2020-12-09 Planning Commision Regular MEETING - Agenda PacketVirtual Meeting City of Menifee
Via Zoom (see below) Planning Commission
Menifee, CA 92586 Regular Meeting Agenda
Randy Madrid, Chair Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Benjamin Diederich, Vice Chair 6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Robert Karwin, Commissioner
Earl Phillips, Commissioner Cheryl Kitzerow, Director
Chris Thomas, Commissioner Stephanie Roseen, Clerk
AGENDA
AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS, AND RESULTING ORDERS AND DIRECTION
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS WELL
AS THE CITY OF MENIFEE EMERGENCY DECLARATION, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE
PERMITTED TO PHYSICALLY ATTEND THE MENIFEE MEETING TO WHICH THIS AGENDA
APPLIES. YOU MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY:
VIDEO: https://cityofmenifee-us.zoom.us/j/7172119849?pwd=UWIwZjVJWEx4MmNoMWpMamlFZDUvQT09
PHONE: (669) 900-6833, MEETING ID # 717 211 9849, PASSCODE: 164671
PUBLIC COMMENTS: TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS EMAIL
publiccomments@cityofmenifee.us
REGULAR MEETING (6:00 P.M.)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PRESENTATIONS
4.1. Recognition of Commissioner Karwin
5. AGENDA APPROVAL OR MODIFICATIONS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1. Approval of Minutes of October 28, 2020
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved in one motion unless a Councilmember requests a
separate action on a specific item on the Consent Calendar. If an item is removed from the Consent
Calendar, it will be discussed individually and acted upon separately.)
8.1. Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report
City of Menifee Planning Commission Agenda
December 9, 2020 Page 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a Resolution adopting the Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report, September 2014. State
Clearinghouse Number 2007051156.
ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT
9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
12. COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
13. FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
14. ADJOURN
Decorum Policy Notes
Please use publiccomments@cityofmenifee.us if you wish to address the Commission. The
Commission anticipates and encourages public participation at its meeting, both on agenda items
and during the public comments period. Please use respect by refraining from talking in the
audience or outbursts that may be disruptive. While we encourage participation, we ask there be
a mutual respect for the proceedings.
Staff Reports
Materials related to an item on this Agenda, including those submitted to the Planning
Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, are available for public inspection by
contacting Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk, at (951) 672-6777 during normal business
hours.
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact Stephanie
Roseen, Deputy City Clerk, at (951) 672-6777. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
Virtual Meeting City of Menifee
Via RingCentral Planning Commission
Menifee, CA 92586 Meeting Minutes
Randy Madrid, Chair Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Benjamin Diederich, Vice Chair 6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Robert Karwin, Commissioner
Earl Phillips, Commissioner Cheryl Kitzerow, Director
Chris Thomas, Commissioner Stephanie Roseen, Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING (6:00 P.M.)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Madrid called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Randy Madrid Chair Present
Earl Phillips Commissioner Present
Benjamin Diederich Commissioner Present
Robert P. Karwin Commissioner Present
Chris Thomas Commissioner Present
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Thomas led the flag salute.
4. PRESENTATIONS - None
5. AGENDA APPROVAL OR MODIFICATIONS
City Clerk Sarah Manwaring stated staff was requesting to pull Item No. 7.1 as those
minutes had already been approved.
The agenda was approved unanimously (5-0) as modified.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
City Clerk Sarah Manwaring read a public comment submitted by
• Luis Faver
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1. Approval of Minutes of February 12, 2020
This item was pulled from the agenda.
7.2. Approval of Minutes of September 23, 2020
The minutes were approved unanimously (5-0) with no modifications.
7.1
Packet Pg. 3
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
O
c
t
2
8
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 2
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
10. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
10.1. Sumac Ridge Residential Subdivision, PLN 19-0012 (TTM 37668)
Senior Planner Ryan Fowler provided a presentation and reported on the project
location; general plan land use; zoning; project description; project access and
design with site maps and visuals; walls; project amenities; maintenance
responsibilities; entry signage; Parks, Recreation and Trails Commission
summary; environmental determination; correspondence received by Valley Wide
and letters of support received; staff recommendation; and memo provided by
the Engineering Department regarding recommended changes to the Conditions
of Approval.
The Planning Commission asked questions of staff regarding the park entrance;
and traffic and stop sign installation.
