST/-- Primarily found in annual and perennial grasslands, also occurs in coastal scrub and sagebrush with sparse canopy cover. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat --/SSC/-- Found in open, semi-arid to arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat --/--/-- Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash and palm oasis habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly palms, forages over water and among trees. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Table B-1 Audi of Temecula B-12 ESA / D150189 Biological Assessment/Conformance Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit --/SSC/-- Associated with open grassland and brushland, and coastal sage scrub habitats in southern California Low. Moderately suitable habitat occurs on site and the common black-tailed jackrabbit was observed on site. However, the site is located inland, outside of the coastal range of this species. Myotis yamanensis Yuma myotis --/--/-- This species is typically associated with a nearby water source. Maternity colonies are found in buildings, under bridges, and in mines and caves. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat --/SSC/-- Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and desert habitats. Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free-tailed bat --/SSC/-- Found in a variety of arid areas in S. California; pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, etc. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Onchomys torridus ramona Southern grasshopper mouse --/SSC/-- Found in desert areas, especially scrub habitats with friable soils for digging, prefers low to moderate shrub cover. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse --/SSC/-- Found in lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage scrub communities. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Perognathus longimembris internationalis Jacumba pocket mouse --/SSC/-- Found in desert riparian, desert scrub and desert wash habitats. Also in coastal scrub and sagebrush. Rarely found on rocky sites. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Arthropods Cicindela senilis frosti Tiger beetle --/--/-- Found along mudflats and beaches in southern California. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly FE/--/-- Found in sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Requires high densities of food plants which include: Plantago erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurascens. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Socalchemmis icenoglei Icenogle’s socalchemmis spider --/--/-- Known only from the type locality in the vicinity of Winchester, in Riverside County. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE = federally endangered FT = federally threatened FC = federal candidate FPS= fully protected species. State (CDFW) SSC = state species of special concern SE = state endangered ST = state threatened CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) FPS = California Fully Protected Species CNDDB = Tracked by the CNDDB, but with no other special regulatory or management status CNPS 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in the state and elsewhere 2 = Plants rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 = Plants about which more information is needed 4 = Plants of limited distribution An extension reflecting the level of threat to each species is appended to each rarity category as follows: .1 – Seriously endangered in California .2 – Fairly endangered in California .3 – Not very endangered in California SOURCES: CNDDB, 2015; Skinner and Pavik, 1986. Audi of Temecula ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 APPENDIX E Traffic Impact Analysis VA CONSULTING, INC. EngineersPlannersSurveyors 46 Discovery, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 474-1400, FAX: (949) 261-8482 www. vaconsultinginc.com HOEHN AUDI AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA, CA June 2015 Prepared for: Environmental Science Associates 550 West C Street, Suite 750 San Diego, California 92101 Prepared By: Keith R. Rutherfurd, TE Stan H. Ng, EIT Josh D. Park, EIT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 Study Purpose and Project Description.......................................................................1 Study Area and Existing Circulation System................................................................1 Existing Study Area Traffic Conditions ........................................................................6 Average Daily Traffic and Volume to Capacity Analysis...............................................7 II. PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION........................................................... 15 III. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................. 31 IV. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................... 54 Traffic Signal Warrant and Level of Service Analysis................................................. 55 V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................. 56 Local Circulation System Impacts............................................................................. 56 On-Site Circulation................................................................................................... 56 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A – Existing AM/PM Turning Movement and ADT Count Data APPENDIX B – Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership - Level of Service Computation Reports (2000 HCM Method) APPENDIX C – Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses List of Exhibits PAGE FIGURE 1 Project Location and Vicinity Map.....................................................................3 FIGURE 2 Project Site Plan..............................................................................................4 FIGURE 3 Existing Study Area Geometrics.......................................................................5 FIGURE 4A Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes............8 FIGURE 4B Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes............9 FIGURE 4C Existing Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes................. 10 FIGURE 5A Existing Weekday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios..................................... 13 FIGURE 5B Existing Saturday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios..................................... 14 FIGURE 6 Project Trip Distribution.................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 7A Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes ........... 19 FIGURE 7B Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes ........... 20 FIGURE 7C Project Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes.................. 21 FIGURE 8A Project Weekday Daily Link Volumes.............................................................. 22 FIGURE 8B Project Saturday Daily Link Volumes.............................................................. 23 FIGURE 9A Existing with Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes........................................................................................................ 24 FIGURE 9B Existing with Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes........................................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 9C Existing with Project Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes26 FIGURE 10A Existing with Project Weekday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios.................. 27 FIGURE 10B Existing with Project Saturday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios................... 28 FIGURE 11 Cumulative Project Locations......................................................................... 34 FIGURE 12A Project Opening Year 2016 Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes........................................................................................................ 35 FIGURE 12B Project Opening Year 2016 Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes........................................................................................................ 36 FIGURE 12C Project Opening Year 2016 Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes........................................................................................................ 37 FIGURE 13A Project Opening Year 2016 with Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes ......................................................................... 38 FIGURE 13B Project Opening Year 2016 with Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes ......................................................................... 39 FIGURE 13C Project Opening Year 2016 with Project Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes.......................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 14A Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes............................................ 41 FIGURE 14B Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes............................................ 42 FIGURE 14C Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement and Link Volumes..................................................... 43 FIGURE 15A Project Opening Year 2016 Weekday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios........ 48 FIGURE 15B Project Opening Year 2016 Saturday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios........ 49 FIGURE 16A Project Opening Year 2016 with Project Weekday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios............................................................................................................ 50 FIGURE 16B Project Opening Year 2016 with Project Saturday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios............................................................................................................ 51 FIGURE 17A Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Weekday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios......................................................................... 52 FIGURE 17B Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Saturday Daily Link Volumes and V/C Ratios......................................................................... 53 List of Tables PAGE TABLE 1 Existing Level of Service..................................................................................6 TABLE 2A HCM Unsignalized Level of Service Descriptions ............................................ 11 TABLE 2B HCM Unsignalized Level of Service Descriptions ............................................ 12 TABLE 3 Proposed Project Trip Generation................................................................... 17 TABLE 4 Existing Year (2015) Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary....................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 5 Existing Year (2015) Saturday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary....................................................................................................... 30 TABLE 6 Project Opening Year 2016 Weekday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ..................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 7 Project Opening Year 2016 Saturday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ..................................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 8 Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Weekday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ............................................................ 46 TABLE 9 Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and Cumulative Projects Saturday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ............................................................ 47 TABLE 10 Level of Service and Project Access Driveways .............................................. 54 VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 1 INTRODUCTION Study Purpose and Project Description The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to evaluate potential traffic circulation issues associated with a proposed 38,000 square-foot Audi automotive dealership and to identify mitigation measures, if necessary, to meet City of Temecula circulation network level of service (LOS) criteria. The Project site is located adjacent to the I-15 Freeway, southwest of the Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane intersection, at the current cul-de-sac terminus of Temecula Center Drive at an existing Mercedes Benz dealership (see Figure 1). The Project site is 4.5 acres and will provide showroom, sales, service, customer lounge, and administrative facilities, in addition to parking and landscaped areas. A “jewel box” car display is proposed to face the I-15 Freeway. The project will extend half-section improvements of Temecula Center Drive along the frontage of the site and provide a new cul-de-sac terminus. Site access is to be provided from two driveways on either side of the site showroom and service buildings. A Project site plan is shown on Figure 2. Study Area and Existing Circulation System Figure 3 shows the existing study area roadway network and intersections surrounding the Project site. The following are the six (6) off-site study area intersections included in this study: 1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jackson Avenue (signalized); 2. Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane (all-way stop); 3. Ynez Road and Date Street (signalized); 4. Ynez Road and Winchester Road (signalized); 5. Winchester Road and I-15 NB Ramps; and 6. Winchester Road and I-15 SB Ramps. The project site is located along the west side of Temecula Center Drive west of Ynez Road. Currently Temecula Center Drive is improved to an interim 40-foot width adjacent to the Project SECTION I VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 2 site with ultimate improvements of the westerly half-section from Ynez Road to its terminus at the cul-de-sac adjacent to the Mercedes Benz dealership. The ultimate improvement of Temecula Center Drive will be based on a Collector roadway cross-section and will provide a 56-foot curb-to-curb width in a 78-foot right-of-way. The designations of Temecula Center Drive and Waverly Lane are currently not included on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Roadway Plan (Figure C-2). Ynez Road is designated a Principal Arterial six-lane divided roadway south of Winchester Road and a Major Arterial four-lane divided roadway from Winchester Road to the northerly City limit per the City General Plan Circulation Element Roadway Plan. The roadway is currently fully- improved to these configurations. From the Murrieta City boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Jackson Avenue (Ynez Road) is designated a Major Highway four-lane divided roadway per the City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element and has been fully improved to this configuration. The posted speed limit along Ynez Road and Jackson Avenue is 45 mph. Murrieta Hot Springs Road within the project study area is located within the City of Murrieta which designates this roadway as a Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor per the Circulation Element. This designation identifies a six-lane divided roadway cross-section and the roadway is currently fully-improved to this configuration. The posted speed limit along Murrieta Hot Springs Road is 45 mph. Date Street is shown as a Principal Arterial six-lane divided roadway per the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Roadway Plan. The roadway is fully-improved to the designated cross-section width, however, east of the Ynez intersection the roadway is striped as a four-lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit along Date Street in vicinity of Ynez Road is 50 mph. Winchester Road is designated an Urban Arterial eight-lane divided roadway per the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Roadway Plan. From east of Ynez Road through the Ynez Road intersection the roadway provides four through lanes in each direction and through the I-15 interchange area to Jefferson Avenue the roadway provides three through lanes in each direction with several exclusive right-turn lanes. The posted speed limit along Winchester Road is 40 mph. VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 6 Existing Study Area Traffic Conditions Figures 4A and 4B show existing (2015) weekday am and pm peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and roadway link volumes within the study area, respectively. Figure 4C shows existing (2015) Saturday peak hour intersection turning movement and roadway link volumes. Traffic data for this analysis was collected by National Data and Surveying Services in April and May 2015 and is included in the Appendix. To provide a detailed analysis of existing traffic operation in the study area and to provide a baseline for existing level of service (LOS), the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operation Method was used to analyze study area signalized intersections. Using this method, the average signal delay in seconds per vehicle is calculated for each intersection considering unique features including turning movement volumes, traffic signal phasing and timing, and the number and types of lanes on each approach. The average signal delay per vehicle is used to determine level of service as shown on Table 2A. The 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method was used to analyze intersections with stop control. Using this method, the average approach delay in seconds per vehicle is calculated for each leg of the intersection considering unique features including turning movement volumes, and number and types of lanes on each approach. The average approach delay per vehicle is used to determine level of service as shown on Table 2B. Existing intersection LOS is shown on Table 1 below. Table 1 – Existing Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hr Location Avg. Delay (s) LOS Avg. Delay (s) LOS Avg. Delay (s) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue / Murrieta Hot Springs Road 14.0 B 18.8 B 17.3 B 2. Ynez Road / Waverly Lane 10.3 B 15.7 C 10.6 B 3. Ynez Road / Date Street 30.2 C 26.2 C 41.2 D 4. Ynez Road / Winchester Road 36.3 D 42.8 D 42.5 D 5. I-15 NB Ramps / Winchester Road 16.2 B 26.5 C 39.3 D 6. I-15 SB Ramps / Winchester Rd 21.5 C 27.6 C 23.0 C VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 7 Average Daily Traffic and Volume to Capacity Analysis Figures 5A and 5B show existing 24-hour daily traffic volumes and volume to capacity ratios within the study area for weekday and Saturday conditions, respectively. All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios are based on maximum two-way daily capacities as identified in the City of Temecula Circulation Element. Therefore, a v/c ratio of .90 or below indicates a roadway operating at Level of Service (LOS) D or better based on 24-hour traffic volumes. Figures 5A and 5B show that all study area roadway segments are operating at Level of Service D or better under both existing weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are exclusive right-turn lanes and dual-left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. VA Consulting, Inc Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California TABLE 2A Level of Service Descriptions For Signalized Intersections Level of Service Operations with delay less than or equal to 5.0 sec per vehicle; signal progression extremely favorable and/or short cycle lengths;< 10.0 most vehicles do not stop Operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle; good progression and/or short cycle lengths; higher 10.01 to 20.00 levels of average delay; more vehicle stops than LOS A Operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per 20.01 to 35.00 vehicle; fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths; significant number of vehicles stopping; cycle failures may begin to appear Operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle; noticealbe congestion; unfavorable progression; long 35.01 to 55.00 cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios; many vehicles stop and portion of vehicles not stopping declines; noticeable individual cycle failures Operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle; limit of acceptable delay; poor progression; long cycle lengths and 55.01 to 80.00 high v/c ratios; frequent occurrences of individual cycle failures Operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle; considered unacceptable driver delay; congestion; oversaturation; poor progression;> 80.01 long cycle lengths; high v/c ratios over 1.00; many individual cycle failures R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 2A - LOS Description.xls]Sheet1 Traffic Flow Description Signal Delay Per Vehicle (SEC) A B C D E F 11 VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California TABLE 2B LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Operations with delay less than or equal to 10.0 sec per vehicle; most vehicles have a very short stop <10.0 Operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle; higher levels of delay, longer stops than LOS A 10.1 to 15.0 Operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle; significant levels of delay 15.1 to 25.0 Operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 35.0 sec per vehicle; noticealbe congestion; increased queue lengths; long delays 25.1 to 35.0 Operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 50.0 sec per vehicle; limit of acceptable delay; very long delay; long queue lengths 35.1 to 50.0 Operations with delay in excess of 50.0 sec per vehicle; considered unacceptable driver delay; congestion; oversaturation;> 50.0 unacceptable queuing R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 2B - LOS Description.xls]Sheet1 C D E F Traffic Flow Description Average Approach Delay Per Vehicle (SEC) A B 12 VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 15 PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 3 provides the proposed Audi automotive site trip generation. Trip generation rates and forecast project weekday and Saturday daily and peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Table 3. The trip generation rates used to forecast traffic volumes produced by the project are identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, in Trip Generation, 9th Edition. The proposed project is to be implemented in 2016. Table 3 shows that the proposed Project will result in approximately 1,227 daily trips per weekday and 1,130 per typical Saturday. The forecast weekday am and pm peak hour volumes are 55 inbound/18 outbound and 40 inbound/60 outbound, respectively. Saturday peak hour site volumes are forecast at 153 with 77 inbound and 76 outbound. Figure 6 shows the study area distribution of forecast Project traffic volumes based on characteristics of the site, surrounding land uses, and the local and regional circulation systems. Figures 7A and 7B show forecast weekday am and pm peak hour Project only turning movement and roadway link volumes, respectively. Figure 7C shows Saturday peak hour Project only turning movement and roadway link volumes. Figures 8A and 8B show Project only weekday and Saturday 24-hour volumes on the study area network, respectively. Figures 9A and 9B show existing 2015 turning movement and roadway link volumes combined with Project traffic volumes for weekday am and pm peak hour conditions, respectively. Figure 9C shows these same volumes for Saturday peak conditions. Existing with Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour volumes and v/c ratios within the study area are shown on Figures 10A and 10B, respectively. All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios shown on Figures 10A, and 10B are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 10A and 10B show that all study area roadway segments are operating at Level of Service D or better under both existing with Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are SECTION II VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 16 exclusive right-turn lanes and dual-left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. Table 4 shows the results of 2000 HCM intersection level of service analysis for the study area intersections for existing and existing with Project weekday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 4 shows that all study area intersections are currently operating at Level of Service D or better with existing weekday am and pm peak hour volumes and are predicted to remain operating at LOS D or better with existing plus Project traffic volumes. Table 5 shows the results of 2000 HCM intersection level of service analysis for the study area intersections for existing and existing with Project Saturday peak traffic conditions. Table 5 shows that all study area intersections are currently operating at Level of Service D or better with existing Saturday peak hour volumes and are predicted to remain operating at LOS D or better with existing plus Project traffic volumes. VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California TABLE 3 Hoehn Audi - Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rates* Daily Land Use Unit ITE Land Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out 1A. Automobile Sales (Weekday)SF 841 38,000 32.30 1.92 75% 25%2.62 40% 60% Project Trip Generation Land Use Quantity ADT Total In Out Total In Out 1A. Automobile Sales (Weekday)38,000 1,227 73 55 18 100 40 60 Total 1,227 73 55 18 100 40 60 * Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Trip Generation Rates* Daily Land Use Unit ITE Land Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out 1B. Automobile Sales (Saturday 2-6PM)SF 841 38,000 29.74 4.02 50% 50% Project Trip Generation Land Use Quantity ADT Total In Out 1B. Automobile Sales (Saturday 2-6PM)38,000 1,130 153 77 76 Total 1,130 153 77 76 * Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 3 - Trip Generation.xls]Sheet1 Peak Hour Volume Peak Hour Split AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Volume Split Split AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 17 VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS 2 9 R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 4 - WEEKDAY Existing+Project LOS.xls]Sheet1 21.7 C 28.0 C 16.4 B 24.2 C 37.1 D 44.1 D 30.5 C 26.9 C 10.9 B 18.5 C 14.1 B 19.1 BB C C 1. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs 2. Ynez Rd/Waverly Ln (Stop-Controlled) 3. Ynez Rd/Date St 14.0 10.3 30.2 36.34. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 16.2 21.5 C 18.8 15.7 26.2 42.8 B B C D B D 26.5 27.6 C C 0.1 0.3 0.6 2.8 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.2 (2.3) 0.2 0.4 ǻ AM (sec.) ǻ PM (sec.) TABLE 4 Existing Year (2015) Weekday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Existing (2015) with ProjectExisting (2015) Intersection PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 5 - SATURDAY Existing+Project LOS.xls]Sheet1 0.1 (1.1) 1.5 ǻ 2-6 PM (sec.) 0.7 0.4 1.6 C B B D D D 42.54. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 39.3 23.0 2. Ynez Rd/Waverly Ln (Stop-Controlled) 3. Ynez Rd/Date St 17.3 10.6 41.2 TABLE 5 12.2 B 17.7 B Existing with ProjectExisting (2015) Intersection Existing Year (2015) Saturday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections 1. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs 23.1 C Peak Hour Peak Hour 40.0 D 44.0 D 40.1 D 30 VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 31 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Future Project Conditions To evaluate project impacts at the six off-site study area intersections with future project conditions, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operations Method has been used to analyze the level of service at signalized intersections. The level of service analysis at one stop-controlled intersection has also been performed using the 2000 HCM unsignalized method. The following future project scenarios were analyzed: Year 2016 (No Project); Year 2016 with Project; and Year 2016 with Project and cumulative projects. The Year 2016 baseline (No Project) traffic volumes were calculated by applying a 2% ambient annual growth factor to the existing (2015) traffic volumes. For the Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and cumulative projects scenario the identified cumulative projects include the following and are shown on Figure 11: Project Name Size Land Use Harveston Village 13,958 Square Feet Commercial Roripaugh Ranch 1,495 SFR & 100,000 sq.ft. Mixed-Use Assisted Living & Memory Care 85,900 Square Feet Assisted Living Facility Office in Margaritaville Shopping Ctr. 7,337 Square Feet Office Untitled 11,589 Square feet Restaurant Untitled 241,000 Square Feet Office Untitled 170 Beds Nursing Facility Untitled 2,213 Square Feet Drive-Thru Restaurant 84-Unit Condominium 84 Dwelling Units Residential 184-Unit Condominium 184 Dwelling Units Residential 64 Single Family Residential 64 Dwelling Units Residential 196-Unit Apartment 196 Dwelling Units Residential 112-Unit Apartment 112 Dwelling Units Residential The target level of service to be maintained at the study area intersections is Level of Service D. At intersections with a Level of Service E or F without Project traffic volumes, a maximum impact of 2 seconds of additional intersection delay may be added after project traffic volumes are included. If more than 2 seconds of delay are added by the project traffic volumes, mitigation will be required at the intersection. SECTION III VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 32 Project Opening Year 2016 No Project volumes are shown on Figures 12A and 12B for weekday am and pm peak hour conditions, respectively, and on Figure 12C for Saturday peak hour conditions. Project Opening Year 2016 With Project volumes are shown on Figures 13A and 13B for weekday am and pm peak hour conditions, respectively, and on Figure 13C for Saturday peak hour conditions. Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and cumulative project traffic volumes are shown on Figures 14A and 14B for weekday am and pm peak hour conditions, respectively, and on Figure 14C for Saturday peak hour conditions. The results of intersection level of service analyses for forecast Year 2016 weekday conditions are provided on Table 6 and for Saturday conditions on Table 6. These tables show there are no significant impacts resulting from the addition of Project traffic volumes to baseline 2016 traffic volumes. Tables 6 and 7 show that all study area intersections are forecast to operate at Level of Service D or better with forecast 2016 with Project weekday am and pm peak hour, and Saturday peak hour volumes. The results of intersection level of service analyses for forecast Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and cumulative project volumes are shown on Table 8 for weekday conditions and on Table 9 for Saturday conditions. These tables show there are no significant impacts resulting from the addition of Project and cumulative traffic volumes to baseline 2016 traffic volumes and forecast LOS remains at D or better for all scenarios. Figures 15A and 15B show Project Opening Year 2016 No Project weekday and Saturday 24- hour traffic volumes and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios within the study area, respectively. All volume to capacity ratios shown on Figures 14A and 14B indicate roadways are forecast to operate at LOS D or better under both weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are exclusive right-turn lanes and dual-left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. Figures 16A and 16B show Project Opening Year 2016 with Project weekday and Saturday 24- hour traffic volumes and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios within the study area, respectively. All volume to capacity ratios shown on Figures 15A and 15B indicate roadways are typically forecast to operate at LOS D or better as indicated by a volume to capacity ratio of less than .90 VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 33 with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 Interchange. As previously discussed, the augmented capacity of this roadway that was not considered in the v/c analysis is anticipated to provide a minimum LOS D. Figures 17A and 17B show Project Opening Year 2016 with Project and cumulative projects weekday and Saturday 24-hour traffic volumes and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios within the study area, respectively. All volume to capacity ratios shown on Figures 16A and 16B indicate roadways are forecast to operate at LOS D or better as indicated by a volume to capacity ratio of less than .90 with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 Interchange where LOS D operation is anticipated with a v/c ratio over .90 if the roadway’s augmented capacity is considered. Future French Valley/I-15 Interchange Currently there is an on-going project to complete a new interchange at the I-15 and French Valley Parkway. The future alignment of French Valley Parkway will connect Cherry Street and Date Street. Phase I of this project was completed in late 2014 and Phase II is currently scheduled to complete design mid-2015 with bidding and award planned to be completed by the end of the year and construction beginning in 2016. When completed, the new interchange will provide additional relief for the Ynez Road/Winchester Road intersection. This location is the only project study area intersection that is forecast to exceed LOS criteria with development of Hoehn Audi Project and considering cumulative projects. VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS 4 4 R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 6 - WEEKDAY Year 2016.xls]Sheet1 22.1 C 28.4 C 16.6 B 28.5 C 37.8 D 44.7 D 30.7 C 27.7 C 11.0 B 18.8 C 14.1 B 20.2 CB C C 1. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs 2. Ynez Rd/Waverly Ln (Stop-Controlled) 3. Ynez Rd/Date St 13.9 10.5 30.2 37.14. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 16.6 21.9 C 19.9 16.0 27.2 43.8 B B C D B D 26.9 28.4 C C 0.2 0.3 0.5 2.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 - 1.6 0.2 - ǻ AM (sec.) ǻ PM (sec.) TABLE 6 Project Opening Year (2016) Weekday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus (Project)Project Occupancy Year 2016 Intersection PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California Peak Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS 4 5 R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 7 - SATURDAY Year 2016.xls]Sheet1 ǻ 2-6PM (sec.) TABLE 7 Project Year (2016) Saturday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Intersection Peak Hour Project Occupancy Year (2016)Project Occupancy Year plus Project 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.7 D 42.5 18.5 12.4 25.1 45.9 B B D 23.4 D CC D 43.94. Ynez Rd/Winchester Rd 5. I-15 NB Ramps/Winchester Rd 6. I-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 40.7 23.2 C 1. Jackson Ave/Murrieta Hot Springs 2. Ynez Rd/Waverly Ln (Stop-Controlled) 3. Ynez Rd/Date St 18.0 10.7 23.6 B B C VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS 4 6 R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 8 - WEEKDAY (E+A+C+P) LOS.xls]Sheet1 D D C 1. Jackson Avenue / Murrieta Hot Springs Road 2. Ynez Road / Waverly Lane (Stop-Controlled) 3. Ynez Road / Date Street 15.7 13.9 33.5 13.9 Project Occupancy (2016) plus Cumulative plus (Project) Intersection PM Peak Hour Project Occupancy Year 2016 PM Peak Hour 53.74. Ynez Road / Winchester Road 5. I-15 NB Ramps / Winchester Road 6. I-15 SB Ramps / Winchester Road 18.9 23.6 37.1 D 43.8 D C 36.3 28.4 31.1 52.2 B B C D B D 42.8 33.4 D C B 19.9 B 10.5 B 16.0 C 30.2 C 27.2 C 16.6 B 26.9 C 21.9 C 28.4 C 12.4 3.3 3.9 ǻ AM (sec.) ǻ PM (sec.) 1.8 16.4 1.7 5.0 TABLE 8 Project Opening Year 2016 with Cumulative plus Project Weekday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections 16.6 8.4 2.3 15.9 3.4 VA Consulting, Inc.Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership June, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, California Peak Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS 4 7 R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 9 - SATURDAY (E+A+C+P) LOS.xls]Sheet1 C 23.2 C D C 27.5 48.4 D 46.0 C 6. I-15 SB Ramps / Winchester Road 1. Jackson Avenue / Murrieta Hot Springs Road 2. Ynez Road / Waverly Lane (Stop-Controlled) 3. Ynez Road / Date Street 4. Ynez Road / Winchester Road 5. I-15 NB Ramps / Winchester Road Intersection Peak Hour 20.6 13.8 C B Project Occupancy (2016) plus Cumulative plus (Project)Project Occupancy Year 18.0 B 4.5 5.3 0.9 43.9 D 40.7 D 24.1 2.6 3.1 3.9 TABLE 9 Project Opening Year (2016) with Cumulative plus (Project) Saturday Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ǻ 2-6PM (sec.) 10.7 B 23.6 VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 54 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES Site Access Driveways, On-site Circulation and Level of Service Analysis The project will provide site access at two driveways along Temecula Center Drive as shown on the Project Site Plan (Figure 2). These driveways each have a 24-foot width appropriate for two-way travel. As Temecula Center Drive will be improved according to City requirements for a 56-foot curb-to-curb collector roadway within 78 feet of right-of-way (per City Std. 103A), including satisfaction of minimum horizontal alignment design criteria, there should be no constraints to meeting sight-distance requirements at the Project driveways and any required limited use areas should be observed. A 24-foot wide drive aisle/fire lane transverses the site and connects the two access driveways on either side of the Project buildings. The site provides 145 spaces for service/repair, outdoor sales, indoor sales, and office/employee parking. An additional 29 spaces are provided for new car inventory. Each driveway provides direct access to an approximately equal number of parking spaces. Figures 7A, 7B, and 7C show forecast volumes at each of the project access driveways and Table 10 below shows forecast LOS for each driveway under Project weekday and Saturday conditions assuming one-way stop control on the driveways. Table 10 – Level of Service at Project Access Driveways AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hr Location Avg. Delay (s) LOS Avg. Delay (s) LOS Avg. Delay (s) LOS 7a. Project Driveway (N’ly) 1.6 A 3.0 A 2.5 A 7b. Project Driveway (S’ly) 8.1 A 7.7 A 7.8 A SECTION IV VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 55 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Forecast project driveway volumes were analyzed in peak hour signal warrants and do not satisfy minimum thresholds for signalization. The proposed automotive dealership site is not anticipated to ever generate sufficient traffic volumes to warrant signalization, even if the site were to be served by only one driveway. Additionally, a traffic signal warrant analysis was prepared for the unsignalized intersection of Ynez Road at Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane for Year 2016 with Project and cumulative traffic volume conditions and signalization was also not warranted at this location. Traffic signal warrant calculations are contained in the Appendix. VA Consulting, Inc. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis June 2015 Temecula, California R:\Projects\1218_0100\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\01 Traffic Study\Report\Report_text.doc 56 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Local Circulation System Impacts The proposed Project would develop an approximate 38,000 square-foot Audi automotive dealership on a 4.5-acre site located between the I-15 Freeway and Ynez Road, near the current cul-de-sac terminus of Temecula Center Drive. The proposed Project will generate approximately 1,227 daily trips per weekday and 1,130 per typical Saturday. The forecast weekday am and pm peak hour volumes are 55 inbound/18 outbound and 40 inbound/60 outbound, respectively. Saturday peak hour site volumes are forecast at 153 with 77 inbound and 76 outbound. The resulting Project traffic from this development has less than a significant impact on predicted Year 2016 traffic conditions despite the traffic generated by identified surrounding cumulative projects is also considered. All of the intersections are predicted to operate at LOS D or better for all scenarios. No mitigation of of-site intersection or roadway circulation impacts is required for this project. Only one Project study area intersection, Ynez Road at Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane is currently unsignalized. Even considering the highest traffic volume generating scenario, Year 2016 with Project and cumulative project conditions, this intersection did not satisfy warrants for signalization. On-site Circulation There are no concerns regarding on-site circulation associated with the proposed project. The project access roadways are appropriately sized and configured for the project volumes and designed in accordance with applicable agency standards. The project access locations along Temecula Center Drive do not satisfy warrants for signalization nor would they ever be expected to do so. The Project access driveway locations are predicted to operate at a high level of service (LOS A) with one-way stop-control and are anticipated to continue to operate at a high level of service in the future, while considering additional development and traffic volumes along Temecula Center Drive. SECTION V APPENDIX A Existing AM/PM Turning Movement and ADT Count Data ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1.5 0.5 2 City: AM 750 2 930 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 373 4 1200 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 895 0 518 1 1275 0 726 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 724 0 1784 2 223 0 279 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 0 PM 0 0 0 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 2025 0 1099 2170 0 1244 947 0 2063 1654 0 2984 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM0 1682 283 225 0 East Leg North Leg 2095 3824 South Leg 31622972 0 225 0 283 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 5181577 West Leg 0 West Leg 4228 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 225 0 283 Northbound Approach 2577 0 6:00 PM 895 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-001 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h I-15 SB Ramps and Winchester Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 2984 895 0 518 Signalized CONTROL I- 1 5 S B R a m p s AM Peak Hour Thursday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:4/30/2015Date: 1654 0 800 AM Winchester Rd 430 PM 2025 0 1099 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 0 0 0 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 0 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 600 0 1250 2 1778 0 1123 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1308 0 2173 2 351 0 811 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 403 0 532 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 125 2 797 PM 1.3 0.3 1.3 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 2181 0 1248 2378 0 2373 1659 0 2984 1840 0 2970 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:4/30/2015Date: 1840 0 800 AM Winchester Rd I- 1 5 N B R a m p s AM Peak Hour Thursday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula I-15 NB Ramps and Winchester Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 2970 600 0 1252 Signalized CONTROL 430 PM 2181 15-4129-002 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h 0 1248 Total Volume Per Leg Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 351 0 811 Northbound Approach 9:00 AM 6:00 PM South Leg East Leg 935 0 0 12520 West Leg East Leg North Leg 1252 4218 0 5343 600 0 South Leg 42323840 0 1286 0 West Leg 1735924 0 811 351 0 600 0 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1.5 1.5 2 City: AM 433 275 82 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 282 377 157 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 69 0 128 0 1591 0 1279 4 2 325 0 435 284 0 280 2 4 962 0 1821 1 562 0 705 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 311 164 139 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 752 720 483 PM 3 2 1 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 2335 0 2313 1944 0 1687 1849 0 2961 1183 0 2461 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM1955 790 1362 1121 0 East Leg North Leg 2099 3127 South Leg 52744184 0 1735 0 3317 South Leg East Leg 614 0 0 1283816 West Leg 0 West Leg 4148 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 1121 0 1362 Northbound Approach 1348 0 6:00 PM 558 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-003 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Ynez Rd and Winchester Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 2461 558 0 1283 Signalized CONTROL Yn e z R d AM Peak Hour Thursday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:4/30/2015Date: 1183 0 800 AM Winchester Rd 430 PM 2335 0 2313 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1 2 1 City: AM 2 286 159 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 225 195 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 178 0 173 1 6 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 558 0 249 2 3 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 7 127 128 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 2 648 642 PM 1 2 1 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 15 0 4 742 0 424 5 0 4 289 0 838 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM1292 447 476 846 0 East Leg North Leg 1242 1031 South Leg 820 0 1108 0 1768 South Leg East Leg 262 0 0 822420 West Leg 0 West Leg 1262 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 846 0 476 Northbound Approach 753 0 6:00 PM 306 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-004 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Ynez Rd and Date St , Temecula PM Peak Hour 838 306 0 822 Signalized CONTROL Yn e z R d AM Peak Hour Thursday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:4/30/2015Date: 289 0 730 AM Date St 445 PM 15 0 4 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1 2 1 City: AM 45 304 20 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 12 321 55 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 23 0 21 0 0 0 0 1 1 37 0 24 127 0 80 0 1 1 0 0 0 14 0 20 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 32 217 56 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 13 706 103 PM 1 2 1 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 77 0 25 150 0 101 52 0 44 77 0 158 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM822 369 421 445 0 East Leg North Leg 1139 227 South Leg 69129 0 750 0 1243 South Leg East Leg 305 0 0 751388 West Leg 0 West Leg 259 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 445 0 421 Northbound Approach 646 0 6:00 PM 277 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-005 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Ynez Rd and Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr , Temecula PM Peak Hour 158 277 0 751 4 Way Stop CONTROL Yn e z R d AM Peak Hour Thursday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:4/30/2015Date: 77 0 730 AM Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr 445 PM 77 0 25 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 0 0 0 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 0 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 0 0 1558 0 1731 3 0 0 0 0 105 0 176 1 3 1364 0 1790 1 141 0 180 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 188 0 71 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 476 0 181 PM 2 0 2 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 1746 0 2207 1663 0 1907 1505 0 1970 1435 0 1971 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM657 0 356 246 0 East Leg North Leg 0 3098 South Leg 41773251 0 505 0 1013 South Leg East Leg 259 0 0 00 West Leg 0 West Leg 3878 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 246 0 356 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-006 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Jackson Ave and MurrieteHot Springs Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 1971 0 0 0 Signalized CONTROL Ja c k s o n A v e AM Peak Hour Thursday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:4/30/2015Date: 1435 0 715 AM MurrieteHot Springs Rd 415 PM 1746 0 2207 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1.5 0.5 2 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 255 4 1187 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 782 1 0 0 687 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 877 2 0 0 179 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 0 PM 0 0 0 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 0 0 942 0 0 1469 0 0 1056 0 0 2064 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM0 0 183 0 0 East Leg North Leg 2228 0 South Leg 19980 0 0 0 183 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 7821446 West Leg 0 West Leg 3533 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 0 0 183 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-001 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM Count Periods AM Start 2:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h I-15 SB Ramps and Winchester Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 2064 0 0 782 Signalized CONTROL I- 1 5 S B R a m p s AM Peak Hour Saturday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/2/2015Date: 0 0 Winchester Rd 200 PM 0 0 942 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 0 0 0 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 0 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 1335 2 0 0 1308 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1766 2 0 0 309 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 162 3 964 PM 1.3 0.3 1.3 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 0 0 1470 0 0 2643 0 0 2075 0 0 2730 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM1129 0 309 0 0 East Leg North Leg 1338 0 South Leg 35450 0 0 0 1438 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 13380 West Leg 0 West Leg 5373 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 0 0 309 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-002 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM Count Periods AM Start 2:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h I-15 NB Ramps and Winchester Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 2730 0 0 1338 Signalized CONTROL I- 1 5 N B R a m p s AM Peak Hour Saturday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/2/2015Date: 0 0 Winchester Rd 200 PM 0 0 1470 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1.5 1.5 2 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 209 306 163 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 145 0 0 0 1584 4 2 0 0 326 0 0 364 2 4 0 0 1674 1 0 0 734 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 829 416 470 PM 3 2 1 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 0 0 2622 0 0 2093 0 0 2734 0 0 2307 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM1715 0 1404 0 0 East Leg North Leg 1565 0 South Leg 53560 0 0 0 3119 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 887678 West Leg 0 West Leg 4400 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 0 0 1404 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-003 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM Count Periods AM Start 2:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Ynez Rd and Winchester Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 2307 0 0 887 Signalized CONTROL Yn e z R d AM Peak Hour Saturday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/2/2015Date: 0 0 Winchester Rd 200 PM 0 0 2622 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1 2 1 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 4 226 126 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 129 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 271 2 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 1 414 353 PM 1 2 1 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 0 0 8 0 0 403 0 0 6 0 0 482 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM768 0 498 0 0 East Leg North Leg 901 0 South Leg 140 0 0 0 1266 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 545356 West Leg 0 West Leg 885 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 0 0 498 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-004 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM Count Periods AM Start 2:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Ynez Rd and Date St , Temecula PM Peak Hour 482 0 0 545 Signalized CONTROL Yn e z R d AM Peak Hour Saturday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/2/2015Date: 0 0 Date St 315 PM 0 0 8 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 1 2 1 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 10 263 28 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 24 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 74 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 15 448 79 PM 1 2 1 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 0 0 27 0 0 100 0 0 34 0 0 108 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM542 0 359 0 0 East Leg North Leg 784 0 South Leg 610 0 0 0 901 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 483301 West Leg 0 West Leg 208 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 0 0 359 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-005 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM Count Periods AM Start 2:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Ynez Rd and Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr , Temecula PM Peak Hour 108 0 0 483 4 Way Stop CONTROL Yn e z R d AM Peak Hour Saturday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/2/2015Date: 0 0 Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr 300 PM 0 0 27 N ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes 0 0 0 City: AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 0 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1505 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 1 3 0 0 1557 1 0 0 167 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 0 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 0 NOON PM 385 0 176 PM 2 0 2 Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 0 0 1890 0 0 1685 0 0 1724 0 0 1733 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM561 0 347 0 0 East Leg North Leg 0 0 South Leg 36140 0 0 0 908 South Leg East Leg 0 0 0 00 West Leg 0 West Leg 3418 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 0 0 347 Northbound Approach 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 Total Volume Per Leg 15-4129-006 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM Count Periods AM Start 2:00 PM Day: E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Jackson Ave and MurrieteHot Springs Rd , Temecula PM Peak Hour 1733 0 0 0 Signalized CONTROL Ja c k s o n A v e AM Peak Hour Saturday We s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h Temecula Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/2/2015Date: 0 0 MurrieteHot Springs Rd 200 PM 0 0 1890 N Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_001 NB SB EB WB 0 0 28,597 25,668 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 40 38 78 541 361 902 00:15 27 32 59 456 385 84100:30 38 17 55 502 364 86600:45 15 120 24 111 39 231 497 1996 414 1524 911 352001:00 31 32 63 507 357 86401:15 25 31 56 439 389 82801:30 28 42 70 529 365 89401:45 26 110 23 128 49 238 464 1939 393 1504 857 344302:00 22 25 47 516 313 829 02:15 15 23 38 459 326 785 02:30 19 23 42 551 408 959 02:45 14 70 33 104 47 174 494 2020 389 1436 883 345603:00 25 40 65 540 333 873 03:15 27 48 75 536 331 867 03:30 51 75 126 512 384 896 03:45 68 171 72 235 140 406 537 2125 309 1357 846 348204:00 52 116 168 697 345 1042 04:15 72 187 259 687 327 1014 04:30 96 256 352 760 300 1060 04:45 97 317 293 852 390 1169 742 2886 309 1281 1051 416705:00 108 374 482 750 318 1068 05:15 124 460 584 733 317 1050 05:30 145 471 616 685 302 987 05:45 148 525 464 1769 612 2294 541 2709 247 1184 788 389306:00 141 457 598 474 254 728 06:15 206 445 651 401 245 646 06:30 224 485 709 347 246 593 06:45 237 808 500 1887 737 2695 301 1523 200 945 501 246807:00 277 501 778 330 214 544 07:15 292 531 823 264 183 447 07:30 356 554 910 290 164 454 07:45 347 1272 575 2161 922 3433 255 1139 162 723 417 186208:00 379 517 896 229 158 387 08:15 398 533 931 232 144 376 08:30 435 509 944 185 154 339 08:45 443 1655 609 2168 1052 3823 201 847 139 595 340 1442 09:00 384 490 874 182 150 332 09:15 425 398 823 144 140 284 09:30 458 403 861 136 95 231 09:45 456 1723 431 1722 887 3445 94 556 96 481 190 103710:00 431 380 811 113 82 195 10:15 416 395 811 84 65 149 10:30 451 384 835 56 57 113 10:45 446 1744 388 1547 834 3291 43 296 65 269 108 56511:00 449 353 802 48 60 108 11:15 451 365 816 52 41 93 11:30 461 381 842 59 48 107 11:45 502 1863 405 1504 907 3367 24 183 32 181 56 364 TOTALS 10378 14188 24566 18219 11480 29699 SPLIT %42.2% 57.8%45.3%61.3% 38.7%54.7% NB SB EB WB 0 0 28,597 25,668 AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:30 08:00 16:30 12:45 16:30 AM Pk Volume 2001 2179 3823 2985 1525 4229 Pk Hr Factor 0.925 0.947 0.909 0.982 0.921 0.990 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 2927 4329 7256 0 0 5595 2465 8060 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:30 08:00 16:30 16:00 16:30 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 1655 2179 3823 0 0 2985 1281 4229 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.934 0.947 0.909 0.000 0.000 0.982 0.928 0.990 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 14:30 4/30/2015 14:45 15:00 DAILY TOTALS PM Period 13:45 Thursday 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30 14:00 Winchester Rd Bet. I-15 SB Ramps & I-15 NB Ramps 21:3021:4522:00 Total 54,265 19:3019:4520:0020:15 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 Total 54,265 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00 Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 19:15 16:4517:0017:15 14:15 Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_002 NB SB EB WB 0 0 37,139 37,848 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 98 130 228 651 559 1210 00:15 76 78 154 638 573 121100:30 88 74 162 619 581 120000:45 78 340 94 376 172 716 624 2532 605 2318 1229 485001:00 78 81 159 561 582 114301:15 63 94 157 583 638 122101:30 36 111 147 519 613 113201:45 42 219 64 350 106 569 639 2302 592 2425 1231 472702:00 51 43 94 546 558 1104 02:15 27 36 63 593 552 1145 02:30 34 29 63 604 600 1204 02:45 38 150 33 141 71 291 637 2380 580 2290 1217 467003:00 39 49 88 702 526 1228 03:15 30 60 90 644 539 1183 03:30 62 93 155 643 617 1260 03:45 83 214 91 293 174 507 635 2624 525 2207 1160 483104:00 63 141 204 684 598 1282 04:15 95 215 310 687 589 1276 04:30 119 264 383 787 587 1374 04:45 142 419 320 940 462 1359 699 2857 582 2356 1281 521305:00 146 402 548 737 590 1327 05:15 149 475 624 745 611 1356 05:30 187 491 678 754 519 1273 05:45 197 679 487 1855 684 2534 647 2883 529 2249 1176 513206:00 182 488 670 661 493 1154 06:15 258 483 741 650 514 1164 06:30 311 508 819 661 425 1086 06:45 323 1074 532 2011 855 3085 604 2576 419 1851 1023 442707:00 362 566 928 547 425 972 07:15 366 612 978 516 399 915 07:30 445 604 1049 463 381 844 07:45 403 1576 614 2396 1017 3972 401 1927 390 1595 791 352208:00 447 536 983 467 387 854 08:15 464 604 1068 411 349 760 08:30 450 537 987 334 362 696 08:45 485 1846 697 2374 1182 4220 354 1566 346 1444 700 3010 09:00 439 515 954 332 384 716 09:15 454 472 926 266 325 591 09:30 519 445 964 295 235 530 09:45 512 1924 467 1899 979 3823 260 1153 244 1188 504 234110:00 494 464 958 244 240 484 10:15 578 493 1071 202 186 388 10:30 543 517 1060 166 154 320 10:45 591 2206 514 1988 1105 4194 158 770 148 728 306 149811:00 551 496 1047 141 127 268 11:15 600 524 1124 149 124 273 11:30 634 570 1204 123 77 200 11:45 631 2416 557 2147 1188 4563 93 506 99 427 192 933 TOTALS 13063 16770 29833 24076 21078 45154 SPLIT %43.8% 56.2%39.8%53.3% 46.7%60.2% NB SB EB WB 0 0 37,139 37,848 AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:00 11:30 16:30 12:45 16:30 AM Pk Volume 2554 2396 4813 2968 2438 5338 Pk Hr Factor 0.981 0.976 0.994 0.943 0.955 0.971 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 3422 4770 8192 0 0 5740 4605 10345 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:00 08:00 16:30 16:30 16:30 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 1846 2396 4220 0 0 2968 2370 5338 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.952 0.976 0.893 0.000 0.000 0.943 0.970 0.971 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 14:30 4/30/2015 14:45 15:00 DAILY TOTALS PM Period 13:45 Thursday 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30 14:00 Winchester Rd Bet. I-15 NB Ramps & Ynez Rd 21:3021:4522:00 Total 74,987 19:3019:4520:0020:15 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 Total 74,987 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00 Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 19:15 16:4517:0017:15 14:15 Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_003 NB SB EB WB 9,468 8,566 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 28 8 36 154 122 276 00:15 19 11 30 148 121 26900:30 27 5 32 132 115 24700:45 17 91 3 27 20 118 130 564 124 482 254 104601:00 13 5 18 147 126 27301:15 21 6 27 136 130 26601:30 10 1 11 135 113 24801:45 16 60 6 18 22 78 173 591 132 501 305 109202:00 14 3 17 180 112 292 02:15 6 6 12 166 123 289 02:30 4 4 8 168 123 291 02:45 5 29 2 15 7 44 216 730 139 497 355 122703:00 3 2 5 213 120 333 03:15 4 5 9 207 123 330 03:30 5 15 20 217 159 376 03:45 5 17 17 39 22 56 188 825 111 513 299 133804:00 3 22 25 252 117 369 04:15 15 31 46 267 118 385 04:30 14 44 58 276 136 412 04:45 9 41 71 168 80 209 313 1108 109 480 422 158805:00 13 90 103 332 118 450 05:15 13 92 105 294 135 429 05:30 23 94 117 302 122 424 05:45 24 73 125 401 149 474 248 1176 108 483 356 165906:00 28 117 145 227 124 351 06:15 37 137 174 226 94 320 06:30 37 153 190 216 107 323 06:45 49 151 182 589 231 740 181 850 90 415 271 126507:00 28 187 215 183 92 275 07:15 48 230 278 133 82 215 07:30 53 234 287 121 82 203 07:45 63 192 235 886 298 1078 123 560 62 318 185 87808:00 70 191 261 102 71 173 08:15 70 180 250 106 56 162 08:30 63 185 248 105 45 150 08:45 80 283 167 723 247 1006 112 425 29 201 141 626 09:00 75 144 219 86 54 140 09:15 69 132 201 78 48 126 09:30 64 143 207 88 36 124 09:45 75 283 138 557 213 840 63 315 23 161 86 47610:00 74 112 186 63 23 86 10:15 92 121 213 50 20 70 10:30 80 118 198 49 7 56 10:45 96 342 120 471 216 813 32 194 15 65 47 25911:00 103 126 229 44 12 56 11:15 86 115 201 42 13 55 11:30 115 127 242 38 19 57 11:45 125 429 116 484 241 913 15 139 28 72 43 211 TOTALS 1991 4378 6369 7477 4188 11665 SPLIT %31.3% 68.7%35.3%64.1% 35.9%64.7% NB SB EB WB 9,468 8,566 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:15 07:15 16:45 14:45 16:45 AM Pk Volume 559 890 1124 1241 541 1725 Pk Hr Factor 0.907 0.947 0.943 0.934 0.851 0.958 7 - 9 Volume 475 1609 0 0 2084 2284 963 0 0 3247 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:15 07:15 16:45 16:30 16:45 7 - 9 Pk Volume 283 890 0 0 1124 1241 498 0 0 1725 Pk Hr Factor 0.884 0.947 0.000 0.000 0.943 0.934 0.915 0.000 0.000 0.958 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 14:30 4/30/2015 14:45 15:00 DAILY TOTALS PM Period 13:45 Thursday 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30 14:00 Ynez Rd Bet. Winchester Rd & Date St 21:3021:4522:00 Total 18,034 19:3019:4520:0020:15 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 Total 18,034 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00 Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 19:15 16:4517:0017:15 14:15 Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_004 NB SB EB WB 6,649 5,590 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 12 2 14 102 79 181 00:15 9 9 18 109 86 19500:30 10 4 14 84 94 17800:45 10 41 1 16 11 57 95 390 93 352 188 74201:00 5 3 8 114 81 19501:15 5 4 9 77 78 15501:30 8 1 9 107 75 18201:45 7 25 3 11 10 36 119 417 92 326 211 74302:00 3 2 5 101 95 196 02:15 2 5 7 121 90 211 02:30 2 2 4 132 100 232 02:45 4 11 0 9 4 20 134 488 118 403 252 89103:00 3 1 4 135 132 267 03:15 2 1 3 184 132 316 03:30 3 1 4 196 95 291 03:45 3 11 7 10 10 21 130 645 81 440 211 108504:00 4 4 8 171 88 259 04:15 4 12 16 195 108 303 04:30 7 24 31 194 121 315 04:45 8 23 23 63 31 86 192 752 90 407 282 115905:00 6 25 31 211 116 327 05:15 13 24 37 219 107 326 05:30 14 34 48 198 107 305 05:45 16 49 46 129 62 178 163 791 92 422 255 121306:00 19 47 66 177 84 261 06:15 19 56 75 146 85 231 06:30 41 72 113 127 90 217 06:45 55 134 108 283 163 417 110 560 75 334 185 89407:00 57 81 138 103 77 180 07:15 55 110 165 85 59 144 07:30 77 131 208 77 73 150 07:45 76 265 113 435 189 700 76 341 54 263 130 60408:00 76 94 170 67 47 114 08:15 80 108 188 64 41 105 08:30 85 119 204 48 47 95 08:45 86 327 86 407 172 734 59 238 35 170 94 408 09:00 71 73 144 41 39 80 09:15 67 76 143 53 22 75 09:30 57 73 130 42 35 77 09:45 69 264 85 307 154 571 26 162 21 117 47 27910:00 57 64 121 33 16 49 10:15 86 90 176 25 17 42 10:30 83 80 163 7 7 14 10:45 64 290 67 301 131 591 13 78 14 54 27 13211:00 73 67 140 13 14 27 11:15 67 76 143 11 8 19 11:30 84 87 171 6 8 14 11:45 79 303 68 298 147 601 14 44 3 33 17 77 TOTALS 1743 2269 4012 4906 3321 8227 SPLIT %43.4% 56.6%32.8%59.6% 40.4%67.2% NB SB EB WB 6,649 5,590 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:30 16:45 14:30 16:30 AM Pk Volume 374 448 755 820 482 1250 Pk Hr Factor 0.858 0.855 0.907 0.936 0.913 0.956 7 - 9 Volume 592 842 0 0 1434 1543 829 0 0 2372 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 07:15 07:30 16:45 16:15 16:30 7 - 9 Pk Volume 327 448 0 0 755 820 435 0 0 1250 Pk Hr Factor 0.951 0.855 0.000 0.000 0.907 0.936 0.899 0.000 0.000 0.956 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 14:30 4/30/2015 14:45 15:00 DAILY TOTALS PM Period 13:45 Thursday 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30 14:00 Ynez Rd Bet. Date St & Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr 21:3021:4522:00 Total 12,239 19:3019:4520:0020:15 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 Total 12,239 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00 Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 19:15 16:4517:0017:15 14:15 Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_005 NB SB EB WB 0 0 518 499 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 0 0 0 8 17 25 00:15 0 0 0 16 14 3000:30 0 0 0 6 9 1500:45 0 0 0 20 50 9 49 29 9901:00 0 0 0 14 6 2001:15 0 0 0 8 7 1501:30 1 0 1 18 7 2501:45 0 1 0 0 1 9 49 12 32 21 8102:00 0 0 0 8 8 16 02:15 0 0 0 7 8 15 02:30 0 0 0 7 6 13 02:45 0 0 0 9 31 8 30 17 6103:00 0 0 0 4 7 11 03:15 0 0 0 10 4 14 03:30 0 0 0 7 11 18 03:45 0 0 0 9 30 5 27 14 5704:00 0 0 0 12 18 30 04:15 0 0 0 16 7 23 04:30 0 0 0 6 6 12 04:45 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 45 9 40 20 8505:00 0 1 1 16 4 20 05:15 0 0 0 8 5 13 05:30 0 2 2 10 6 16 05:45 1 1 2 5 3 6 7 41 1 16 8 5706:00 0 1 1 15 11 26 06:15 0 4 4 14 4 18 06:30 0 9 9 7 5 12 06:45 0 8 22 8 22 4 40 2 22 6 6207:00 0 4 4 7 2 9 07:15 1 7 8 3 2 5 07:30 13 17 30 4 1 5 07:45 15 29 23 51 38 80 2 16 2 7 4 2308:00 17 18 35 3 0 3 08:15 7 17 24 3 3 6 08:30 13 13 26 5 3 8 08:45 8 45 19 67 27 112 2 13 0 6 2 19 09:00 9 11 20 4 0 4 09:15 6 5 11 1 0 1 09:30 4 13 17 6 0 6 09:45 8 27 9 38 17 65 3 14 0 3 1410:00 11 12 23 4 1 5 10:15 6 5 11 1 0 1 10:30 15 14 29 0 0 0 10:45 8 40 5 36 13 76 0 5 1 2 1 711:00 9 12 21 1 0 1 11:15 11 11 22 0 0 0 11:30 10 10 20 2 0 2 11:45 7 37 15 48 22 85 0 3 0 0 3 TOTALS 181 268 449 337 231 568 SPLIT %40.3% 59.7%44.1%59.3% 40.7%55.9% NB SB EB WB 0 0 518 499 AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 12:45 12:00 12:00 AM Pk Volume 52 75 127 60 49 99 Pk Hr Factor 0.765 0.815 0.836 0.750 0.721 0.825 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 74 118 192 0 0 86 56 142 7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 16:15 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 52 75 127 0 0 49 40 85 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.765 0.815 0.836 0.000 0.000 0.766 0.556 0.708 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 14:30 4/30/2015 14:45 15:00 DAILY TOTALS PM Period 13:45 Thursday 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30 14:00 Temecula Center Dr W/O Ynez Rd 21:3021:4522:00 Total 1,017 19:3019:4520:0020:15 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 Total 1,017 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00 Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 19:15 16:4517:0017:15 14:15 Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_006 NB SB EB WB 5,942 4,825 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 5 3 8 87 82 169 00:15 8 6 14 89 72 16100:30 9 2 11 71 75 14600:45 9 31 3 14 12 45 86 333 76 305 162 63801:00 5 5 10 107 72 17901:15 3 4 7 69 60 12901:30 2 0 2 103 62 16501:45 2 12 2 11 4 23 92 371 82 276 174 64702:00 3 2 5 99 81 180 02:15 3 4 7 115 81 196 02:30 1 1 2 111 75 186 02:45 3 10 0 7 3 17 120 445 105 342 225 78703:00 3 1 4 124 113 237 03:15 2 1 3 160 108 268 03:30 2 1 3 167 83 250 03:45 3 10 7 10 10 20 133 584 73 377 206 96104:00 5 2 7 171 84 255 04:15 5 9 14 167 94 261 04:30 7 18 25 192 106 298 04:45 8 25 12 41 20 66 164 694 93 377 257 107105:00 8 17 25 202 97 299 05:15 14 16 30 192 95 287 05:30 17 29 46 191 98 289 05:45 15 54 34 96 49 150 137 722 80 370 217 109206:00 20 40 60 165 86 251 06:15 26 50 76 138 74 212 06:30 38 58 96 120 76 196 06:45 56 140 77 225 133 365 94 517 77 313 171 83007:00 53 60 113 81 77 158 07:15 46 91 137 72 51 123 07:30 57 111 168 63 64 127 07:45 80 236 109 371 189 607 56 272 50 242 106 51408:00 64 79 143 59 47 106 08:15 71 83 154 58 46 104 08:30 78 86 164 36 40 76 08:45 68 281 80 328 148 609 50 203 36 169 86 372 09:00 62 54 116 43 31 74 09:15 53 48 101 44 28 72 09:30 48 69 117 31 29 60 09:45 60 223 65 236 125 459 22 140 17 105 39 24510:00 51 52 103 35 20 55 10:15 79 72 151 23 18 41 10:30 67 71 138 8 10 18 10:45 50 247 50 245 100 492 12 78 16 64 28 14211:00 64 57 121 11 12 23 11:15 60 62 122 9 10 19 11:30 77 81 158 8 8 16 11:45 71 272 66 266 137 538 14 42 5 35 19 77 TOTALS 1541 1850 3391 4401 2975 7376 SPLIT %45.4% 54.6%31.5%59.7% 40.3%68.5% NB SB EB WB 5,942 4,825 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:30 16:30 14:45 16:30 AM Pk Volume 324 390 654 750 409 1141 Pk Hr Factor 0.910 0.878 0.865 0.928 0.905 0.954 7 - 9 Volume 517 699 0 0 1216 1416 747 0 0 2163 7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:15 07:30 16:30 16:30 16:30 7 - 9 Pk Volume 293 390 0 0 654 750 391 0 0 1141 Pk Hr Factor 0.916 0.878 0.000 0.000 0.865 0.928 0.922 0.000 0.000 0.954 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 14:30 4/30/2015 14:45 15:00 DAILY TOTALS PM Period 13:45 Thursday 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30 14:00 Ynez Rd Bet. Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr & Elm St 21:3021:4522:00 Total 10,767 19:3019:4520:0020:15 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 Total 10,767 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00 Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 19:15 16:4517:0017:15 14:15 Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_007 NB SB EB WB 5,162 3,882 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 5 4 9 80 68 148 00:15 3 6 9 91 72 16300:30 10 4 14 78 66 14400:45 6 24 5 19 11 43 74 323 83 289 157 61201:00 5 5 10 95 77 17201:15 2 2 4 90 53 14301:30 3 1 4 106 56 16201:45 5 15 3 11 8 26 88 379 75 261 163 64002:00 3 4 7 99 41 140 02:15 3 5 8 97 45 142 02:30 2 5 7 109 58 167 02:45 3 11 4 18 7 29 105 410 75 219 180 62903:00 6 2 8 102 88 190 03:15 4 4 8 114 95 209 03:30 2 1 3 149 58 207 03:45 5 17 5 12 10 29 99 464 73 314 172 77804:00 6 5 11 120 96 216 04:15 8 6 14 152 91 243 04:30 9 10 19 145 83 228 04:45 9 32 14 35 23 67 145 562 77 347 222 90905:00 8 9 17 164 75 239 05:15 16 16 32 166 91 257 05:30 15 23 38 150 98 248 05:45 11 50 23 71 34 121 137 617 73 337 210 95406:00 29 28 57 134 62 196 06:15 22 27 49 133 51 184 06:30 27 42 69 90 57 147 06:45 39 117 53 150 92 267 76 433 66 236 142 66907:00 36 29 65 71 59 130 07:15 49 49 98 74 53 127 07:30 42 57 99 51 43 94 07:45 58 185 63 198 121 383 53 249 48 203 101 45208:00 55 44 99 61 38 99 08:15 51 47 98 43 28 71 08:30 53 62 115 41 24 65 08:45 51 210 75 228 126 438 35 180 32 122 67 302 09:00 47 43 90 30 20 50 09:15 34 40 74 38 26 64 09:30 48 49 97 29 19 48 09:45 57 186 67 199 124 385 21 118 18 83 39 20110:00 57 44 101 18 21 39 10:15 59 58 117 20 20 40 10:30 64 57 121 9 4 13 10:45 52 232 41 200 93 432 9 56 14 59 23 11511:00 53 58 111 8 18 26 11:15 58 53 111 6 7 13 11:30 65 69 134 8 7 15 11:45 84 260 49 229 133 489 10 32 10 42 20 74 TOTALS 1339 1370 2709 3823 2512 6335 SPLIT %49.4% 50.6%30.0%60.3% 39.7%70.0% NB SB EB WB 5,162 3,882 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:30 11:45 16:45 16:00 16:45 AM Pk Volume 333 258 588 625 347 966 Pk Hr Factor 0.915 0.896 0.902 0.941 0.904 0.940 7 - 9 Volume 395 426 0 0 821 1179 684 0 0 1863 7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:45 08:00 08:00 16:45 16:00 16:45 7 - 9 Pk Volume 217 228 0 0 438 625 347 0 0 966 Pk Hr Factor 0.935 0.760 0.000 0.000 0.869 0.941 0.904 0.000 0.000 0.940Pk Hr Factor PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume SPLIT % TOTAL 20:45 Total 9,044 DAILY TOTALS 21:00 21:15 TOTAL 23:45 TOTALS 20:30 DAILY TOTALS 22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30 21:4522:00 Total 9,044 19:3019:4520:0020:15 19:0019:15 Jackson Ave S/O Marrieta Hot Springs Rd 21:30 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:30 17:45 15:1515:3015:4516:00 16:4517:0017:15 Thursday 16:1516:30 14:0014:1514:3014:45 15:00 13:45 12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00 VOLUME Prepared by NDS/ATD 13:1513:30 4/30/2015 DAILY TOTALS PM Period Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_001 NB SB EB WB 0 0 24,271 21,443 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 66 60 126 546 351 897 00:15 52 46 98 541 358 89900:30 55 48 103 542 339 88100:45 50 223 31 185 81 408 506 2135 384 1432 890 356701:00 42 39 81 558 331 88901:15 23 50 73 487 351 83801:30 39 39 78 504 374 87801:45 36 140 43 171 79 311 472 2021 367 1423 839 344402:00 34 25 59 519 393 912 02:15 21 30 51 512 321 833 02:30 16 35 51 546 371 917 02:45 21 92 25 115 46 207 493 2070 385 1470 878 354003:00 18 27 45 486 338 824 03:15 22 25 47 466 340 806 03:30 38 25 63 508 367 875 03:45 27 105 52 129 79 234 462 1922 377 1422 839 334404:00 25 50 75 495 332 827 04:15 26 53 79 441 339 780 04:30 19 79 98 500 353 853 04:45 30 100 86 268 116 368 436 1872 286 1310 722 318205:00 25 72 97 411 321 732 05:15 33 97 130 376 292 668 05:30 51 122 173 390 287 677 05:45 55 164 136 427 191 591 368 1545 272 1172 640 271706:00 49 151 200 324 259 583 06:15 96 139 235 282 238 520 06:30 93 198 291 293 198 491 06:45 120 358 193 681 313 1039 253 1152 202 897 455 204907:00 141 201 342 270 194 464 07:15 152 268 420 247 179 426 07:30 215 268 483 210 186 396 07:45 203 711 341 1078 544 1789 189 916 187 746 376 166208:00 216 309 525 189 169 358 08:15 241 325 566 158 125 283 08:30 289 343 632 143 132 275 08:45 335 1081 402 1379 737 2460 121 611 119 545 240 1156 09:00 352 388 740 128 134 262 09:15 414 341 755 102 107 209 09:30 448 369 817 79 82 161 09:45 454 1668 405 1503 859 3171 94 403 106 429 200 83210:00 523 358 881 118 239 357 10:15 456 347 803 124 306 430 10:30 486 392 878 108 240 348 10:45 521 1986 412 1509 933 3495 106 456 196 981 302 143711:00 599 401 1000 80 207 287 11:15 519 385 904 97 148 245 11:30 584 369 953 78 150 228 11:45 513 2215 376 1531 889 3746 70 325 135 640 205 965 TOTALS 8843 8976 17819 15428 12467 27895 SPLIT %49.6% 50.4%39.0%55.3% 44.7%61.0% NB SB EB WB 0 0 24,271 21,443 AM Peak Hour 10:45 10:30 10:45 12:15 13:15 12:00 AM Pk Volume 2223 1590 3790 2147 1485 3567 Pk Hr Factor 0.928 0.965 0.948 0.962 0.945 0.992 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 1792 2457 4249 0 0 3417 2482 5899 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 1081 1379 2460 0 0 1872 1310 3182 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.807 0.858 0.834 0.000 0.000 0.936 0.928 0.933Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume PM Pk Volume 23:0023:1523:3023:45 TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 45,714 PM Peak Hour 21:00 21:15 SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45 20:0020:1520:3020:45 19:0019:15 19:3019:45 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:0017:1517:30 17:45 16:0016:1516:3016:45 15:0015:1515:3015:45 14:0014:1514:3014:45 13:00 13:1513:3013:45 12:0012:1512:3012:45 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 45,714 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Winchester Rd Bet. I-15 SB Ramps & I-15 NB Ramps Saturday Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_002 NB SB EB WB 0 0 34,737 35,029 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 145 131 276 638 600 1238 00:15 115 127 242 650 610 126000:30 110 110 220 601 609 121000:45 95 465 81 449 176 914 672 2561 591 2410 1263 497101:00 64 72 136 636 598 123401:15 88 100 188 661 583 124401:30 72 72 144 634 597 123101:45 68 292 90 334 158 626 622 2553 576 2354 1198 490702:00 78 42 120 641 720 1361 02:15 49 51 100 692 595 1287 02:30 55 57 112 707 652 1359 02:45 58 240 36 186 94 426 677 2717 665 2632 1342 534903:00 44 30 74 650 632 1282 03:15 41 33 74 667 623 1290 03:30 54 33 87 681 631 1312 03:45 39 178 57 153 96 331 647 2645 646 2532 1293 517704:00 40 58 98 657 654 1311 04:15 47 68 115 584 620 1204 04:30 58 82 140 610 658 1268 04:45 74 219 88 296 162 515 562 2413 597 2529 1159 494205:00 39 84 123 611 612 1223 05:15 62 107 169 596 583 1179 05:30 101 153 254 600 540 1140 05:45 95 297 155 499 250 796 600 2407 553 2288 1153 469506:00 76 192 268 545 540 1085 06:15 125 187 312 537 463 1000 06:30 178 212 390 500 425 925 06:45 190 569 221 812 411 1381 470 2052 421 1849 891 390107:00 178 236 414 425 421 846 07:15 249 299 548 421 400 821 07:30 312 331 643 374 395 769 07:45 320 1059 379 1245 699 2304 330 1550 383 1599 713 314908:00 293 373 666 307 415 722 08:15 379 391 770 306 328 634 08:30 430 396 826 265 315 580 08:45 484 1586 456 1616 940 3202 226 1104 318 1376 544 2480 09:00 420 460 880 214 374 588 09:15 556 437 993 217 268 485 09:30 540 465 1005 163 262 425 09:45 632 2148 505 1867 1137 4015 174 768 277 1181 451 194910:00 603 480 1083 232 400 632 10:15 588 506 1094 249 440 689 10:30 610 562 1172 259 362 621 10:45 624 2425 560 2108 1184 4533 293 1033 281 1483 574 251611:00 617 606 1223 236 294 530 11:15 609 547 1156 244 218 462 11:30 638 586 1224 232 202 434 11:45 644 2508 587 2326 1231 4834 236 948 191 905 427 1853 TOTALS 11986 11891 23877 22751 23138 45889 SPLIT %50.2% 49.8%34.2%49.6% 50.4%65.8% NB SB EB WB 0 0 34,737 35,029 AM Peak Hour 11:30 11:45 11:30 14:15 14:00 14:00 AM Pk Volume 2570 2406 4953 2726 2632 5349 Pk Hr Factor 0.988 0.986 0.983 0.964 0.914 0.983 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 2645 2861 5506 0 0 4820 4817 9637 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 1586 1616 3202 0 0 2413 2529 4942 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.819 0.886 0.852 0.000 0.000 0.918 0.961 0.942Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume PM Pk Volume 23:0023:1523:3023:45 TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 69,766 PM Peak Hour 21:00 21:15 SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45 20:0020:1520:3020:45 19:0019:15 19:3019:45 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:0017:1517:30 17:45 16:0016:1516:3016:45 15:0015:1515:3015:45 14:0014:1514:3014:45 13:00 13:1513:3013:45 12:0012:1512:3012:45 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 69,766 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Winchester Rd Bet. I-15 NB Ramps & Ynez Rd Saturday Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_003 NB SB EB WB 7,909 7,313 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 39 14 53 145 113 258 00:15 30 7 37 146 149 29500:30 26 8 34 151 174 32500:45 34 129 7 36 41 165 156 598 167 603 323 120101:00 17 6 23 159 136 29501:15 25 8 33 158 139 29701:30 20 6 26 169 145 31401:45 18 80 5 25 23 105 147 633 131 551 278 118402:00 24 5 29 152 136 288 02:15 10 4 14 165 110 275 02:30 6 3 9 178 140 318 02:45 10 50 5 17 15 67 167 662 117 503 284 116503:00 2 6 8 171 121 292 03:15 6 3 9 188 128 316 03:30 6 6 12 183 114 297 03:45 3 17 7 22 10 39 191 733 120 483 311 121604:00 4 8 12 183 127 310 04:15 5 12 17 183 108 291 04:30 7 9 16 178 115 293 04:45 6 22 12 41 18 63 153 697 107 457 260 115405:00 3 12 15 174 118 292 05:15 5 16 21 165 96 261 05:30 8 27 35 125 108 233 05:45 5 21 33 88 38 109 126 590 124 446 250 103606:00 11 34 45 140 90 230 06:15 15 47 62 128 79 207 06:30 13 53 66 107 67 174 06:45 16 55 54 188 70 243 106 481 70 306 176 78707:00 21 61 82 123 67 190 07:15 44 96 140 83 65 148 07:30 63 97 160 73 50 123 07:45 54 182 102 356 156 538 64 343 52 234 116 57708:00 48 109 157 80 40 120 08:15 42 127 169 66 32 98 08:30 80 145 225 64 24 88 08:45 93 263 169 550 262 813 56 266 20 116 76 382 09:00 88 182 270 61 20 81 09:15 77 139 216 65 19 84 09:30 95 156 251 45 23 68 09:45 133 393 158 635 291 1028 56 227 31 93 87 32010:00 122 165 287 79 76 155 10:15 101 178 279 64 45 109 10:30 118 150 268 57 35 92 10:45 117 458 163 656 280 1114 60 260 32 188 92 44811:00 129 156 285 53 31 84 11:15 120 171 291 54 11 65 11:30 157 179 336 47 16 63 11:45 142 548 136 642 278 1190 47 201 19 77 66 278 TOTALS 2218 3256 5474 5691 4057 9748 SPLIT %40.5% 59.5%36.0%58.4% 41.6%64.0% NB SB EB WB 7,909 7,313 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:30 10:45 10:45 15:15 12:15 12:30 AM Pk Volume 590 669 1192 745 626 1240 Pk Hr Factor 0.939 0.934 0.887 0.975 0.899 0.954 7 - 9 Volume 445 906 0 0 1351 1287 903 0 0 2190 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 263 550 0 0 813 697 457 0 0 1154 Pk Hr Factor 0.707 0.814 0.000 0.000 0.776 0.952 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.931Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume PM Pk Volume 23:0023:1523:3023:45 TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 15,222 PM Peak Hour 21:00 21:15 SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45 20:0020:1520:3020:45 19:0019:15 19:3019:45 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:0017:1517:30 17:45 16:0016:1516:3016:45 15:0015:1515:3015:45 14:0014:1514:3014:45 13:00 13:1513:3013:45 12:0012:1512:3012:45 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 15,222 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Ynez Rd Bet. Winchester Rd & Date St Saturday Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_004 NB SB EB WB 5,456 4,860 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 10 11 21 108 85 193 00:15 7 6 13 117 105 22200:30 7 8 15 104 108 21200:45 11 35 9 34 20 69 123 452 99 397 222 84901:00 6 7 13 123 86 20901:15 5 6 11 116 106 22201:30 12 8 20 107 98 20501:45 10 33 4 25 14 58 126 472 112 402 238 87402:00 6 1 7 120 101 221 02:15 4 2 6 114 79 193 02:30 2 1 3 116 111 227 02:45 3 15 3 7 6 22 133 483 87 378 220 86103:00 2 4 6 118 84 202 03:15 1 1 2 139 92 231 03:30 3 3 6 129 95 224 03:45 1 7 3 11 4 18 142 528 89 360 231 88804:00 4 2 6 128 84 212 04:15 4 1 5 137 77 214 04:30 5 2 7 128 106 234 04:45 2 15 3 8 5 23 116 509 76 343 192 85205:00 1 5 6 118 84 202 05:15 2 7 9 114 67 181 05:30 9 12 21 113 93 206 05:45 10 22 18 42 28 64 111 456 74 318 185 77406:00 9 15 24 100 67 167 06:15 14 21 35 74 57 131 06:30 14 24 38 73 46 119 06:45 17 54 26 86 43 140 71 318 51 221 122 53907:00 14 26 40 77 50 127 07:15 23 46 69 52 61 113 07:30 27 40 67 58 43 101 07:45 36 100 54 166 90 266 49 236 49 203 98 43908:00 39 51 90 48 42 90 08:15 34 48 82 46 30 76 08:30 65 68 133 32 26 58 08:45 58 196 77 244 135 440 39 165 18 116 57 281 09:00 55 82 137 37 30 67 09:15 61 75 136 29 18 47 09:30 71 95 166 29 23 52 09:45 87 274 90 342 177 616 28 123 23 94 51 21710:00 68 109 177 39 53 92 10:15 91 100 191 43 49 92 10:30 92 96 188 34 41 75 10:45 79 330 111 416 190 746 33 149 32 175 65 32411:00 102 88 190 20 33 53 11:15 92 81 173 19 19 38 11:30 110 111 221 15 12 27 11:45 106 410 108 388 214 798 20 74 20 84 40 158 TOTALS 1491 1769 3260 3965 3091 7056 SPLIT %45.7% 54.3%31.6%56.2% 43.8%68.4% NB SB EB WB 5,456 4,860 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:30 10:00 11:30 15:15 13:15 15:15 AM Pk Volume 441 416 850 538 417 898 Pk Hr Factor 0.942 0.937 0.957 0.947 0.931 0.972 7 - 9 Volume 296 410 0 0 706 965 661 0 0 1626 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 196 244 0 0 440 509 343 0 0 852 Pk Hr Factor 0.754 0.792 0.000 0.000 0.815 0.929 0.809 0.000 0.000 0.910Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume PM Pk Volume 23:0023:1523:3023:45 TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 10,316 PM Peak Hour 21:00 21:15 SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45 20:0020:1520:3020:45 19:0019:15 19:3019:45 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:0017:1517:30 17:45 16:0016:1516:3016:45 15:0015:1515:3015:45 14:0014:1514:3014:45 13:00 13:1513:3013:45 12:0012:1512:3012:45 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 10,316 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Ynez Rd Bet. Date St & Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr Saturday Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_005 NB SB EB WB 0 0 299 329 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 0 0 0 6 6 12 00:15 1 1 2 7 11 1800:30 0 0 0 8 7 1500:45 0 1 0 1 0 2 8 29 8 32 16 6101:00 0 0 0 10 6 1601:15 0 0 0 8 7 1501:30 0 0 0 12 3 1501:45 0 0 0 5 35 4 20 9 5502:00 0 0 0 8 3 11 02:15 0 0 0 8 3 11 02:30 0 0 0 6 2 8 02:45 0 0 0 3 25 2 10 5 3503:00 0 0 0 3 3 6 03:15 0 0 0 7 11 18 03:30 0 0 0 11 5 16 03:45 0 0 0 13 34 6 25 19 5904:00 0 0 0 5 2 7 04:15 0 0 0 4 2 6 04:30 0 0 0 9 4 13 04:45 0 0 0 1 19 2 10 3 2905:00 0 0 0 4 1 5 05:15 0 0 0 2 2 4 05:30 1 0 1 6 3 9 05:45 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 18 2 8 8 2606:00 0 1 1 4 1 5 06:15 1 1 2 2 3 5 06:30 0 2 2 3 3 6 06:45 0 1 1 5 1 6 2 11 3 10 5 2107:00 0 3 3 2 1 3 07:15 0 5 5 0 1 1 07:30 0 12 12 1 0 1 07:45 2 2 18 38 20 40 2 5 1 3 3 808:00 0 17 17 8 0 8 08:15 1 10 11 0 0 0 08:30 0 15 15 1 1 2 08:45 0 1 15 57 15 58 0 9 0 1 0 10 09:00 10 9 19 0 1 1 09:15 17 15 32 0 0 0 09:30 6 5 11 0 0 0 09:45 8 41 10 39 18 80 0 1 2 1 210:00 11 7 18 0 0 0 10:15 8 8 16 0 0 0 10:30 10 15 25 0 0 0 10:45 7 36 11 41 18 77 0 1 1 1 111:00 12 3 15 0 0 0 11:15 8 6 14 0 0 0 11:30 6 7 13 0 0 0 11:45 5 31 9 25 14 56 0 0 0 TOTALS 114 207 321 185 122 307 SPLIT %35.5% 64.5%51.1%60.3% 39.7%48.9% NB SB EB WB 0 0 299 329 AM Peak Hour 09:15 07:45 08:30 12:45 12:00 12:15 AM Pk Volume 42 60 81 38 32 65 Pk Hr Factor 0.618 0.833 0.633 0.792 0.727 0.903 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 3 95 98 0 0 37 18 55 7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:45 07:45 16:00 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 3 60 63 0 0 19 10 29 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.833 0.788 0.000 0.000 0.528 0.625 0.558Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume PM Pk Volume 23:0023:1523:3023:45 TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 628 PM Peak Hour 21:00 21:15 SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45 20:0020:1520:3020:45 19:0019:15 19:3019:45 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:0017:1517:30 17:45 16:0016:1516:3016:45 15:0015:1515:3015:45 14:0014:1514:3014:45 13:00 13:1513:3013:45 12:0012:1512:3012:45 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 628 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Temecula Center Dr W/O Ynez Rd Saturday Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_006 NB SB EB WB 4,732 4,143 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 9 12 21 94 80 174 00:15 5 6 11 93 88 18100:30 6 15 21 93 96 18900:45 9 29 4 37 13 66 107 387 90 354 197 74101:00 4 8 12 116 78 19401:15 4 6 10 105 94 19901:30 13 7 20 102 77 17901:45 7 28 5 26 12 54 110 433 102 351 212 78402:00 5 3 8 110 83 193 02:15 3 3 6 94 85 179 02:30 1 3 4 123 99 222 02:45 0 9 1 10 1 19 115 442 71 338 186 78003:00 1 1 2 113 77 190 03:15 0 1 1 114 71 185 03:30 4 2 6 119 80 199 03:45 1 6 2 6 3 12 119 465 73 301 192 76604:00 2 1 3 124 71 195 04:15 3 2 5 130 65 195 04:30 5 1 6 103 87 190 04:45 2 12 5 9 7 21 92 449 63 286 155 73505:00 5 2 7 98 66 164 05:15 1 1 2 106 50 156 05:30 6 14 20 92 78 170 05:45 9 21 13 30 22 51 95 391 47 241 142 63206:00 11 13 24 81 49 130 06:15 14 17 31 54 55 109 06:30 15 19 34 53 39 92 06:45 15 55 14 63 29 118 64 252 54 197 118 44907:00 12 20 32 59 42 101 07:15 24 40 64 35 58 93 07:30 27 28 55 50 42 92 07:45 29 92 49 137 78 229 50 194 46 188 96 38208:00 24 41 65 41 40 81 08:15 32 51 83 36 31 67 08:30 51 57 108 26 23 49 08:45 41 148 56 205 97 353 29 132 21 115 50 247 09:00 56 62 118 34 28 62 09:15 60 64 124 22 24 46 09:30 60 75 135 24 23 47 09:45 74 250 71 272 145 522 29 109 15 90 44 19910:00 51 77 128 34 45 79 10:15 89 85 174 29 34 63 10:30 71 82 153 32 41 73 10:45 71 282 95 339 166 621 36 131 23 143 59 27411:00 90 78 168 17 19 36 11:15 82 57 139 19 22 41 11:30 90 103 193 16 13 29 11:45 90 352 89 327 179 679 11 63 24 78 35 141 TOTALS 1284 1461 2745 3448 2682 6130 SPLIT %46.8% 53.2%30.9%56.2% 43.8%69.1% NB SB EB WB 4,732 4,143 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:45 11:30 11:30 15:30 13:45 13:45 AM Pk Volume 370 360 727 492 369 806 Pk Hr Factor 0.984 0.874 0.942 0.946 0.904 0.908 7 - 9 Volume 240 342 0 0 582 840 527 0 0 1367 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 148 205 0 0 353 449 286 0 0 735 Pk Hr Factor 0.725 0.899 0.000 0.000 0.817 0.863 0.822 0.000 0.000 0.942Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume PM Pk Volume 23:0023:1523:3023:45 TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 8,875 PM Peak Hour 21:00 21:15 SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:45 20:0020:1520:3020:45 19:0019:15 19:3019:45 18:0018:1518:3018:45 17:0017:1517:30 17:45 16:0016:1516:3016:45 15:0015:1515:3015:45 14:0014:1514:3014:45 13:00 13:1513:3013:45 12:0012:1512:3012:45 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 8,875 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Ynez Rd Bet. Waverly Ln/Temecula Center Dr & Elm St Saturday Day:City:Temecula Date:Project #:CA15_4130_007 NB SB EB WB 4,764 3,603 0 0 AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 8 11 19 99 96 195 00:15 7 6 13 92 84 17600:30 5 11 16 106 67 17300:45 4 24 6 34 10 58 148 445 85 332 233 77701:00 3 9 12 133 69 20201:15 3 6 9 119 68 18701:30 6 9 15 122 91 21301:45 2 14 4 28 6 42 154 528 88 316 242 84402:00 4 3 7 118 77 195 02:15 8 2 10 109 74 183 02:30 2 5 7 129 78 207 02:45 1 15 0 10 1 25 107 463 65 294 172 75703:00 1 1 2 116 64 180 03:15 2 2 4 124 58 182 03:30 2 3 5 102 70 172 03:45 1 6 2 8 3 14 109 451 62 254 171 70504:00 1 0 1 112 56 168 04:15 3 2 5 124 62 186 04:30 3 3 6 97 58 155 04:45 3 10 5 10 8 20 98 431 59 235 157 66605:00 7 2 9 87 63 150 05:15 6 3 9 83 48 131 05:30 5 10 15 87 55 142 05:45 9 27 8 23 17 50 77 334 40 206 117 54006:00 7 6 13 75 51 126 06:15 13 14 27 57 58 115 06:30 14 17 31 55 39 94 06:45 19 53 15 52 34 105 54 241 47 195 101 43607:00 16 15 31 49 35 84 07:15 25 32 57 37 42 79 07:30 28 20 48 29 37 66 07:45 27 96 33 100 60 196 39 154 26 140 65 29408:00 19 42 61 26 21 47 08:15 40 41 81 23 27 50 08:30 53 55 108 16 20 36 08:45 57 169 58 196 115 365 21 86 15 83 36 169 09:00 55 48 103 16 20 36 09:15 75 69 144 22 14 36 09:30 58 50 108 16 9 25 09:45 75 263 65 232 140 495 26 80 17 60 43 14010:00 47 65 112 52 39 91 10:15 74 71 145 36 24 60 10:30 84 74 158 27 32 59 10:45 85 290 74 284 159 574 29 144 19 114 48 25811:00 91 80 171 16 19 35 11:15 87 74 161 19 24 43 11:30 109 100 209 10 13 23 11:45 93 380 69 323 162 703 15 60 18 74 33 134 TOTALS 1347 1300 2647 3417 2303 5720 SPLIT %50.9% 49.1%31.6%59.7% 40.3%68.4% NB SB EB WB 4,764 3,603 0 0 AM Peak Hour 11:30 11:30 11:30 13:00 12:00 13:00 AM Pk Volume 393 349 742 528 332 844 Pk Hr Factor 0.901 0.873 0.888 0.857 0.865 0.872 7 - 9 Volume 265 296 0 0 561 765 441 0 0 1206 7 - 9 Peak Hour 08:00 08:00 08:00 16:00 16:15 16:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 169 196 0 0 365 431 242 0 0 666 Pk Hr Factor 0.741 0.845 0.000 0.000 0.793 0.869 0.960 0.000 0.000 0.895 12:0012:15 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Jackson Ave S/O Marrieta Hot Springs Rd Saturday 5/2/2015 DAILY TOTALS Total 8,367 TOTAL PM Period TOTAL 15:0015:15 12:3012:4513:00 13:1513:3013:4514:0014:1514:3014:45 18:0018:15 15:3015:4516:0016:1516:3016:4517:0017:1517:30 17:45 21:00 21:15 18:3018:4519:0019:15 19:3019:4520:0020:1520:3020:45 TOTALS SPLIT % 21:3021:4522:0022:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:3023:45 Pk Hr Factor DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS Total 8,367 PM Peak Hour PM Pk Volume Pk Hr Factor 4 - 6 Volume 4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk Volume APPENDIX B Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership – Level of Service Computation Reports (2000 HCM Method) EXISTING 2015 WEEKDAY AM NO PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1364 141 105 1558 188 71 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1550 160 108 1606 209 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 94 0 0 0 57 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1550 66 108 1606 209 22 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)26.8 26.8 8.4 39.2 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g (s)26.8 26.8 8.4 39.2 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.13 0.60 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1986 701 209 2906 891 723 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.07 c0.33 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.09 0.52 0.55 0.23 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 11.7 26.4 7.7 18.3 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 Delay (s)18.6 11.7 28.6 7.9 18.9 17.4 Level of Service B B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 18.0 9.2 18.5 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)37 1 14 127 0 23 32 217 56 20 304 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 1 18 163 0 29 34 228 59 24 358 53 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)48 19 163 29 148 173 202 232 Volume Left (vph)48 0 163 0 34 0 24 0 Volume Right (vph)0 18 0 29 0 59 0 53 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.62 0.53 -0.67 0.15 -0.20 0.09 -0.13 Departure Headway (s)7.2 6.0 7.0 5.8 6.0 5.7 5.8 5.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.10 0.03 0.31 0.05 0.25 0.27 0.33 0.36 Capacity (veh/h)460 541 487 578 575 609 594 619 Control Delay (s)9.8 8.0 11.9 7.8 9.8 9.6 10.5 10.6 Approach Delay (s)9.3 11.3 9.7 10.5 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary Delay 10.3 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 2 2 558 6 178 159 286 2 7 127 128 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)2 3 3 698 8 222 185 333 2 8 151 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 112 0 0 1 0 0 129 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 3 1 698 8 110 185 333 1 8 151 23 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 17.6 17.6 23.3 39.7 39.7 10.9 22.3 22.3 0.8 12.2 12.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 17.6 17.6 23.3 39.7 39.7 10.9 22.3 22.3 0.8 12.2 12.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.50 0.50 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)23 1060 330 884 1664 744 213 935 418 16 511 229 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.23 0.00 c0.12 c0.10 0.01 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.07 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.15 0.87 0.36 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 24.4 24.3 26.1 10.2 11.0 33.8 23.1 20.8 39.4 30.1 29.2 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.4 29.1 0.2 0.0 22.5 0.3 0.2 Delay (s)40.5 24.4 24.4 30.8 10.2 11.4 62.9 23.3 20.8 61.9 30.4 29.4 Level of Service D C C C B B E C C E C C Approach Delay (s)28.4 26.0 37.4 30.7 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)325 962 562 284 1591 69 311 164 139 82 275 433 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 6033 4728 3353 1600 3252 3002 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 6033 4728 3353 1600 3252 3002 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)339 1002 585 351 1964 85 342 180 153 88 296 466 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 5 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 339 1002 523 351 2044 0 342 180 130 88 524 238 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)14.7 46.7 61.7 17.1 49.1 15.0 33.4 50.5 6.8 25.2 25.2 Effective Green, g (s)14.7 46.7 61.7 17.1 49.1 15.0 33.4 50.5 6.8 25.2 25.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.51 0.14 0.41 0.12 0.28 0.42 0.06 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 398 2363 849 463 2469 591 933 727 184 630 287 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.17 c0.08 0.11 c0.34 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.06 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.42 0.62 0.76 0.83 0.58 0.19 0.18 0.48 0.83 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 26.8 20.7 49.5 31.7 49.5 33.0 21.8 54.9 45.4 45.3 Progression Factor 1.13 0.57 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.3 0.5 1.2 7.0 3.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 2.0 9.2 17.6 Delay (s)72.8 15.7 8.8 56.4 35.0 50.9 33.1 21.9 56.8 54.5 63.0 Level of Service E B A E D D C C E D E Approach Delay (s)23.7 38.2 39.6 57.1 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1308 0 0 1778 600 403 0 532 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1407 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1407 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1406 0 0 2044 690 438 0 578 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 248 0 26 26 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1406 0 0 2044 442 355 311 298 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)76.7 76.7 76.7 35.3 35.3 35.3 Effective Green, g (s)76.7 76.7 76.7 35.3 35.3 35.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3080 3080 1687 469 414 419 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.42 c0.22 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.66 0.26 0.76 0.75 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 11.0 13.6 9.4 38.5 38.4 37.8 Progression Factor 1.59 0.39 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 0.2 6.9 7.5 5.6 Delay (s)18.0 6.0 0.8 45.3 45.9 43.4 Level of Service B A A D D D Approach Delay (s)18.0 4.7 44.9 0.0 Approach LOS B A D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 724 223 0 1275 0 0 0 0 930 2 750 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 804 248 0 1417 0 0 0 0 989 2 798 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 804 125 0 1417 0 0 0 0 989 392 390 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)60.6 60.6 60.6 51.4 51.4 51.4 Effective Green, g (s)60.6 60.6 60.6 51.4 51.4 51.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2433 859 2433 1440 611 610 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.29 c0.29 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.15 0.58 0.69 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 15.9 20.8 27.8 27.0 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.3 2.2 Delay (s)18.0 16.2 14.7 29.2 29.3 29.2 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s)17.6 14.7 0.0 29.2 Approach LOS B B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group EXISTING 2015 WEEKDAY PM NO PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1790 180 176 1731 476 181 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)1989 200 183 1803 491 187 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 109 0 0 0 147 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1989 91 183 1803 491 40 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)34.0 34.0 13.0 51.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)34.0 34.0 13.0 51.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.17 0.68 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2184 771 281 3276 694 563 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.11 0.37 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.12 0.65 0.55 0.71 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 11.8 28.9 6.1 27.3 23.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 0.1 5.3 0.2 6.0 0.2 Delay (s)25.3 11.9 34.2 6.3 33.3 23.8 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 24.1 8.9 30.7 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)24 0 20 80 0 21 13 706 103 55 321 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 0 27 101 0 27 13 728 106 60 349 13 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)33 27 101 27 377 470 234 188 Volume Left (vph)33 0 101 0 13 0 60 0 Volume Right (vph)0 27 0 27 0 106 0 13 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.67 0.53 -0.67 0.05 -0.12 0.16 -0.01 Departure Headway (s)8.0 6.8 7.8 6.6 5.8 5.6 6.4 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.61 0.73 0.41 0.32 Capacity (veh/h)416 484 429 500 604 628 550 563 Control Delay (s)10.4 9.0 11.8 8.8 16.0 21.1 12.6 10.9 Approach Delay (s)9.8 11.2 18.8 11.8 Approach LOS A B C B Intersection Summary Delay 15.7 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 1 2 249 2 173 195 225 0 2 648 642 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2 2 4 283 2 197 214 247 0 2 682 676 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 477 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 2 1 283 2 58 214 247 0 2 682 199 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.1 19.1 19.1 10.0 28.3 0.8 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.1 19.1 19.1 10.0 28.3 0.8 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 949 295 332 985 441 241 1460 19 985 441 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.09 0.00 c0.14 0.07 0.00 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 0.89 0.17 0.11 0.69 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 31.7 21.0 21.0 28.4 16.2 16.9 27.0 11.2 31.7 20.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.6 30.0 0.1 2.4 2.1 0.7 Delay (s)34.2 21.0 21.0 47.0 16.2 17.5 56.9 11.2 34.2 22.5 19.4 Level of Service C C C D B B E B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.3 34.8 32.5 21.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.5%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)435 1821 705 280 1279 128 752 720 483 157 377 282 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5988 4728 3353 1600 3252 3126 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5988 4728 3353 1600 3252 3126 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)453 1897 734 311 1421 142 800 766 514 171 410 307 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 14 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 453 1897 712 311 1549 0 800 766 505 171 499 218 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)19.4 44.4 68.1 13.7 38.7 23.7 36.2 49.9 9.7 22.2 22.2 Effective Green, g (s)19.4 44.4 68.1 13.7 38.7 23.7 36.2 49.9 9.7 22.2 22.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.57 0.11 0.32 0.20 0.30 0.42 0.08 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 526 2246 931 371 1931 934 1011 719 263 578 253 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.31 c0.15 0.10 0.26 c0.17 0.23 0.08 0.05 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.24 c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.84 0.77 0.84 0.80 0.86 0.76 0.70 0.65 0.86 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 49.0 34.6 19.8 52.1 37.2 46.5 37.9 28.9 53.5 47.4 47.4 Progression Factor 1.05 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.0 2.3 2.1 15.2 3.6 7.8 3.3 3.1 5.6 12.7 24.6 Delay (s)59.7 36.8 13.7 67.2 40.8 54.3 41.2 32.1 59.2 60.1 72.0 Level of Service E D B E D D D C E E E Approach Delay (s)34.7 45.2 44.0 62.8 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2173 0 0 1123 1250 125 2 797 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1371 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1371 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2195 0 0 1146 1276 142 2 906 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 566 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2195 0 0 1146 710 128 458 460 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)66.8 66.8 66.8 45.2 45.2 45.2 Effective Green, g (s)66.8 66.8 66.8 45.2 45.2 45.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2682 2682 1470 600 516 537 v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.24 0.08 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.43 0.48 0.21 0.89 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 15.5 16.1 25.3 35.0 34.4 Progression Factor 0.80 0.86 2.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.2 16.8 12.7 Delay (s)18.8 13.6 34.6 25.5 51.8 47.2 Level of Service B B C C D D Approach Delay (s)18.8 24.7 46.5 0.0 Approach LOS B C D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1784 279 0 726 0 0 0 0 1200 4 373 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1858 291 0 748 0 0 0 0 1379 5 429 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 64 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1858 134 0 748 0 0 0 0 1379 156 150 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)55.1 55.1 55.1 56.9 56.9 56.9 Effective Green, g (s)55.1 55.1 55.1 56.9 56.9 56.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2212 781 2212 1594 679 676 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.16 c0.41 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.17 0.34 0.87 0.23 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 19.0 20.8 28.1 18.6 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.5 0.4 5.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)32.6 19.5 12.8 33.3 18.8 18.7 Level of Service C B B C B B Approach Delay (s)30.8 12.8 0.0 29.8 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group EXISTING 2015 SATURDAY PEAK NO PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1557 167 180 1505 385 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1769 190 186 1552 428 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 110 0 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1769 80 186 1552 428 45 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)29.3 29.3 12.7 46.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)29.3 29.3 12.7 46.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.66 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2017 712 294 3166 743 603 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.11 0.32 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.11 0.63 0.49 0.58 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 12.4 26.5 6.1 24.0 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.1 4.4 0.1 3.2 0.2 Delay (s)23.3 12.5 30.9 6.2 27.2 21.4 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 22.3 8.8 25.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)11 1 22 74 2 24 15 448 79 28 263 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 1 29 95 3 31 16 472 83 33 309 12 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)14 30 97 31 252 319 188 166 Volume Left (vph)14 0 95 0 16 0 33 0 Volume Right (vph)0 29 0 31 0 83 0 12 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.64 0.52 -0.67 0.07 -0.15 0.12 -0.02 Departure Headway (s)7.3 6.2 7.1 6.0 5.5 5.3 5.8 5.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.05 0.39 0.47 0.30 0.26 Capacity (veh/h)449 529 468 554 634 661 598 612 Control Delay (s)9.3 8.3 10.6 8.1 10.8 11.8 10.1 9.5 Approach Delay (s)8.6 10.0 11.3 9.8 Approach LOS A B B A Intersection Summary Delay 10.6 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2 3 1 271 3 129 126 226 4 1 414 353 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)3 5 2 339 4 161 147 263 5 1 493 420 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 105 0 0 3 0 0 298 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 5 0 339 4 56 147 263 2 1 493 122 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 13.8 13.8 7.8 20.8 20.8 5.0 21.6 21.6 0.8 17.4 17.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 13.8 13.8 7.8 20.8 20.8 5.0 21.6 21.6 0.8 17.4 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)21 1108 345 395 1162 520 130 1207 540 21 972 435 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.11 0.00 c0.09 0.08 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.11 1.13 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.51 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 17.8 17.8 25.6 12.8 13.3 27.5 13.3 12.3 29.2 17.7 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.98 3.67 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.4 118.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 Delay (s)32.4 17.8 17.8 42.2 12.8 13.7 145.9 13.4 12.3 27.3 17.7 60.6 Level of Service C B B D B B F B B C B E Approach Delay (s)22.2 32.9 60.3 37.4 Approach LOS C C E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)326 1674 734 364 1584 145 829 416 470 163 306 209 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5994 4728 3353 1600 3252 3142 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5994 4728 3353 1600 3252 3142 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)340 1744 765 449 1956 179 911 457 516 175 329 225 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 0 12 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 340 1744 749 449 2123 0 911 457 505 175 385 169 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)14.1 42.8 68.6 18.6 47.3 25.8 32.2 50.8 10.4 16.8 16.8 Effective Green, g (s)14.1 42.8 68.6 18.6 47.3 25.8 32.2 50.8 10.4 16.8 16.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.36 0.57 0.16 0.39 0.22 0.27 0.42 0.09 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 382 2165 938 504 2363 1017 900 731 282 440 191 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.29 c0.17 c0.14 c0.35 c0.19 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.21 c0.12 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.81 0.80 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.51 0.69 0.62 0.88 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 52.2 34.8 20.3 49.7 34.1 45.8 37.2 28.2 52.9 50.6 50.7 Progression Factor 1.04 0.87 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.05 1.05 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 1.9 2.8 17.7 6.0 10.3 0.5 2.8 3.8 15.8 32.2 Delay (s)68.2 32.2 17.3 67.4 40.1 56.1 37.6 31.0 48.2 68.9 85.3 Level of Service E C B E D E D C D E F Approach Delay (s)32.5 44.8 44.7 67.7 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1766 0 0 1308 1335 162 3 964 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1899 0 0 1503 1534 176 3 1048 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 772 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1899 0 0 1503 762 158 533 532 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)59.6 59.6 59.6 52.4 52.4 52.4 Effective Green, g (s)59.6 59.6 59.6 52.4 52.4 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2393 2393 1311 696 599 622 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.31 0.10 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.63 0.58 0.23 0.89 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 22.1 21.4 21.1 31.1 30.4 Progression Factor 1.33 0.78 2.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.5 0.8 0.2 15.0 11.1 Delay (s)35.7 17.8 63.7 21.3 46.1 41.5 Level of Service D B E C D D Approach Delay (s)35.7 41.0 40.9 0.0 Approach LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 877 179 0 687 0 0 0 0 1187 4 255 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 974 199 0 763 0 0 0 0 1263 4 271 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 974 84 0 763 0 0 0 0 1263 110 111 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)50.6 50.6 50.6 61.4 61.4 61.4 Effective Green, g (s)50.6 50.6 50.6 61.4 61.4 61.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2032 717 2032 1720 733 729 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.16 c0.38 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.12 0.38 0.73 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 21.1 23.8 22.9 15.5 15.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)26.0 21.4 19.7 24.6 15.6 15.6 Level of Service C C B C B B Approach Delay (s)25.2 19.7 0.0 23.0 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.3%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group EXISTING 2015 WEEKDAY AM WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1364 152 110 1558 191 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1550 173 113 1606 212 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 102 0 0 0 59 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1550 71 113 1606 212 22 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)26.6 26.6 8.6 39.2 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g (s)26.6 26.6 8.6 39.2 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.13 0.60 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1972 696 214 2906 891 723 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.07 c0.33 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.10 0.53 0.55 0.24 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 11.8 26.3 7.7 18.3 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 Delay (s)18.9 11.9 28.7 7.9 19.0 17.4 Level of Service B B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 18.2 9.3 18.5 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)42 2 26 127 3 23 68 217 56 20 304 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 55 3 34 163 4 29 72 228 59 24 358 72 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)55 36 167 29 186 173 202 251 Volume Left (vph)55 0 163 0 72 0 24 0 Volume Right (vph)0 34 0 29 0 59 0 72 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.62 0.52 -0.67 0.23 -0.20 0.09 -0.17 Departure Headway (s)7.4 6.2 7.1 6.0 6.3 5.8 6.0 5.8 Degree Utilization, x 0.11 0.06 0.33 0.05 0.32 0.28 0.34 0.40 Capacity (veh/h)450 527 474 559 555 594 577 605 Control Delay (s)10.1 8.4 12.4 8.1 11.0 9.9 10.8 11.3 Approach Delay (s)9.4 11.8 10.5 11.1 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary Delay 10.9 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 2 2 558 6 178 161 296 2 7 158 128 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)2 3 3 698 8 222 187 344 2 8 188 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 115 0 0 1 0 0 127 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 3 1 698 8 107 187 344 1 8 188 25 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 17.0 17.0 22.8 38.6 38.6 11.0 23.4 23.4 0.8 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 17.0 17.0 22.8 38.6 38.6 11.0 23.4 23.4 0.8 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)23 1024 319 865 1618 724 215 981 439 16 553 248 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.23 0.00 c0.12 c0.10 0.01 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.07 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.15 0.87 0.35 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 24.8 24.8 26.6 10.7 11.5 33.8 22.3 20.0 39.4 29.5 28.4 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.4 29.0 0.2 0.0 22.5 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)40.5 24.8 24.8 32.1 10.7 12.0 62.8 22.5 20.0 61.9 29.9 28.5 Level of Service D C C C B B E C C E C C Approach Delay (s)28.7 27.1 36.7 30.1 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)347 962 562 284 1591 75 311 167 139 84 276 440 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 6029 4728 3353 1600 3252 3000 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 6029 4728 3353 1600 3252 3000 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)361 1002 585 351 1964 93 342 184 153 90 297 473 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 5 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 361 1002 524 351 2052 0 342 184 131 90 529 241 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.5 46.5 61.5 17.1 48.1 15.0 33.5 50.6 6.9 25.4 25.4 Effective Green, g (s)15.5 46.5 61.5 17.1 48.1 15.0 33.5 50.6 6.9 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.39 0.51 0.14 0.40 0.12 0.28 0.42 0.06 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 420 2353 846 463 2417 591 936 728 187 635 289 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.17 c0.08 0.11 c0.34 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.06 c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.43 0.62 0.76 0.85 0.58 0.20 0.18 0.48 0.83 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 27.0 20.9 49.5 32.6 49.5 33.0 21.7 54.8 45.3 45.3 Progression Factor 1.14 0.57 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.2 0.5 1.2 7.0 4.