Mr. Fowler stated that staff and the City Attorney had evaluated the Valley Wide
correspondence and determined to move forward with Negative Declaration.
Chair Madrid opened the public hearing at 6:23 P.M. City Clerk Sarah Manwaring
stated the public hearing was legally noticed. Correspondence had been
received as noted by Mr. Fowler. There were no public comments.
Matt Maehara with Meritage Homes thanked the Commission and staff and
stated he was available for any questions.
Commissioner Diederich inquired about the letter of support received by Revival
Church and their concerns. Mr. Maehara informed the Commission of the
discussions with the church and addressed their concerns.
Chair Madrid closed the public hearing at 6:29 P.M.
ACTION
1. Adopted Resolution No. PC20- 520, adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, based on the findings incorporated in the Initial Study and the
conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Randy Madrid
SECONDER: Chris Thomas
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
7.1
Packet Pg. 4
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
O
c
t
2
8
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 3
2. Adopt a Resolution No. PC20-521, approving Tentative Tract Map No. 37668
(Planning Application No. PLN 19-0012) subject to the Conditions of Approval as
modified.
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Benjamin Diederich
SECONDER: Chris Thomas
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
10.3. Inland Pain Specialists Appeal PLN20-0257
Community Development Director Cheryl Kitzerow provided a presentation and
reported on the project description; project location; general plan and zoning;
background; use determination; five appeal point responses; Planning
Commission options; environmental determination; and staff recommendations.
The Planning Commission asked questions of staff regarding dispensing of
prescriptions, Inland Pain Specialists website advertisement, the Community
Development Director's decision, applicant's options and Conditional Use Permit,
and contact by the Menifee Police Officers with people outside of Inland Pain
Specialists.
Chair Madrid opened the public hearing at 6:59 P.M. City Clerk Sarah Manwaring
stated the public hearing was legally noticed and the City received one petition in
favor of the clinic and one petition in opposition of the clinic. The City also
received 229 emailed public comments; 224 in opposition of the clinic and 5
public in favor of the clinic, and two voice mails in favor of the clinic. Ms.
Manwaring stated that all correspondence and public comments received are
part of the public record.
Applicant, Dr. Nikan Khatibi, introduced himself and his business, and discussed
the five appeal points.
The Planning Commission asked questions of the applicant regarding his website
advertisement, advertisement on the business window, Menifee Police Captain
Gutierrez's observation at the business location, physical and verbal examination
on-site, insurance billing, collection of petition signatures, and medication and
medical equipment on site.
Commissioner Phillips stated his concerns for what was being advertised by the
business and what was being said by the applicant.
Dr. Khatibi inquired about the definition of the medical office. Ms. Kitzerow
provided that definition.
Chair Madrid closed the public hearing at 7:50 P.M.
Commissioner Karwin and Thomas stated the reasons they were in support of
the Community Development Director's recommendation to deny the appeal.
7.1
Packet Pg. 5
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
O
c
t
2
8
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 4
ACTION
Adopted Resolution No. PC20-522, upholding the use determination made by
the Community Development Director for “Inland Pain Specialists” located at
27188 Sun City Boulevard, Sun City, CA 92586 and deny Appeal No. PLN20-
0257.
RESULT: Adopted [Unanimous]
MOVER: Robert P. Karwin
SECONDER: Earl Phillips
AYES: Madrid, Phillips, Diederich, Karwin, Thomas
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS
11.1. Menifee Active Transportation Plan - Final Draft Report and Recommendations
Principal Engineer Carlos Geronimo provided a presentation and introduced
Tony Leonard with the Local Government Commission. Mr. Leonard reported on
what an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is; the project background; project
scope; and presentations, discussions and workshops held. Mr. Geronimo
reported on the Menifee ATP project site; maps; survey summary; proposed
bikeway and pedestrian projects; funding sources; programs and staff
recommendation.
The Commission asked questions of staff regarding connectivity of the sidewalk
near Normandy Road, striping and Menifee population.
ACTION
The Commission provided consensus and recommended the acceptance of the ATP.
12. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Community Development Director Cheryl Kitzerow reported on the housing element and
community workshops; National Community Planning Month of October photo contest
with #myfavoritemenifee; Fairfield Inn and Suites opening; Krikorian Theater, grading on
Centerpointe project in Menifee Town Center; construction of Menifee Plaza, and the
CARES Act second round of Business Relief Grants.