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.9 9.2 18.3 Delay (s)72.4 16.0 8.8 56.4 36.6 50.9 33.1 21.8 56.8 54.4 63.6 Level of Service E B A E D D C C E D E Approach Delay (s)24.3 39.5 39.5 57.2 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1322 0 0 1782 603 403 0 540 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1405 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1405 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1422 0 0 2048 693 438 0 587 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 251 0 25 25 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1422 0 0 2048 442 359 312 304 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)76.3 76.3 76.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 Effective Green, g (s)76.3 76.3 76.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.30 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3063 3063 1679 474 418 424 v/s Ratio Prot 0.30 c0.43 c0.23 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.67 0.26 0.76 0.75 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 11.3 13.8 9.6 38.2 38.1 37.7 Progression Factor 1.59 0.39 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 0.2 6.8 7.1 5.7 Delay (s)18.4 6.1 0.9 45.0 45.2 43.4 Level of Service B A A D D D Approach Delay (s)18.4 4.7 44.6 0.0 Approach LOS B A D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 727 223 0 1276 0 0 0 0 941 2 750 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 808 248 0 1418 0 0 0 0 1001 2 798 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 808 125 0 1418 0 0 0 0 1001 392 390 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)60.4 60.4 60.4 51.6 51.6 51.6 Effective Green, g (s)60.4 60.4 60.4 51.6 51.6 51.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2425 856 2425 1445 613 613 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.29 c0.30 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.15 0.58 0.69 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 16.0 21.0 27.8 26.9 26.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.2 2.2 Delay (s)18.2 16.3 15.2 29.2 29.1 29.0 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s)17.7 15.2 0.0 29.1 Approach LOS B B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group EXISTING 2015 WEEKDAY PM WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1790 188 180 1731 488 187 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)1989 209 188 1803 503 193 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 115 0 0 0 152 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1989 94 188 1803 503 41 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)33.8 33.8 13.2 51.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)33.8 33.8 13.2 51.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.68 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2171 766 285 3276 694 563 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.12 0.37 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.12 0.66 0.55 0.72 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 12.0 28.8 6.1 27.5 23.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.1 5.4 0.2 6.5 0.3 Delay (s)25.9 12.1 34.2 6.3 33.9 23.8 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 24.6 9.0 31.1 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)42 3 59 80 2 21 39 706 103 55 321 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 58 4 81 101 3 27 40 728 106 60 349 26 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)58 85 104 27 404 470 234 201 Volume Left (vph)58 0 101 0 40 0 60 0 Volume Right (vph)0 81 0 27 0 106 0 26 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.63 0.52 -0.67 0.08 -0.12 0.16 -0.06 Departure Headway (s)8.2 7.0 8.2 7.0 6.2 6.0 6.8 6.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.13 0.17 0.24 0.05 0.69 0.78 0.44 0.37 Capacity (veh/h)411 477 412 476 567 590 513 528 Control Delay (s)11.2 10.2 12.5 9.2 20.9 25.8 13.8 12.1 Approach Delay (s) 10.6 11.8 23.5 13.0 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 1 2 249 2 177 201 258 0 2 670 642 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2 2 4 283 2 201 221 284 0 2 705 676 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 476 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 2 1 283 2 59 221 284 0 2 705 200 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 28.4 0.8 19.2 19.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 28.4 0.8 19.2 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 949 295 327 980 438 241 1465 19 990 443 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.09 0.00 c0.14 0.08 0.00 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.13 0.92 0.19 0.11 0.71 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 31.7 21.0 21.0 28.5 16.3 16.9 27.1 11.3 31.7 20.4 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.6 36.0 0.1 2.4 2.4 0.7 Delay (s)34.2 21.0 21.0 49.1 16.3 17.6 63.1 11.3 34.2 22.9 19.3 Level of Service C C C D B B E B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.3 35.9 34.0 21.2 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.9%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)451 1821 705 280 1279 132 752 722 483 163 380 306 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5985 4728 3353 1600 3252 3113 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5985 4728 3353 1600 3252 3113 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)470 1897 734 311 1421 147 800 768 514 177 413 333 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 14 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 470 1897 710 311 1554 0 800 768 503 177 520 226 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)20.2 42.7 67.1 13.8 36.3 24.4 37.1 50.9 10.4 23.1 23.1 Effective Green, g (s)20.2 42.7 67.1 13.8 36.3 24.4 37.1 50.9 10.4 23.1 23.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.36 0.56 0.12 0.30 0.20 0.31 0.42 0.09 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 547 2160 918 374 1810 961 1037 732 282 599 263 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.31 c0.16 0.10 0.26 c0.17 0.23 0.08 0.05 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.24 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.88 0.77 0.83 0.86 0.83 0.74 0.69 0.63 0.87 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 36.2 20.5 52.0 39.4 45.8 37.1 28.1 52.9 47.0 46.9 Progression Factor 1.05 1.04 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 3.1 2.3 14.5 5.6 6.3 2.9 2.7 4.3 12.7 23.2 Delay (s)58.3 40.7 14.9 66.5 45.0 52.1 40.0 30.8 57.3 59.6 70.1 Level of Service E D B E D D D C E E E Approach Delay (s)37.2 48.5 42.4 61.7 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2183 0 0 1135 1262 125 2 803 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1371 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1371 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2205 0 0 1158 1288 142 2 912 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 574 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2205 0 0 1158 714 128 461 463 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)66.5 66.5 66.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 Effective Green, g (s)66.5 66.5 66.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2670 2670 1463 604 520 540 v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.24 0.08 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.43 0.49 0.21 0.89 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 22.0 15.7 16.3 25.1 34.8 34.3 Progression Factor 0.80 0.74 1.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.2 16.5 12.7 Delay (s)19.2 11.8 25.6 25.3 51.4 47.0 Level of Service B B C C D D Approach Delay (s)19.2 19.1 46.3 0.0 Approach LOS B B D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Weekday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1786 279 0 729 0 0 0 0 1208 4 373 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1860 291 0 752 0 0 0 0 1389 5 429 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1860 134 0 752 0 0 0 0 1389 157 151 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)55.1 55.1 55.1 56.9 56.9 56.9 Effective Green, g (s)55.1 55.1 55.1 56.9 56.9 56.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2212 781 2212 1594 679 676 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.16 c0.41 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.17 0.34 0.87 0.23 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 19.0 20.8 28.3 18.6 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 0.5 0.4 5.5 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)32.7 19.5 14.3 33.8 18.8 18.7 Level of Service C B B C B B Approach Delay (s)30.9 14.3 0.0 30.2 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group EXISTING 2015 SATURDAY PEAK WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1557 182 188 1505 400 184 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1769 207 194 1552 444 204 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 121 0 0 0 157 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1769 86 194 1552 444 47 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)29.1 29.1 12.9 46.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)29.1 29.1 12.9 46.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.66 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2003 707 299 3166 743 603 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.12 0.32 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.12 0.65 0.49 0.60 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 12.6 26.5 6.1 24.1 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.1 4.8 0.1 3.5 0.3 Delay (s)23.9 12.7 31.2 6.2 27.7 21.5 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 22.7 9.0 25.7 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)34 4 72 74 6 24 65 448 79 28 263 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 5 94 95 8 31 68 472 83 33 309 39 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)44 99 103 31 304 319 188 194 Volume Left (vph)44 0 95 0 68 0 33 0 Volume Right (vph)0 94 0 31 0 83 0 39 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.63 0.50 -0.67 0.15 -0.15 0.12 -0.11 Departure Headway (s)7.6 6.5 7.6 6.4 6.1 5.8 6.3 6.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.09 0.18 0.22 0.05 0.51 0.51 0.33 0.33 Capacity (veh/h)438 514 441 514 580 608 548 568 Control Delay (s)10.2 9.6 11.5 8.6 14.1 13.5 11.2 10.9 Approach Delay (s)9.8 10.8 13.8 11.0 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary Delay 12.2 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2 3 1 271 3 137 134 268 4 1 456 353 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)3 5 2 339 4 171 156 312 5 1 543 420 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 116 0 0 3 0 0 295 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 5 0 339 4 55 156 312 2 1 543 125 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.3 19.3 19.3 6.0 23.1 23.1 0.8 17.9 17.9 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.3 19.3 19.3 6.0 23.1 23.1 0.8 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.01 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)21 1028 320 369 1079 483 157 1291 578 21 1000 448 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.11 0.00 c0.10 0.09 0.00 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.11 0.99 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.54 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 18.6 18.6 26.1 13.8 14.3 27.0 12.5 11.4 29.2 17.6 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.05 4.18 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.5 69.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)32.4 18.6 18.6 53.2 13.8 14.8 96.6 12.6 11.4 27.4 18.9 67.6 Level of Service C B B D B B F B B C B E Approach Delay (s)22.7 40.1 40.3 40.2 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)356 1674 734 364 1584 153 829 420 470 171 310 239 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5990 4728 3353 1600 3252 3121 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5990 4728 3353 1600 3252 3121 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)371 1744 765 449 1956 189 911 462 516 184 333 257 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 17 0 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 371 1744 748 449 2132 0 911 462 503 184 410 180 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 42.6 67.6 19.4 47.0 25.0 30.9 50.3 11.1 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s)15.0 42.6 67.6 19.4 47.0 25.0 30.9 50.3 11.1 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.36 0.56 0.16 0.39 0.21 0.26 0.42 0.09 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 407 2155 925 526 2346 985 863 724 301 442 193 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.29 c0.17 c0.14 c0.36 c0.19 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.20 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.85 0.91 0.92 0.54 0.70 0.61 0.93 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 51.8 35.0 21.0 48.9 34.5 46.6 38.4 28.6 52.4 50.9 50.9 Progression Factor 1.04 0.88 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.03 1.03 Incremental Delay, d2 15.6 1.9 3.0 12.7 6.6 13.9 0.6 2.9 3.2 23.3 42.1 Delay (s)69.5 32.6 17.3 61.6 41.1 60.5 39.0 31.5 48.4 75.7 94.5 Level of Service E C B E D E D C D E F Approach Delay (s)33.3 44.6 47.3 73.6 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1785 0 0 1323 1350 162 3 975 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1919 0 0 1521 1552 176 3 1060 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 784 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1919 0 0 1521 768 158 538 539 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)59.4 59.4 59.4 52.6 52.6 52.6 Effective Green, g (s)59.4 59.4 59.4 52.6 52.6 52.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2385 2385 1307 698 601 625 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 0.32 0.10 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.64 0.59 0.23 0.89 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 25.4 22.4 21.6 21.0 31.1 30.4 Progression Factor 1.32 0.79 2.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.5 0.8 0.2 15.7 11.7 Delay (s)36.1 18.2 65.0 21.2 46.9 42.2 Level of Service D B E C D D Approach Delay (s)36.1 41.8 41.5 0.0 Approach LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Saturday Existing + Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 881 179 0 691 0 0 0 0 1202 4 255 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 979 199 0 768 0 0 0 0 1279 4 271 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 979 83 0 768 0 0 0 0 1279 111 112 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)50.0 50.0 50.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 Effective Green, g (s)50.0 50.0 50.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2008 708 2008 1737 740 736 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.16 c0.38 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.12 0.38 0.74 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 25.6 21.5 24.3 22.6 15.2 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)26.5 21.8 20.1 24.3 15.3 15.3 Level of Service C C C C B B Approach Delay (s)25.7 20.1 0.0 22.7 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 WEEKDAY AM NO PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1391 144 107 1589 192 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1581 164 110 1638 213 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 96 0 0 0 59 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1581 68 110 1638 213 21 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)27.1 27.1 8.5 39.6 17.4 17.4 Effective Green, g (s)27.1 27.1 8.5 39.6 17.4 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.61 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2009 709 212 2935 871 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.07 c0.34 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.10 0.52 0.56 0.24 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 16.4 11.5 26.3 7.5 18.6 17.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 Delay (s)18.6 11.6 28.5 7.8 19.3 17.7 Level of Service B B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 17.9 9.1 18.9 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)38 1 14 130 0 23 33 221 57 20 310 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 1 18 167 0 29 35 233 60 24 365 54 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)49 19 167 29 151 176 206 236 Volume Left (vph)49 0 167 0 35 0 24 0 Volume Right (vph)0 18 0 29 0 60 0 54 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.62 0.53 -0.67 0.15 -0.20 0.09 -0.13 Departure Headway (s)7.2 6.1 7.0 5.8 6.1 5.7 5.9 5.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.10 0.03 0.32 0.05 0.25 0.28 0.34 0.37 Capacity (veh/h)457 537 484 575 571 605 591 616 Control Delay (s)9.8 8.1 12.1 7.9 9.9 9.7 10.6 10.8 Approach Delay (s)9.3 11.5 9.8 10.7 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary Delay 10.5 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 2 2 569 6 182 162 292 2 7 130 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)2 3 3 711 8 228 188 340 2 8 155 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 115 0 0 1 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 3 1 711 8 113 188 340 1 8 155 24 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 17.1 17.1 23.7 39.6 39.6 11.0 22.4 22.4 0.8 12.2 12.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 17.1 17.1 23.7 39.6 39.6 11.0 22.4 22.4 0.8 12.2 12.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)23 1030 321 899 1660 743 215 939 420 16 511 229 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.23 0.00 c0.12 c0.10 0.01 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.08 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.15 0.87 0.36 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 24.7 24.7 25.9 10.2 11.0 33.8 23.1 20.7 39.4 30.1 29.2 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.4 30.1 0.2 0.0 22.5 0.3 0.2 Delay (s)40.5 24.7 24.7 30.7 10.2 11.5 63.9 23.3 20.7 61.9 30.5 29.4 Level of Service D C C C B B E C C E C C Approach Delay (s)28.7 25.9 37.7 30.7 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)332 981 573 290 1623 70 317 167 142 84 281 442 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 6033 4728 3353 1600 3252 3002 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 6033 4728 3353 1600 3252 3002 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)346 1022 597 358 2004 86 348 184 156 90 302 475 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 59 0 5 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 346 1022 538 358 2085 0 348 184 135 90 535 242 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.1 46.2 61.3 17.3 48.4 15.1 33.6 50.9 6.9 25.4 25.4 Effective Green, g (s)15.1 46.2 61.3 17.3 48.4 15.1 33.6 50.9 6.9 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.39 0.51 0.14 0.40 0.13 0.28 0.42 0.06 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 409 2337 843 469 2433 595 939 732 187 635 289 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.17 c0.08 0.11 c0.35 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.06 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.44 0.64 0.76 0.86 0.58 0.20 0.18 0.48 0.84 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 51.3 27.3 21.3 49.4 32.6 49.5 32.9 21.6 54.8 45.4 45.3 Progression Factor 1.14 0.59 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 0.5 1.4 7.2 4.2 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.9 9.9 18.6 Delay (s)71.5 16.5 8.5 56.6 36.8 51.0 33.0 21.7 56.8 55.3 63.9 Level of Service E B A E D D C C E E E Approach Delay (s)23.8 39.7 39.5 57.9 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1334 0 0 1814 612 411 0 543 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1407 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1407 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1434 0 0 2085 703 447 0 590 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 254 0 27 27 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1434 0 0 2085 449 362 318 303 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)76.6 76.6 76.6 35.4 35.4 35.4 Effective Green, g (s)76.6 76.6 76.6 35.4 35.4 35.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3075 3075 1685 470 415 420 v/s Ratio Prot 0.30 c0.43 c0.23 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.68 0.27 0.77 0.77 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 11.2 13.8 9.5 38.6 38.5 37.9 Progression Factor 1.70 0.35 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 0.2 7.6 8.2 6.0 Delay (s)19.5 5.6 0.6 46.2 46.8 43.9 Level of Service B A A D D D Approach Delay (s)19.5 4.3 45.7 0.0 Approach LOS B A D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 738 227 0 1301 0 0 0 0 949 2 765 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 820 252 0 1446 0 0 0 0 1010 2 814 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 820 126 0 1446 0 0 0 0 1010 401 399 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)59.9 59.9 59.9 52.1 52.1 52.1 Effective Green, g (s)59.9 59.9 59.9 52.1 52.1 52.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2405 849 2405 1459 619 619 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.30 c0.30 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.15 0.60 0.69 0.65 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 18.1 16.3 21.5 27.5 26.7 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.3 2.3 Delay (s)18.5 16.6 15.9 28.9 29.0 29.0 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s)18.1 15.9 0.0 28.9 Approach LOS B B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 WEEKDAY PM NO PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1826 184 180 1766 486 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)2029 204 188 1840 501 191 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 112 0 0 0 150 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2029 92 188 1840 501 41 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)33.8 33.8 13.2 51.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)33.8 33.8 13.2 51.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.68 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2171 766 285 3276 694 563 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 c0.12 0.38 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.12 0.66 0.56 0.72 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 19.6 12.0 28.8 6.2 27.4 23.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.2 0.1 5.4 0.2 6.4 0.2 Delay (s)27.8 12.0 34.2 6.4 33.8 23.8 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 26.3 9.0 31.1 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)24 0 20 82 0 21 13 706 105 56 327 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 0 27 104 0 27 13 728 108 61 355 13 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)33 27 104 27 377 472 239 191 Volume Left (vph)33 0 104 0 13 0 61 0 Volume Right (vph)0 27 0 27 0 108 0 13 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.67 0.53 -0.67 0.05 -0.13 0.16 -0.01 Departure Headway (s)8.0 6.8 7.8 6.6 5.8 5.6 6.4 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.05 0.23 0.05 0.61 0.74 0.42 0.33 Capacity (veh/h)414 482 428 499 602 626 548 561 Control Delay (s)10.4 9.0 11.9 8.8 16.2 21.5 12.8 11.0 Approach Delay (s)9.8 11.3 19.1 12.0 Approach LOS A B C B Intersection Summary Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 1 2 254 2 176 199 230 0 2 661 655 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2 2 4 289 2 200 219 253 0 2 696 689 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 485 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 2 1 289 2 58 219 253 0 2 696 204 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 28.4 0.8 19.2 19.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 28.4 0.8 19.2 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 949 295 327 980 438 241 1465 19 990 443 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.10 0.00 c0.14 0.08 0.00 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.13 0.91 0.17 0.11 0.70 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 31.7 21.0 21.0 28.6 16.3 16.9 27.1 11.1 31.7 20.4 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.6 34.1 0.1 2.4 2.3 0.8 Delay (s)34.2 21.0 21.0 52.0 16.3 17.6 61.2 11.2 34.2 22.6 19.4 Level of Service C C C D B B E B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.3 37.8 34.4 21.1 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.8%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)444 1857 719 286 1305 131 767 734 493 160 385 288 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5987 4728 3353 1600 3252 3126 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5987 4728 3353 1600 3252 3126 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)462 1934 749 318 1450 146 816 781 524 174 418 313 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 20 0 14 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 462 1934 729 318 1582 0 816 781 516 174 509 222 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)18.8 43.4 67.9 13.8 38.4 24.5 37.1 50.9 9.7 22.3 22.3 Effective Green, g (s)18.8 43.4 67.9 13.8 38.4 24.5 37.1 50.9 9.7 22.3 22.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.36 0.57 0.12 0.32 0.20 0.31 0.42 0.08 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 509 2196 929 374 1916 965 1037 732 263 581 254 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.32 c0.16 0.10 0.26 c0.17 0.23 0.08 0.05 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.24 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.88 0.78 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.88 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 35.9 20.3 52.1 37.7 45.9 37.3 28.4 53.6 47.5 47.5 Progression Factor 1.05 1.01 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.8 3.0 2.3 16.7 4.2 6.9 3.1 3.1 6.1 13.9 26.5 Delay (s)64.2 39.3 14.2 68.7 41.9 52.8 40.5 31.5 59.7 61.4 74.0 Level of Service E D B E D D D C E E E Approach Delay (s)36.9 46.4 43.0 64.2 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2216 0 0 1145 1275 128 2 813 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2238 0 0 1168 1301 145 2 924 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 582 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2238 0 0 1168 719 130 468 469 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)66.3 66.3 66.3 45.7 45.7 45.7 Effective Green, g (s)66.3 66.3 66.3 45.7 45.7 45.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2662 2662 1459 607 523 543 v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.24 0.08 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.44 0.49 0.21 0.90 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 22.4 15.9 16.5 25.0 34.9 34.3 Progression Factor 0.79 0.85 2.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.3 0.6 0.2 17.6 13.4 Delay (s)19.5 13.8 34.9 25.2 52.5 47.7 Level of Service B B C C D D Approach Delay (s)19.5 24.9 47.1 0.0 Approach LOS B C D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1820 285 0 741 0 0 0 0 1224 4 380 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1896 297 0 764 0 0 0 0 1407 5 437 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 61 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1896 136 0 764 0 0 0 0 1407 163 157 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)54.8 54.8 54.8 57.2 57.2 57.2 Effective Green, g (s)54.8 54.8 54.8 57.2 57.2 57.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2200 776 2200 1602 682 679 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.16 c0.42 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.17 0.35 0.88 0.24 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 19.2 21.1 28.3 18.5 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.5 0.4 5.8 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)33.9 19.7 13.0 34.1 18.7 18.6 Level of Service C B B C B B Approach Delay (s)32.0 13.0 0.0 30.4 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 SATURDAY PEAK NO PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupany Year 2016 Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1588 170 184 1535 393 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1805 193 190 1582 437 200 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 112 0 0 0 154 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1805 81 190 1582 437 46 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)29.2 29.2 12.8 46.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)29.2 29.2 12.8 46.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.66 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2010 709 296 3166 743 603 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.12 0.33 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.11 0.64 0.50 0.59 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 12.5 26.5 6.1 24.1 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 0.1 4.7 0.1 3.4 0.2 Delay (s)24.8 12.6 31.2 6.3 27.5 21.4 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 23.6 8.9 25.6 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupany Year 2016 Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)11 1 22 75 2 24 15 457 81 29 268 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 1 29 96 3 31 16 481 85 34 315 12 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)14 30 99 31 256 326 192 169 Volume Left (vph)14 0 96 0 16 0 34 0 Volume Right (vph)0 29 0 31 0 85 0 12 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.64 0.52 -0.67 0.06 -0.15 0.12 -0.01 Departure Headway (s)7.4 6.2 7.2 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.8 5.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.03 0.05 0.20 0.05 0.40 0.48 0.31 0.27 Capacity (veh/h)447 525 466 551 633 659 596 610 Control Delay (s)9.4 8.3 10.7 8.1 10.9 12.0 10.2 9.6 Approach Delay (s)8.7 10.1 11.5 9.9 Approach LOS A B B A Intersection Summary Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupany Year 2016 Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2 3 1 276 3 132 129 231 4 1 422 360 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)3 5 2 345 4 165 150 269 5 1 502 429 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 108 0 0 3 0 0 311 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 5 0 345 4 57 150 269 2 1 502 118 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 13.8 13.8 9.3 22.3 22.3 8.0 25.1 25.1 0.8 17.9 17.9 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 13.8 13.8 9.3 22.3 22.3 8.0 25.1 25.1 0.8 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.01 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 1023 318 434 1150 515 193 1295 579 19 923 413 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.11 0.00 c0.10 0.08 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.11 0.78 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.54 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 20.2 20.2 26.9 14.0 14.6 27.6 13.3 12.3 31.7 20.1 18.5 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.4 17.6 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.4 Delay (s)35.6 20.2 20.2 36.6 14.0 15.0 45.3 13.4 12.3 32.9 20.7 18.9 Level of Service D C C D B B D B B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.8 29.5 24.7 19.9 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 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 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupany Year 2016 Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)333 1707 749 371 1616 148 846 424 479 166 312 213 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5994 4728 3353 1600 3252 3142 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5994 4728 3353 1600 3252 3142 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)347 1778 780 458 1995 183 930 466 526 178 335 229 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 347 1778 765 458 2166 0 930 466 516 178 392 172 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)14.2 43.4 68.4 18.8 48.0 25.0 31.4 50.2 10.4 16.8 16.8 Effective Green, g (s)14.2 43.4 68.4 18.8 48.0 25.0 31.4 50.2 10.4 16.8 16.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.36 0.57 0.16 0.40 0.21 0.26 0.42 0.09 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 385 2196 935 509 2398 985 877 723 282 440 191 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.29 c0.17 c0.14 c0.36 c0.20 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 0.21 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.53 0.71 0.63 0.89 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 52.2 34.6 20.8 49.7 33.8 46.8 38.0 28.9 52.9 50.7 50.8 Progression Factor 1.04 0.87 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.7 1.9 3.2 18.5 6.1 16.8 0.6 3.3 4.6 19.7 38.5 Delay (s)68.8 31.9 17.9 68.2 40.0 63.6 38.6 32.3 57.5 70.4 89.3 Level of Service E C B E D E D C E E F Approach Delay (s)32.6 44.9 49.0 71.7 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupany Year 2016 Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1801 0 0 1334 1362 165 3 983 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1937 0 0 1533 1566 179 3 1068 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 792 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1937 0 0 1533 774 161 542 543 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)59.3 59.3 59.3 52.7 52.7 52.7 Effective Green, g (s)59.3 59.3 59.3 52.7 52.7 52.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2381 2381 1305 700 603 626 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 0.32 0.10 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.64 0.59 0.23 0.90 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 22.5 21.7 21.0 31.2 30.5 Progression Factor 1.31 0.79 3.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.5 0.8 0.2 16.2 12.2 Delay (s)36.2 18.3 67.1 21.2 47.4 42.7 Level of Service D B E C D D Approach Delay (s)36.2 43.0 41.9 0.0 Approach LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupany Year 2016 Without Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 895 183 0 701 0 0 0 0 1211 4 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 994 203 0 779 0 0 0 0 1288 4 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 994 84 0 779 0 0 0 0 1288 115 116 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)49.7 49.7 49.7 62.3 62.3 62.3 Effective Green, g (s)49.7 49.7 49.7 62.3 62.3 62.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1995 704 1995 1745 743 740 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.16 c0.38 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.12 0.39 0.74 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 21.7 24.6 22.5 15.1 15.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.5 1.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)26.8 22.0 20.3 24.2 15.2 15.2 Level of Service C C C C B B Approach Delay (s)26.0 20.3 0.0 22.6 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 WEEKDAY AM WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1391 155 112 1589 195 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1581 176 115 1638 217 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 103 0 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1581 73 115 1638 217 22 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)26.9 26.9 8.7 39.6 17.4 17.4 Effective Green, g (s)26.9 26.9 8.7 39.6 17.4 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.13 0.61 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1994 704 217 2935 871 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.07 c0.34 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.10 0.53 0.56 0.25 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 11.7 26.2 7.5 18.7 17.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.7 0.1 Delay (s)18.9 11.7 28.6 7.8 19.4 17.7 Level of Service B B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 18.2 9.1 18.9 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)43 2 26 130 0 23 69 221 57 20 310 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 56 3 34 167 0 29 73 233 60 24 365 73 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)56 36 167 29 189 176 206 255 Volume Left (vph)56 0 167 0 73 0 24 0 Volume Right (vph)0 34 0 29 0 60 0 73 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.62 0.53 -0.67 0.23 -0.20 0.09 -0.17 Departure Headway (s)7.4 6.3 7.2 6.0 6.3 5.8 6.0 5.8 Degree Utilization, x 0.11 0.06 0.33 0.05 0.33 0.29 0.34 0.41 Capacity (veh/h)448 524 470 555 554 592 575 603 Control Delay (s)10.2 8.5 12.5 8.1 11.1 10.0 11.0 11.5 Approach Delay (s)9.5 11.9 10.6 11.3 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary Delay 11.0 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 2 7 569 6 182 164 302 2 7 161 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)2 3 11 711 8 228 191 351 2 8 192 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 9 0 0 118 0 0 1 0 0 130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 3 2 711 8 110 191 351 1 8 192 26 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 16.5 16.5 23.2 38.5 38.5 11.0 23.5 23.5 0.8 13.3 13.3 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 16.5 16.5 23.2 38.5 38.5 11.0 23.5 23.5 0.8 13.3 13.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)23 994 309 880 1614 722 215 985 441 16 557 249 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.23 0.00 c0.12 c0.10 0.01 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.07 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.81 0.00 0.15 0.89 0.36 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 25.2 25.2 26.3 10.8 11.6 33.9 22.3 20.0 39.4 29.5 28.3 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.4 32.6 0.2 0.0 22.5 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)40.5 25.2 25.3 31.8 10.8 12.1 66.5 22.5 20.0 61.9 29.9 28.5 Level of Service D C C C B B E C B E C C Approach Delay (s)27.2 26.9 38.0 30.0 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)354 981 573 290 1623 76 317 170 142 86 282 449 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 6030 4728 3353 1600 3252 3000 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 6030 4728 3353 1600 3252 3000 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)369 1022 597 358 2004 94 348 187 156 92 303 483 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 63 0 5 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 369 1022 534 358 2093 0 348 187 135 92 540 246 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)16.0 46.2 61.1 17.3 47.5 14.9 33.6 50.9 6.9 25.6 25.6 Effective Green, g (s)16.0 46.2 61.1 17.3 47.5 14.9 33.6 50.9 6.9 25.6 25.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.39 0.51 0.14 0.40 0.12 0.28 0.42 0.06 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 434 2337 841 469 2387 587 939 732 187 640 291 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.17 c0.08 0.11 c0.35 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.06 c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.44 0.64 0.76 0.88 0.59 0.20 0.18 0.49 0.84 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 50.8 27.3 21.4 49.4 33.5 49.7 32.9 21.6 54.9 45.3 45.3 Progression Factor 1.14 0.59 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.0 0.5 1.4 7.2 4.9 1.6 0.1 0.1 2.0 9.9 19.6 Delay (s)70.8 16.6 8.5 56.6 38.5 51.3 33.0 21.7 56.9 55.2 64.9 Level of Service E B A E D D C C E E E Approach Delay (s)24.2 41.1 39.7 58.1 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1348 0 0 1818 615 411 0 551 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1405 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1405 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1449 0 0 2090 707 447 0 599 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 257 0 25 25 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1449 0 0 2090 450 367 319 310 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)76.1 76.1 76.1 35.9 35.9 35.9 Effective Green, g (s)76.1 76.1 76.1 35.9 35.9 35.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.30 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3055 3055 1674 477 420 426 v/s Ratio Prot 0.30 c0.43 c0.23 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.68 0.27 0.77 0.76 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 14.2 9.7 38.3 38.2 37.7 Progression Factor 1.64 0.36 0.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.2 7.3 7.9 6.1 Delay (s)19.3 5.9 0.5 45.6 46.1 43.8 Level of Service B A A D D D Approach Delay (s)19.3 4.5 45.2 0.0 Approach LOS B A D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 741 227 0 1302 0 0 0 0 960 2 765 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 823 252 0 1447 0 0 0 0 1021 2 814 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 823 125 0 1447 0 0 0 0 1021 401 399 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)59.7 59.7 59.7 52.3 52.3 52.3 Effective Green, g (s)59.7 59.7 59.7 52.3 52.3 52.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2397 846 2397 1465 621 621 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.30 c0.30 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.15 0.60 0.70 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 16.4 21.7 27.4 26.6 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.3 2.3 Delay (s)18.7 16.7 16.4 28.9 28.9 28.8 Level of Service B B B C C C Approach Delay (s)18.2 16.4 0.0 28.9 Approach LOS B B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 WEEKDAY PM WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1826 192 184 1766 498 191 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)2029 213 192 1840 513 197 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 117 0 0 0 155 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2029 96 192 1840 513 42 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)33.7 33.7 13.3 51.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)33.7 33.7 13.3 51.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.68 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2165 764 287 3276 694 563 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 c0.12 0.38 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.13 0.67 0.56 0.74 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 19.6 12.0 28.8 6.2 27.6 23.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 0.1 5.8 0.2 6.9 0.3 Delay (s)28.1 12.1 34.6 6.4 34.5 23.8 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 9.1 31.5 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)42 3 59 82 2 21 39 706 105 56 327 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 58 4 81 104 3 27 40 728 108 61 355 26 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)58 85 106 27 404 472 239 204 Volume Left (vph)58 0 104 0 40 0 61 0 Volume Right (vph)0 81 0 27 0 108 0 26 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.63 0.52 -0.67 0.08 -0.13 0.16 -0.06 Departure Headway (s)8.2 7.0 8.2 7.0 6.2 6.0 6.8 6.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.13 0.17 0.24 0.05 0.70 0.79 0.45 0.37 Capacity (veh/h)410 475 411 475 565 588 512 526 Control Delay (s)11.2 10.2 12.6 9.2 21.1 26.5 14.1 12.2 Approach Delay (s) 10.6 11.9 24.0 13.2 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 1 2 254 2 180 205 266 0 2 683 655 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2 2 4 289 2 205 225 292 0 2 719 689 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 0 485 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 2 1 289 2 60 225 292 0 2 719 204 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 28.4 0.8 19.2 19.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 12.8 12.8 7.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 28.4 0.8 19.2 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 949 295 327 980 438 241 1465 19 990 443 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.10 0.00 c0.14 0.09 0.00 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.93 0.20 0.11 0.73 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 31.7 21.0 21.0 28.6 16.3 17.0 27.2 11.3 31.7 20.5 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.7 39.9 0.1 2.4 2.7 0.8 Delay (s)34.2 21.0 21.0 52.0 16.3 17.6 67.1 11.4 34.2 23.2 19.4 Level of Service C C C D B B E B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.3 37.6 35.6 21.4 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)460 1857 719 286 1305 135 767 736 493 166 388 312 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5985 4728 3353 1600 3252 3114 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5985 4728 3353 1600 3252 3114 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)479 1934 749 318 1450 150 816 783 524 180 422 339 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 19 0 14 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 479 1934 730 318 1586 0 816 783 516 180 530 231 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)19.0 44.5 68.3 13.2 38.7 23.8 36.6 49.8 9.7 22.5 22.5 Effective Green, g (s)19.0 44.5 68.3 13.2 38.7 23.8 36.6 49.8 9.7 22.5 22.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.57 0.11 0.32 0.20 0.31 0.41 0.08 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 515 2251 934 358 1930 938 1023 717 263 584 256 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.32 c0.16 0.10 0.26 c0.17 0.23 0.08 0.06 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 0.24 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.86 0.78 0.89 0.82 0.87 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.91 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 49.8 34.9 20.1 52.7 37.5 46.6 37.8 29.3 53.7 47.7 47.7 Progression Factor 1.06 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.6 2.4 2.3 22.4 4.1 8.7 3.5 3.6 7.2 17.8 31.7 Delay (s)67.3 37.3 14.0 75.0 41.6 55.3 41.3 32.9 60.8 65.5 79.4 Level of Service E D B E D E D C E E E Approach Delay (s)36.3 47.1 44.6 68.0 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2216 0 0 1157 1287 128 2 819 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1371 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1371 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2238 0 0 1181 1313 145 2 931 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 589 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2238 0 0 1181 724 130 471 473 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)66.2 66.2 66.2 45.8 45.8 45.8 Effective Green, g (s)66.2 66.2 66.2 45.8 45.8 45.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2658 2658 1456 608 523 544 v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.25 0.08 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.44 0.50 0.21 0.90 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 22.5 16.0 16.6 25.0 35.0 34.3 Progression Factor 0.79 0.90 2.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.3 0.6 0.2 18.6 13.9 Delay (s)19.6 14.7 40.2 25.2 53.5 48.2 Level of Service B B D C D D Approach Delay (s)19.6 28.1 47.8 0.0 Approach LOS B C D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.5%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/18/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Year 2016 Weekday With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1822 285 0 744 0 0 0 0 1232 4 380 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1898 297 0 767 0 0 0 0 1416 5 437 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1898 136 0 767 0 0 0 0 1416 164 158 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)54.8 54.8 54.8 57.2 57.2 57.2 Effective Green, g (s)54.8 54.8 54.8 57.2 57.2 57.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2200 776 2200 1602 682 679 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.16 c0.42 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.17 0.35 0.88 0.24 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 19.2 21.1 28.4 18.6 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 0.5 0.4 6.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)34.0 19.7 12.3 34.6 18.7 18.7 Level of Service C B B C B B Approach Delay (s)32.1 12.3 0.0 30.8 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 SATURDAY PEAK WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1588 185 192 1535 408 188 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1805 210 198 1582 453 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 123 0 0 0 161 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1805 87 198 1582 453 48 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)28.9 28.9 13.1 46.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)28.9 28.9 13.1 46.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.19 0.66 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1989 702 303 3166 743 603 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.12 0.33 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.12 0.65 0.50 0.61 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 12.7 26.3 6.1 24.2 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 0.1 5.0 0.1 3.7 0.3 Delay (s)25.8 12.8 31.3 6.3 27.9 21.5 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 24.4 9.0 25.9 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)34 4 72 75 6 24 65 457 81 29 268 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 5 94 96 8 31 68 481 85 34 315 39 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)44 99 104 31 309 326 192 196 Volume Left (vph)44 0 96 0 68 0 34 0 Volume Right (vph)0 94 0 31 0 85 0 39 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.63 0.50 -0.67 0.14 -0.15 0.12 -0.10 Departure Headway (s)7.7 6.5 7.6 6.5 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.09 0.18 0.22 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.34 0.33 Capacity (veh/h)435 510 439 511 578 607 545 566 Control Delay (s)10.3 9.7 11.6 8.6 14.4 13.8 11.4 11.0 Approach Delay (s)9.9 10.9 14.1 11.2 Approach LOS A B B B Intersection Summary Delay 12.4 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2 3 1 276 3 140 137 273 4 1 464 360 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)3 5 2 345 4 175 159 317 5 1 552 429 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 116 0 0 3 0 0 308 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 5 0 345 4 59 159 317 2 1 552 121 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 14.0 14.0 8.6 21.8 21.8 8.0 25.6 25.6 0.8 18.4 18.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 14.0 14.0 8.6 21.8 21.8 8.0 25.6 25.6 0.8 18.4 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.01 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 1038 323 402 1125 503 193 1321 591 19 949 425 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.11 0.00 c0.10 0.09 0.00 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.12 0.82 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.58 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 20.0 20.0 27.6 14.4 14.9 27.8 13.2 12.0 31.7 20.0 18.2 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.5 23.9 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.4 Delay (s)35.6 20.0 20.0 44.0 14.4 15.4 51.7 13.3 12.0 32.9 20.9 18.5 Level of Service D C C D B B D B B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.7 34.2 26.0 19.9 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)363 1707 749 371 1616 156 846 428 479 174 316 243 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5990 4728 3353 1600 3252 3122 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5990 4728 3353 1600 3252 3122 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)378 1778 780 458 1995 193 930 470 526 187 340 261 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 13 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 378 1778 762 458 2175 0 930 470 514 187 418 183 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.2 41.8 66.8 19.4 46.0 25.0 31.7 51.1 11.1 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g (s)15.2 41.8 66.8 19.4 46.0 25.0 31.7 51.1 11.1 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.35 0.56 0.16 0.38 0.21 0.26 0.43 0.09 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 2115 915 526 2296 985 886 735 301 463 202 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.29 c0.17 c0.14 c0.36 c0.20 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 0.21 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.84 0.83 0.87 0.95 0.94 0.53 0.70 0.62 0.90 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 51.8 36.0 22.0 49.1 35.8 46.8 37.8 28.2 52.4 50.2 50.3 Progression Factor 1.04 0.90 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.4 2.3 3.6 14.6 9.9 16.8 0.6 2.9 3.9 20.6 38.0 Delay (s)69.1 34.8 17.7 63.7 45.8 63.6 38.4 31.1 56.4 70.9 88.3 Level of Service E C B E D E D C E E F Approach Delay (s)34.7 48.9 48.6 71.5 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.1%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1820 0 0 1349 1377 165 3 994 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1957 0 0 1551 1583 179 3 1080 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1957 0 0 1551 778 161 548 549 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)59.0 59.0 59.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s)59.0 59.0 59.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2369 2369 1298 704 606 629 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.32 0.10 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.65 0.60 0.23 0.90 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 26.1 22.9 22.0 20.8 31.2 30.4 Progression Factor 1.30 0.79 3.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.5 0.7 0.2 17.0 12.8 Delay (s)36.8 18.5 73.1 21.0 48.1 43.2 Level of Service D B E C D D Approach Delay (s)36.8 46.0 42.5 0.0 Approach LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.1%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/19/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 With Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 899 183 0 705 0 0 0 0 1226 4 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 999 203 0 783 0 0 0 0 1304 4 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 999 83 0 783 0 0 0 0 1304 116 117 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)49.2 49.2 49.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 Effective Green, g (s)49.2 49.2 49.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1975 697 1975 1759 749 746 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.16 c0.39 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.12 0.40 0.74 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 22.0 24.9 22.3 14.8 14.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.5 1.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)27.3 22.3 20.8 24.0 14.9 15.0 Level of Service C C C C B B Approach Delay (s)26.4 20.8 0.0 22.4 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.9%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 WEEKDAY AM PLUS CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/25/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1603 317 152 2076 234 81 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)1822 360 157 2140 260 90 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 205 0 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1822 155 157 2140 260 21 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)30.2 30.2 11.8 46.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)30.2 30.2 11.8 46.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.17 0.66 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2079 733 273 3166 743 603 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 0.10 c0.44 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.21 0.58 0.68 0.35 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 12.5 26.8 7.4 22.6 21.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.1 2.9 0.6 1.3 0.1 Delay (s)22.7 12.6 29.7 8.0 23.9 21.1 Level of Service C B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 21.0 9.5 23.2 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)43 2 26 130 3 24 69 261 57 20 491 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 56 3 34 167 4 31 73 275 60 24 578 73 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)56 36 171 31 210 197 312 362 Volume Left (vph)56 0 167 0 73 0 24 0 Volume Right (vph)0 34 0 31 0 60 0 73 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.62 0.52 -0.67 0.21 -0.18 0.07 -0.11 Departure Headway (s)8.0 6.8 7.7 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.0 Degree Utilization, x 0.12 0.07 0.36 0.06 0.39 0.34 0.54 0.60 Capacity (veh/h)417 481 440 512 523 553 567 577 Control Delay (s)10.9 9.1 13.9 8.7 12.6 11.3 14.9 16.6 Approach Delay (s) 10.2 13.1 12.0 15.8 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 2 2 598 6 232 179 318 2 7 254 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)2 3 3 748 8 290 208 370 2 8 302 161 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 158 0 0 1 0 0 129 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 3 1 748 8 132 208 370 1 8 302 32 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 14.5 14.5 22.7 36.4 36.4 11.0 26.0 26.0 0.8 15.8 15.8 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 14.5 14.5 22.7 36.4 36.4 11.0 26.0 26.0 0.8 15.8 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)16 873 272 861 1526 683 215 1090 488 16 662 296 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.25 0.00 c0.13 0.11 0.01 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.09 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.01 0.19 0.97 0.34 0.00 0.50 0.46 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 26.8 26.8 27.2 11.9 13.0 34.3 20.5 18.2 39.4 28.3 26.3 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.6 51.5 0.2 0.0 22.5 0.5 0.2 Delay (s)42.8 26.8 26.8 36.5 11.9 13.7 85.9 20.7 18.2 61.9 28.8 26.5 Level of Service D C C D B B F C B E C C Approach Delay (s)30.8 30.0 44.0 28.6 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)404 1080 573 290 1847 76 317 255 142 86 287 456 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 6035 4728 3353 1600 3252 3001 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 6035 4728 3353 1600 3252 3001 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)421 1125 597 358 2280 94 348 280 156 92 309 490 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0 4 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 421 1125 551 358 2370 0 348 280 140 92 549 250 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)16.6 43.2 59.1 17.3 43.9 15.9 36.6 53.9 6.9 27.6 27.6 Effective Green, g (s)16.6 43.2 59.1 17.3 43.9 15.9 36.6 53.9 6.9 27.6 27.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.36 0.49 0.14 0.37 0.13 0.31 0.45 0.06 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 450 2186 815 469 2208 626 1023 772 187 690 314 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.19 c0.09 0.11 c0.39 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.06 c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.51 0.68 0.76 1.07 0.56 0.27 0.18 0.49 0.80 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 30.2 23.2 49.4 38.0 48.7 31.6 19.8 54.9 43.5 43.5 Progression Factor 1.11 0.73 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.6 0.7 1.7 7.2 42.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 6.3 13.1 Delay (s)79.6 22.6 10.1 56.6 80.3 49.8 31.8 19.9 56.9 49.9 56.6 Level of Service E C B E F D C B E D E Approach Delay (s)30.3 77.2 37.4 52.5 Approach LOS C E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/25/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1509 0 0 1944 743 411 0 712 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1384 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1384 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1623 0 0 2234 854 447 0 774 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 313 0 13 13 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1623 0 0 2234 541 402 396 397 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)71.0 71.0 71.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s)71.0 71.0 71.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2851 2851 1562 544 473 487 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.46 0.25 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.78 0.35 0.74 0.84 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 18.7 12.6 34.8 36.4 36.0 Progression Factor 1.63 0.34 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.7 0.2 5.2 12.2 10.1 Delay (s)25.2 7.0 1.0 40.0 48.6 46.1 Level of Service C A A D D D Approach Delay (s)25.2 5.3 44.9 0.0 Approach LOS C A D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/25/2015 AM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 742 228 0 1302 0 0 0 0 1121 2 765 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1426 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 824 253 0 1447 0 0 0 0 1193 2 814 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 824 115 0 1447 0 0 0 0 1193 403 401 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)54.6 54.6 54.6 57.4 57.4 57.4 Effective Green, g (s)54.6 54.6 54.6 57.4 57.4 57.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2192 774 2192 1608 682 682 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.30 c0.35 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.66 0.74 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 19.1 25.5 25.3 22.8 22.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.9 1.4 1.3 Delay (s)22.0 19.5 22.1 27.2 24.1 24.0 Level of Service C B C C C C Approach Delay (s)21.4 22.1 0.0 25.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 WEEKDAY PM PLUS CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/25/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2403 238 194 2135 647 229 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)2670 264 202 2224 667 236 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 121 0 0 0 187 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2670 143 202 2224 667 49 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)59.5 59.5 15.5 79.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s)59.5 59.5 15.5 79.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.72 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2606 920 228 3460 680 552 v/s Ratio Prot c0.55 c0.12 0.46 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.02 0.16 0.89 0.64 0.98 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 12.7 46.4 8.1 43.3 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.2 0.1 30.9 0.4 30.2 0.3 Delay (s)49.5 12.7 77.3 8.5 73.4 35.4 Level of Service D B E A E D Approach Delay (s) 46.2 14.3 63.5 Approach LOS D B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.8%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)43 3 59 82 2 21 39 844 105 56 369 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 4 81 104 3 27 40 870 108 61 401 26 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)59 85 106 27 475 543 261 227 Volume Left (vph)59 0 104 0 40 0 61 0 Volume Right (vph)0 81 0 27 0 108 0 26 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.63 0.52 -0.67 0.08 -0.11 0.15 -0.05 Departure Headway (s)8.5 7.3 8.5 7.3 6.3 6.2 7.0 6.8 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.05 0.84 0.93 0.51 0.43 Capacity (veh/h)399 459 400 459 560 572 488 509 Control Delay (s)11.7 10.7 13.1 9.5 32.6 45.4 16.0 13.7 Approach Delay (s) 11.1 12.4 39.4 14.9 Approach LOS B B E B Intersection Summary Delay 28.4 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 1 2 259 2 198 244 341 0 2 702 681 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2 2 4 294 2 225 268 375 0 2 739 717 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 514 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 2 1 294 2 69 268 375 0 2 739 203 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 15.8 15.8 8.0 23.0 23.0 14.0 34.4 0.8 21.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 15.8 15.8 8.0 23.0 23.0 14.0 34.4 0.8 21.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.46 0.01 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)17 1015 316 324 1028 460 292 1538 17 948 424 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.10 0.00 c0.17 0.11 0.00 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.05 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.15 0.92 0.24 0.12 0.78 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 36.8 23.4 23.4 33.1 18.0 18.9 29.9 12.4 36.8 24.7 22.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.7 31.7 0.1 3.1 4.1 0.9 Delay (s)39.8 23.4 23.4 60.7 18.0 19.6 61.7 12.5 39.8 28.9 23.2 Level of Service D C C E B B E B D C C Approach Delay (s)27.5 42.8 33.0 26.1 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)451 2153 719 286 1508 135 767 743 493 166 421 357 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5996 4728 3353 1600 3252 3107 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5996 4728 3353 1600 3252 3107 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)470 2243 749 318 1676 150 816 790 524 180 458 388 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15 0 12 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 470 2243 734 318 1814 0 816 790 519 180 586 260 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)18.0 44.0 68.5 12.0 38.0 24.5 39.0 51.0 9.0 23.5 23.5 Effective Green, g (s)18.0 44.0 68.5 12.0 38.0 24.5 39.0 51.0 9.0 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.37 0.57 0.10 0.32 0.20 0.32 0.42 0.08 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 488 2226 936 325 1899 965 1090 733 244 608 267 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.37 c0.16 0.10 0.30 c0.17 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.25 c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.96 1.01 0.78 0.98 0.96 0.85 0.72 0.71 0.74 0.96 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 50.7 38.0 20.0 53.9 40.2 45.9 35.8 28.4 54.3 47.8 47.9 Progression Factor 1.04 1.06 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 12.1 1.3 43.6 12.5 6.9 2.4 3.1 11.0 27.5 47.5 Delay (s)66.8 52.3 14.3 97.5 52.7 52.8 38.2 31.5 65.4 75.3 95.4 Level of Service E D B F D D D C E E F Approach Delay (s)46.0 59.3 42.2 78.7 Approach LOS D E D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/25/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2395 0 0 1350 1477 128 2 988 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1370 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1370 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2419 0 0 1378 1507 145 2 1123 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 716 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2419 0 0 1378 791 130 566 572 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)63.0 63.0 63.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s)63.0 63.0 63.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2529 2529 1386 650 559 582 v/s Ratio Prot c0.50 0.29 0.08 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.54 0.57 0.20 1.01 0.98 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 19.0 19.3 22.9 35.5 35.1 Progression Factor 0.88 0.78 3.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 41.1 32.7 Delay (s)28.5 15.0 70.3 23.0 76.6 67.7 Level of Service C B E C E E Approach Delay (s)28.5 43.9 67.1 0.0 Approach LOS C D E A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.6%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/25/2015 PM Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 Plus Cumulative Plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1822 285 0 744 0 0 0 0 1400 4 381 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1431 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1898 297 0 767 0 0 0 0 1609 5 438 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 49 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1898 126 0 767 0 0 0 0 1609 175 170 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)51.0 51.0 51.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Effective Green, g (s)51.0 51.0 51.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2048 723 2048 1709 727 724 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.16 c0.48 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.17 0.37 0.94 0.24 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 32.7 21.4 23.6 27.8 16.5 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 0.5 0.5 10.8 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)41.5 22.0 16.6 38.7 16.7 16.6 Level of Service D C B D B B Approach Delay (s)38.9 16.6 0.0 33.9 Approach LOS D B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT OPENING YEAR 2016 SATURDAY PEAK PLUS CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 1: Murrieta Hot Springs & Jackson Ave 6/25/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus Cumulative plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1854 250 209 1784 466 201 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 16 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.88 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 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4818 1700 1621 4818 3252 2640 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)2107 284 215 1839 518 223 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 150 0 0 0 178 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2107 134 215 1839 518 45 Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s)37.8 37.8 14.2 56.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)37.8 37.8 14.2 56.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.18 0.70 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2277 803 288 3373 650 528 v/s Ratio Prot c0.44 c0.13 0.38 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.17 0.75 0.55 0.80 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 12.1 31.2 5.8 30.5 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 0.1 10.1 0.2 9.8 0.3 Delay (s)26.8 12.2 41.3 6.0 40.3 26.4 Level of Service C B D A D C Approach Delay (s) 25.1 9.7 36.1 Approach LOS C A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 2: Temecula Center Dr / Waverly Ln & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus Cumulative plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)34 4 72 75 6 24 65 511 81 29 316 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 5 94 96 8 31 68 538 85 34 372 39 Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph)44 99 104 31 337 354 220 225 Volume Left (vph)44 0 96 0 68 0 34 0 Volume Right (vph)0 94 0 31 0 85 0 39 Hadj (s)0.53 -0.63 0.50 -0.67 0.14 -0.13 0.11 -0.09 Departure Headway (s)7.9 6.7 7.9 6.7 6.2 5.9 6.5 6.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.10 0.18 0.23 0.06 0.58 0.58 0.40 0.39 Capacity (veh/h)423 494 427 494 561 595 537 554 Control Delay (s)10.5 10.1 11.9 8.9 16.2 15.7 12.4 12.0 Approach Delay (s) 10.2 11.2 16.0 12.2 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 3: Date St & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus Cumulative plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2 3 1 281 3 161 156 302 4 1 497 364 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 4818 1500 3036 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 1565 3353 1500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)3 5 2 351 4 201 181 351 5 1 592 433 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 134 0 0 3 0 0 309 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 5 0 351 4 67 181 351 2 1 592 124 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 13.8 13.8 8.6 21.6 21.6 8.0 25.8 25.8 0.8 18.6 18.6 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 13.8 13.8 8.6 21.6 21.6 8.0 25.8 25.8 0.8 18.6 18.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)19 1023 318 402 1114 498 193 1331 595 19 959 429 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.12 0.00 c0.12 0.10 0.00 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.13 0.94 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.62 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 20.2 20.2 27.7 14.5 15.2 28.3 13.2 11.8 31.7 20.1 18.1 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.6 46.8 0.1 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.4 Delay (s)35.6 20.2 20.2 46.1 14.5 15.7 75.0 13.3 11.8 32.9 21.3 18.4 Level of Service D C C D B B E B B C C B Approach Delay (s)24.8 34.9 34.1 20.1 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.0%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 4: Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 6/25/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus Cumulative plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)371 1789 749 371 1694 164 846 438 479 181 324 250 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 13 12 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3252 6071 1550 3252 5990 4728 3353 1600 3252 3121 1365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 6071 1550 3252 5990 4728 3353 1600 3252 3121 1365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)386 1864 780 458 2091 202 930 481 526 195 348 269 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 13 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 1864 769 458 2280 0 930 481 515 195 429 188 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 45.2 69.2 18.8 49.0 24.0 28.8 47.6 11.2 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s)15.0 45.2 69.2 18.8 49.0 24.0 28.8 47.6 11.2 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.38 0.58 0.16 0.41 0.20 0.24 0.40 0.09 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 407 2287 946 509 2446 946 805 688 304 416 182 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.31 0.16 c0.14 c0.38 c0.20 0.14 0.12 0.06 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.20 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.82 0.81 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.60 0.75 0.64 1.03 1.03 Uniform Delay, d1 52.1 33.6 20.2 49.7 33.9 47.8 40.5 31.1 52.5 52.0 52.0 Progression Factor 1.03 0.88 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.3 1.5 2.5 18.5 8.0 25.0 1.2 4.5 4.6 52.4 75.6 Delay (s)72.2 31.0 17.1 68.2 41.9 72.8 41.7 35.5 57.0 104.4 127.6 Level of Service E C B E D E D D E F F Approach Delay (s)32.7 46.3 54.9 98.4 Approach LOS C D D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.6%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 5: Winchester Rd & I-15 N Off Ramp 6/25/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus Cumulative plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1876 0 0 1407 1429 165 3 1057 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 4818 2640 1593 1372 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2017 0 0 1617 1643 179 3 1149 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 865 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2017 0 0 1617 778 161 583 585 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)56.8 56.8 56.8 55.2 55.2 55.2 Effective Green, g (s)56.8 56.8 56.8 55.2 55.2 55.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2281 2281 1250 733 631 656 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.34 0.10 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.41 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.71 0.62 0.22 0.92 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 25.0 23.6 19.5 30.4 29.7 Progression Factor 1.25 0.80 3.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.6 0.7 0.2 19.3 14.4 Delay (s)40.1 20.5 80.4 19.6 49.7 44.0 Level of Service D C F B D D Approach Delay (s)40.1 50.7 43.6 0.0 Approach LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Intersection LOS Analysis Hoehn Audi Temecula 6: Winchester Rd & I-15 S Off Ramp 6/25/2015 Saturday Peak 5/8/2015 Project Occupancy Year 2016 plus Cumulative plus Project Synchro 7 - Report Stan Ng Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 899 183 0 704 0 0 0 0 1282 4 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4818 1700 4818 3361 1432 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 999 203 0 782 0 0 0 0 1364 4 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 999 78 0 782 0 0 0 0 1364 121 122 Turn Type Perm Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)46.4 46.4 46.4 65.6 65.6 65.6 Effective Green, g (s)46.4 46.4 46.4 65.6 65.6 65.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.55 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1863 657 1863 1837 783 779 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.16 c0.41 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.12 0.42 0.74 0.15 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 23.7 26.9 20.8 13.5 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)29.6 24.0 23.7 22.4 13.6 13.6 Level of Service C C C C B B Approach Delay (s)28.6 23.7 0.0 20.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group PROJECT ACCESS INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE / TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS (2000 HCM Unsignalized Method) Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Weekday AM Peak Command: Weekday AM Peak Volume: Default Volume Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route Configuration: Weekday AM Peak Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Temecula Center Dr / Project D A 8.8 0.009 A 8.8 0.009 + 0.000 D/V # 2 Temecula Center Dr / Project D A 8.4 0.025 A 8.4 0.025 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Intersection Base Met Future Met [Del / Vol] [Del / Vol] # 1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Drivew No / No ??? / ??? # 2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Drivew No / No ??? / ??? Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 4 0 0 27 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=9] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=73] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 4 0 0 27 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 64 Minor Approach Volume: 9 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 953 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 4-3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=27] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=36] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 4-4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 9 Minor Approach Volume: 27 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1476 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 8.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Temecula Center Drive Project Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 4 0 0 27 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 5 4 0 0 27 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF 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 PHF Volume: 5 4 0 0 27 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 4 0 0 27 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 55 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 55 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1563 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 958 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1563 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 956 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:06:17 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 8.4] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Temecula Center Drive Project Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF 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 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 18 18 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1001 880 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 973 875 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.4 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * A A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * A * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Weekday PM Peak Command: Weekday PM Peak Volume: Default Volume Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route Configuration: Weekday PM Peak Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Temecula Center Dr / Project D A 8.9 0.032 A 8.9 0.032 + 0.000 D/V # 2 Temecula Center Dr / Project D A 8.4 0.018 A 8.4 0.018 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Intersection Base Met Future Met [Del / Vol] [Del / Vol] # 1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Drivew No / No ??? / ??? # 2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Drivew No / No ??? / ??? Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 25 0 0 20 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=30] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=100] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 25 0 0 20 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 70 Minor Approach Volume: 30 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 929 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 4-3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=20] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=50] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 4-4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 30 Minor Approach Volume: 20 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1155 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 8.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Temecula Center Drive Project Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 25 0 0 20 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 5 25 0 0 20 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF 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 PHF Volume: 5 25 0 0 20 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 25 0 0 20 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 40 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 65 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1583 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 946 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1583 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 943 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:07:53 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 8.4] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Temecula Center Drive Project Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF 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 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 60 60 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 941 835 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 911 820 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.4 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * A A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * A * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Saturday Peak Command: Saturday Peak Volume: Default Volume Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route Configuration: Saturday Peak Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Temecula Center Dr / Project D A 9.2 0.042 A 9.2 0.042 + 0.000 D/V # 2 Temecula Center Dr / Project D A 8.4 0.035 A 8.4 0.035 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Intersection Base Met Future Met [Del / Vol] [Del / Vol] # 1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Drivew No / No ??? / ??? # 2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Drivew No / No ??? / ??? Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 33 0 0 38 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.2 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=38] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=153] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 5 33 0 0 38 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 115 Minor Approach Volume: 38 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 796 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 4-3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=38] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=2][total volume=76] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 4-4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 38 Minor Approach Volume: 38 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1092 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 1 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Temecula Center Drive Project Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 33 0 0 38 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 5 33 0 0 38 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF 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 PHF Volume: 5 33 0 0 38 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 33 0 0 38 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 77 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 101 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1535 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 903 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1535 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 901 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 15:09:00 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Temecula Center Dr / Project Driveway 2 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 8.4] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Temecula Center Drive Project Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF 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 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 76 76 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 919 818 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 871 799 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.4 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * A A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * A * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE APPENDIX C Ynez Road & Waverly Lane / Temecula Center Drive Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:09:43 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Weekday AM Peak Command: Weekday AM Peak Volume: Default Volume Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route Configuration: Weekday AM Peak Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:09:43 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Dr B 12.1 0.439 B 12.1 0.439 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:09:43 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Intersection Base Met Future Met [Del / Vol] [Del / Vol] # 1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Drive No ??? Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday AM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:09:43 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Drive ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Initial Vol: 69 261 57 20 491 62 43 2 26 130 3 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 960 Minor Approach Volume: 157 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 392 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:10:27 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Weekday PM Peak Command: Weekday PM Peak Volume: Default Volume Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route Configuration: Weekday PM Peak Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:10:28 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Dr C 20.1 0.770 C 20.1 0.770 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:10:28 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Intersection Base Met Future Met [Del / Vol] [Del / Vol] # 1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Drive No ??? Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Weekday PM Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:10:28 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Drive ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Initial Vol: 39 844 105 56 369 24 43 3 59 82 2 21 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 1437 Minor Approach Volume: 105 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 218 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:05:53 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: Saturday Peak Command: Saturday Peak Volume: Default Volume Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route Configuration: Saturday Peak Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:05:54 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Dr B 12.1 0.451 B 12.1 0.451 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:05:54 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Intersection Base Met Future Met [Del / Vol] [Del / Vol] # 1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Drive No ??? Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Saturday Peak Mon Jun 1, 2015 16:05:54 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Ynez Road / Temecula Center Drive ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Initial Vol: 65 511 81 29 316 33 34 4 72 75 6 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 1035 Minor Approach Volume: 110 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 359 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE Audi of Temecula ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 APPENDIX F Focused Burrowing Owl Survey MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Prepared forCity of Temecula May 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA 550 West C StreetSuite 750San Diego, CA 92101619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Prepared forCity of Temecula May 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA Audi of Temecula i ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision TABLE OF CONTENTS Audi of Temecula MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Page 1. Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Project and Property Description ........................................................................................ 1 2.1 Project location ................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 3 3. Burrowing Owl Distribution, Biology, and Threats ............................................................ 3 4. MSHCP Survey Requirements for the Western Burrowing Owl ....................................... 4 5. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 5 5.2 Field Surveys ................................................................................................................... 5 6. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 7 6.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities ................................................................................. 8 6.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 9 7. Survey Results ....................................................................................................................... 9 7.1 Focused Burrow Survey .................................................................................................. 9 7.2 Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys .................................................................................... 9 7.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 10 8. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 10 9. References ........................................................................................................................... 10 Appendices A. Site Photos List of Figures 1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 2 2 Burrowing Owl Survey Map ..................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables 7-1 Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys Summary .......................................................................... 10 Audi of Temecula 1 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision AUDI OF TEMECULA MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to document the results of focused surveys conducted for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) on the 4.5-acre project site located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The focused survey was conducted to demonstrate consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and was required due to the project site’s location within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and the presence of suitable habitat for the species. The purpose of the focused survey is to determine if burrowing owl is present or absent from the project site and buffer area (study area) prior to construction of the proposed project. This report includes background information on the western burrowing owl, habitat conditions, survey methods and procedures, findings, and recommendations. 2. Project and Property Description 2.1 Project location The Audi of Temecula project site is located east of Interstate 15 (I-15) in the City of Temecula, adjacent to the City of Murrieta, within Riverside County. The site can be accessed via Ynez Road to the east. The proposed site lies within a disturbed but undeveloped parcel that has been subject to previous disturbance from grading activities that have removed much of the native soils and vegetation. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial development in the Temecula city limits. An existing Mercedes Benz dealership is located to the immediate north. Beyond the Mercedes Benz dealership, to the north, is an undeveloped parcel within the City of Murrieta, which abuts Warm Springs Creek. To the south and east is vacant land. Further to the east are residential homes and to the west is the I-15, beyond which are commercial developments. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the site and surrounding areas. The site occurs within a portion of assessor’s parcel number (APN): 916-400-032. The project site encompasses 4.5 acres of undeveloped land, and a surrounding 500-foot buffer was included as the “study area” to account for all burrowing owl resources on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Audi of Temecula. D150189Figure 1 Project Location SOURCE: 0 1,680 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and theGIS User CommunitySources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributorsEsri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISuser community Pa t h : U : \ G I S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 5 x x x x \ D 1 5 0 1 8 9 A u d i \ t a s k \ F i g 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n _ B T R . m x d , j y l 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 5 PROJECTLOCATION !\ AREA OFDETAIL Legend Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Audi of Temecula 3 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision 2.2 Project Description The proposed project involves the development of 4.5 acres of the project site to an automotive dealership (Audi) as part of the Harveston Specific Plan (Harveston Plan). The Harveston Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned community that was initially approved by the City Council in 2001. The Harveston Plan includes parks and open space, an elementary school, low- to high- density residential, service commercial, and a business park. The project is located within the service commercial area of the Harveston Plan. The project involves the construction of a 37,468 square-foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. The site is part of Lot 7, Tentative Parcel Map 36336, located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. 3. Burrowing Owl Distribution, Biology, and Threats The burrowing owl is a state species of concern due to their decline in the state of California in the past 30 years. The western burrowing owl inhabits California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of southwestern Canada and northern Mexico (Zarn 1974). While some owl populations breed and winter in different locations, southern California populations of burrowing owls are permanent residents (Korfanta et al. 2005). In southern California, the western burrowing owl can be found in open regions of the lowlands, particularly in grasslands, desert, and low-growing scrub habitats (Wilkerson and Siegel 2011; Beradelli et al. 2010; Condon et al 2005; Zarn 1974). Burrowing owls may also use golf courses; cemeteries; road allowances within cities, airports, vacant lots in residential areas, and university campuses; fairgrounds; abandoned buildings; and irrigation ditches. Although open areas with short vegetation are critical for nesting, there is some evidence that burrowing owls prefer a vegetation mosaic with nesting habitat interspersed within taller vegetation for hunting. However, the primary requirement for suitable burrowing owl foraging habitat appears to be low vegetation cover that allows visibility and access to prey. Due to an inability to construct their own burrows, burrowing owls often require the use of existing rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover. The presence of recently excavated burrows of suitable size is the primary habitat requirement for nesting. They may also use pipes, culverts, and nest boxes where burrows are scarce. One burrow is typically selected for use as the nest; however, satellite burrows are usually found within the immediate vicinity of the nest burrow within the defended territory of the owl. If left undisturbed, a burrowing owl pair will use the same burrow year after year for nesting, as burrowing owls have been shown to exhibit high site fidelity (Rosier et al. 2006). A clutch of seven to nine eggs is laid between March and July. Burrowing owls are generally considered monogamous, although new mates often appear when one of the pair dies or when the pair divorces. Both parents take part in incubation for about 28 days. The young emerge from the nest and spend daylight hours at the burrow entrance with one or both adults. MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Audi of Temecula 4 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Burrowing owls are crepuscular owls, being most active during the early morning and evening hours. They spend most of their time protected in their burrow and when they do emerge from their burrow, it usually occurs during diurnal hours of day, when they tend to be the most active (LaFever 2008; Coulombe 1971). Their diet is predominantly large insects and small rodents, but they will also take small birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, scorpions, and other available prey. Burrowing owls are often observed perched on fence posts or utility wires. Reasons for their decline include habitat destruction, insecticide poisoning, rodenticide (particularly squirrel eradication programs), and shooting. 4. MSHCP Survey Requirements for the Western Burrowing Owl According to the MSHCP, burrowing owl surveys are to be conducted as part of the environmental review process. The purpose of these surveys is to meet the conservation requirements of the MSHCP species-specific objective and to ensure direct mortality of species is avoided. Surveys must be conducted following a three-step procedure, habitat assessment (Step I), focus surveys (Step II), and reporting (Step III). Step I of the three step process requires a habitat assessment to determine if suitable habitat exists for the burrowing owl. A qualified biologist(s) must walk the property to search for suitable habitat for burrowing owls. If suitable habitat is found, surveyors must search for suitable habitat within a 150-meter buffer zone around the property, by means of walking or use of binoculars. If the initial survey findings indicate suitable habitat is present on the property, focused surveys must then be conducted. The focused surveys are to be conducted in two parts. Part A focuses on surveying for suitable burrows and owl signs (white wash, feathers, track marks, pellets, prey remains), while Part B focuses on the presence/absence of burrowing owls. To survey for burrows and signs, the property should be walked in transects by a qualified biologist(s), keeping a distance of no more than 30 meters apart or at a distance such that surveyors have 100% visibility. Suitable burrows, owl signs, and owls, should be marked with GPS coordinates and mapped. If suitable burrows are found, then Part B of the focused surveys must be conducted. For Part B, four additional surveys should be conducted focusing on surveying for burrowing owls. The first may be conducted concurrent with the Part A survey. Due to the diurnal nature of burrowing owls (Coulombe 1971), these four focused surveys must be conducted one hour prior to sunrise until two hours after or two hours prior to sunset until one hour after. First, surveyors must search for owls by scanning the area where mapped suitable habitat and signs of owls have been determined with the use of binoculars/spotting scopes. Then surveyors should walk transects surveying for owl signs and owls. If any signs or owls are observed, they should be marked with a GPS and mapped. The focused surveys must be conducted during the breeding season (March 1st – August 31st) to accurately assess habitat use. In addition, weather conditions must consist of temperatures of 90ºF or below, wind speeds less than 20 miles per hour (mph), no rain, and no heavy fog. MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Audi of Temecula 5 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision Regardless of presence/absence results, a 30 day pre-construction survey needs to be conducted if suitable habitat exists. 5. Methodology 5.1 Literature Review Relevant literature and natural resources databases were reviewed before and after a site visit to determine the potential for special-status biological resources to occur within the study area. Sources reviewed included: Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search for the Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Romoland, Winchester, Wildomar, Bachelor Mountain, Fallbrook, Temecula, and Pechanga quadrangles (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015) The Riverside County Land Information System Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Conservation Summary Report Generator Results 5.2 Field Surveys A habitat assessment and focused burrow survey was conducted by qualified ESA biologist Tommy Molioo on May 13, 2015 that identified suitable habitat and burrows for burrowing owls. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted by the same qualified ESA biologist on May 13, 18, 20, and 26 to confirm the presence/absence of burrowing owl within the study area. Focused surveys were conducted in accordance with survey protocols developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993) and the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (Riverside County 2006) per the Riverside County survey requirements. Surveys were conducted within two hours of sunrise to be able to observe burrowing owls when they are most active. Suitable habitat within the project site and a 500-foot buffer including any natural burrows were surveyed. The location of all suitable burrowing owl habitat, potential owl burrows, including suitable man-made structures that could support owls, burrowing owl sign, and any owls observed were recorded and mapped, with GPS coordinates. All observations during the surveys were recorded in a field notebook. Focused Burrow Survey A systematic survey for potential burrowing owl burrows and burrowing owl sign was conducted by walking through all suitable habitat determined to exist within the project site and a 500-foot buffer surrounding the project site (Figure 2). The 500-foot buffer is included to account for any adjacent burrows and foraging habitat outside the project site in order to provide an adequate analysis of direct and/or indirect project-related impacts related to loss of foraging habitat and/or noise and vibration due to heavy equipment use during the construction phase of the proposed project. !(!(!( Audi of Temecula.D150189 Figure 2 Burrowing Owl Survey Map SOURCE:NAIP, 2014 0 250 Feet Project Site Study Area (500-ft buffer) !(Potential Burrowing Owl Burrow MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report The survey focused on the entire project site, extending out to the south, east, and west within the 500-foot buffer. Areas excluded from surveys on the project site and within the 500-foot buffer include the northern portions of the study area which currently contain an existing Mercedes Benz dealership. These areas were determined unsuitable for burrowing owl due to unfavorable terrain, lack of vegetation, disturbances, and lack of suitable burrows for this species. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines was no more than 100 feet and when necessary was reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. All suitable burrows and perches were thoroughly examined for presence of sign (i.e. whitewash and pellets). If occupied burrows or individual owls were observed during the survey, a minimum distance of 50 meters was maintained between owls or occupied burrows and the observer, to minimize any potential harassment or disturbance. Figure 2 shows the suitable burrowing owl habitat and potential burrows within the study area. Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys Subsequent to the focused burrow survey, four focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls within areas identified as suitable habitat during the focused burrow survey. The first focused burrowing owl survey was conducted concurrently with the focused burrow survey, in accordance with MSHCP burrowing owl survey protocol. The remaining three focused burrowing owl surveys were spaced a minimum of two days apart to allow for an adequate period of time to observe burrowing owls. The entire project site and buffer area were surveyed during each of the focused surveys, with special attention paid to areas containing suitable burrows. Presence of owls was determined by direct observations and/or presence of sign, including pellets, white wash, tracks, feathers, and/or prey remains within the immediate vicinity of a suitable burrow. Survey methodology during the focused burrowing owl surveys was identical to the survey methodology for the focused burrow survey described above. 6. Existing Conditions The project site is 4.5 acres. It is undeveloped and was previously sheet graded as part of the original Harveston Specific Plan mass grading approval. Non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs dominate the vegetation on-site. The site is annually mowed and hydro-seeded for fire maintenance, weed abatement, and erosion and dust control purposes. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Elevation on the site ranges from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the west boundary to 1,095 feet AMSL on the east boundary. The project site contains a temporary retention basin for stormwater run-off on the southwestern portion of the site. Audi of Temecula 7 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report The project site has been graded with what appears to be stormwater management tiers that direct on-site stormwater over the edge of the graded slopes in areas covered in black plastic sheeting and sand bags. Stormwater is then directed towards Warm Springs Creek at the toe of the slopes through a plastic sheet and sandbag system. The proposed project site is composed of compacted fill material and no longer has a native soil profile. The project site was surveyed in early May during a period of drought in the region. No puddles or ponding were observed on the project site during the habitat assessment survey. Representative photographs of the project site are included in Appendix A. Soils on the project site were generally soft and friable. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, soils on the project site are mapped as Ramona and Buren loam. Three other soils are mapped within the study area, but outside of the project site boundary, and include Ramona and Buren sandy loams, Hanford coarse sandy loam, and Chino silt loam. Due to previous disturbances, the natural soil profile no longer exists. 6.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities Plant communities are generally described by the assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Descriptions of vegetation were generally characterized based on dominant species, according to Holland (1986) and Sawyer Keeler-Wolf (1995). Details of each habitat type, disturbed areas, and land uses observed within the study area are described below. Plant names used in this report follow the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). The entire project site is mapped as containing ruderal habitat with basins and scattered trees. Developed land is mapped within the study area, outside of the project site boundary. Ruderal The entire project site consists of a graded, filled, and compacted land comprised almost entirely of ruderal (weedy) vegetation with areas of bare ground. The project site and a majority of the surrounding study area contain ruderal habitat. Two stormwater basins are located in the center of the project site that are also characterized as ruderal habitat. Plant species observed during the habitat assessment include a mixture of non-native grasses and herbaceous forbs. Dominant species include short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and red brome (Bromus rubens). Two native species, clustered tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata) and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), were also dominant throughout the project site but are still common in disturbed settings. Other commonly observed species include prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordaceous), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Scattered native and non-native trees are located along the western border of the project site adjacent to I-15 including, western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Representative site photographs are included in Appendix A. Audi of Temecula 8 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Developed Land Developed land does not occur within the project site boundary, but is mapped within the study area for the existing Mercedes Benz dealership to the north and I-15 to the west. The developed land is characterized by concrete surfaces with associated buildings and infrastructure. No natural soils or vegetation exist within the developed land. Only landscaped ornamental trees were observed in areas mapped as developed land. Representative site photographs are included in Appendix A. 6.2 Wildlife The project site is characterized by disturbed ruderal habitat located within an undeveloped area surrounded by development that provides suitable habitat to support common wildlife species known to occur in upland and urban environments. Wildlife species observed or detected during the habitat assessment survey include common avian and mammal species typical of disturbed upland habitats and urban environments. Avian species observed or detected included red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common raven (Corvus corax) mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis). Mammal species observed include domestic dog (Canis familiaris), California ground squirrel, desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). No amphibian or reptile species were observed during the survey. 7. Survey Results 7.1 Focused Burrow Survey The habitat assessment survey which identified suitable habitat for burrowing owl was conducted during the initial site reconnaissance-level survey for the MSHCP Consistency Analysis. The initial focused burrow survey was conducted on May 13, 2015, between 0600 and 0730 hours. Weather conditions during the survey were overcast skies with an average temperature of 52 degrees Fahrenheit and winds of 1 to 3 miles per hour. There had been no rain in the region for a minimum of five days. Burrows were observed within the southern portion of the study area, particularly along the base of a small hill in the southwestern corner; however, no evidence of burrowing owls was found at any of the burrows. 7.2 Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted throughout the study area within areas identified during the focused burrow survey as containing suitable habitat and burrows to support burrowing owl. The survey conditions and results are summarized in Table 7-1 below. Audi of Temecula 9 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary − Subject to Revision MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Audi of Temecula 10 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision TABLE 7-1 FOCUSED BURROWING OWL SURVEYS SUMMARY Survey Number Date Time Average Temperature (Fahrenheit) Skies Results 1 May 13, 2015 0610 – 0730 52 Overcast Negative 2 May 18, 2015 0600 – 0700 55 Overcast Negative 3 May 20, 2015 0615 – 0715 53 Overcast Negative 4 May 26, 2015 0630 - 0730 57 Overcast Negative 7.3 Study Area While suitable burrows were identified within the southwestern portion of the study area, no burrowing owls or signs of burrowing owl (i.e., pellets, whitewash, or feathers) were observed during the four focused surveys. 8. Conclusions Due to the negative findings of burrowing owls during the four focused surveys, the project site and surrounding study area are currently considered absent of any burrowing owls. However, due to suitable habitat on the project site and current lack of development on the site, there is a potential for burrowing owls to move onto the site prior to the start of construction. Therefore, a pre-construction clearance survey is required to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls within 30 days prior to the start of construction, in accordance with the MSHCP survey protocol. The results of the pre-construction survey will be included in a separate MSHCP 30- Day Burrowing Owl Survey Report to be prepared and submitted to Riverside County and the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) prior to the start of construction. 9. References Berardelli, D., M. J. Desmond, and L. Murray. 2010. Reproductive Success of Burrowing Owls in Urban and Grassland Habitats in Southern New Mexico. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:51-59. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, CDFW, Sacramento, CA. Condon, A. M., E. L. Kershner, B. L. Sullivan, D. M. Cooper, and D. K. Garcelon. 2005. Spotlight surveys for grassland owls on San Clemente Island, California. Wilson Bulletin 117:177-184. Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and Population Ecology of Burrowing Owl, Speotyto- Cunicularia, in Imperial-Valley of California. Condor 73:162. MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report Audi of Temecula 11 ESA / D150189 MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Report May 2015 Preliminary Subject to Revision County of Riverside. The Riverside County Land Information System. Map My County. http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public Accessed on May 11, 2015. County of Riverside. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Retrieved from http://www.wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/mshcp_vol1.html. County of Riverside. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. http://rctlma.org/Portals/1/EPD/consultant/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf Accessed on May 20, 2015. Korfanta, N. M., D. B. McDonald, and T. C. Glenn. 2005. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) population genetics: A comparison of North American forms and migratory habits. Auk 122:464-478. LaFever, D. H., K. E. LaFever, D. H. Catlin, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2008. Diurnal time budget of burrowing owls in a resident population during the non-breeding season. Southwestern Naturalist 53:29-33. Rosier, J. R., N. A. Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist155:162-167. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator. http://rctlma.org/Online-Services/rcip- report-generator Accessed on May 8, 2015. Wilkerson, R. L., and R. B. Siegel. 2011. Distribution and Abundance of Western Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in Southeastern California. Southwestern Naturalist 56:378-384. Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing Owl, Report No. 11. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species. Bureau of Land Management, Denver. 25 pp. Appendix A Site Photos Audi of Temecula . D150189 Site Photo AppendixSOURCE: ESA Photograph 1: Taken from the northwestern corner of the project site, facing east towards the project site. Note existing basin and culvert in background. Photograph 2: Taken from the southwestern corner of the project site, facing northeast towards the project site. Note existing smaller basin in foreground. Audi of Temecula . D150189 Site Photo AppendixSOURCE: ESA Photograph 3: Taken from the eastern portion of the study area, facing west towards the project site. Note the site and study area are dominated by ruderal vegetation. Photograph 4: Taken from the northeastern corner of the project site, facing west towards the project site. Audi of Temecula . D150189 Site Photo AppendixSOURCE: ESA Photograph 5: Representative photo of potential burrowing owl burrow. Photograph 6: Representative photo of potential burrowing owl burrow in SW corner of study area.