The Commission asked questions of staff regarding the Olive Garden, Artesa
Apartments rental rates and occupancy, ability to screen pending projects, former Smart
and Final site, Menifee's sales tax since COVID, and Tuesday Morning vacant building.
13. COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
None.
14. FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
None.
7.1
Packet Pg. 6
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
O
c
t
2
8
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
City of Menifee Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 5
15. ADJOURN
Chair Madrid adjourned the meeting at 8:37 P.M.
______________________________________
Stephanie Roseen, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
7.1
Packet Pg. 7
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
O
c
t
2
8
,
2
0
2
0
6
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
O
F
M
I
N
U
T
E
S
)
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report
MEETING DATE: December 9, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Kevin Ryan, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Kevin Ryan, Planning Manager
APPROVED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director
APPLICANT: City of Menifee- Public Works Department
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report, September 2014. State
Clearinghouse Number 2007051156.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Wildomar prepared and certified the 2014 EIR to address potentially significant
environmental impacts resulting from the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements. The
EIR covered not only the portion of the project in Wildomar but also the segment of the Bundy
Canyon/Scott Road in the City of Menifee. The range of potential environmental effects
analyzed included aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and
soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land
use, population and housing, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities.
The 2014 EIR determined that the majority of impacts (from temporary construction activities
and long-term operational activities) can be mitigated to less than significant through
implementation of mitigation measures.
However, impacts with respect to aesthetics (potential removal of oak trees) and air quality
(particulate matter generated during construction activities) were found to be significant and
unavoidable after mitigation. In approving the project as analyzed in the 2014 EIR, the City of
Wildomar also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (included as Appendix I
in the 2014 EIR).
Purpose of Addendum
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 through 15164 set forth
8.1
Packet Pg. 8
City of Menifee Planning Commission
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Imp
December 9, 2020
Page 2 of 7
the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be
completed when a project has a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set criteria for determining the appropriate course
of CEQA documentation that may be required if conditions of a project have changed since
approval of the original project ND or EIR. If the following criteria are all true, then a Subsequent
EIR or Mitigated ND is not required, and an Addendum is the appropriate document:
• No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures.
• No substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact will occur.
• No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts
previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible.
Based on the analysis that was conducted in the IS (Attachment A), the proposed improvements
in the interim configuration (Project) will not result in new significant impacts or substantially
increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the 2014 EIR; nor are there any
previously infeasible alternatives that are now feasible. As such, the City of Menifee has
prepared an Addendum to the previously Certified EIR for the Bundy Canyon Road and Scott
Road improvements, which is the purpose of this review.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road widening from Haun Road to Sunset Avenue
(City Limits) Project (“Project”) includes widening the existing two-lane road to a five-lane
corridor with a 55 mph Design Speed. While the 2013 City of Menifee General Plan Circulation
Element designates Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road as an Urban Arterial that will ultimately
provide six divided lanes of traffic (i.e., three in each direction) within a 152-foot (ft) ROW
(Exhibit 3); the Project proposes to improve the roadway to an interim “urban arterial”
configuration of 110’ ROW with 82’ curb-to-curb that includes two lanes each direction and a 14’
striped median (Exhibit 3). The interim configuration would also include a 10’ bike lane on both
the north and south sides of the roadway. Minor adjustments to the project alignment were
made to ensure conformity with the Oak Creek development project (located in the City of
Wildomar, just west of Sunset Avenue and adjacent to the Project/City limit line), to avoid
Southern California Edison (SCE) pole relocations, and to reduce impacts to private properties
within the project corridor. Other improvements include drainage upgrades, higher capacity
stream/culvert crossings and water quality elements such as infiltration basins and bio-swales.
The environmental impacts of the City of Menifee Project were examined in the Bundy Canyon
Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
Number 2007051156), dated September 2014 (2014 EIR), of which the City of Wildomar was
the lead agency. The project examined in the 2014 EIR proposed to widen and realign portions
of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road located between Cherry Street on the west and Haun
Road/Zeiders Road on the east. The Project, as examined in the 2014 EIR, entailed widening
the existing two lanes (i.e., one lane in each direction of travel) of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott
Road to a proposed four-lane roadway (i.e., two lanes in each direction), including a center
striped median, left-turn lanes at major intersections, signage, and the introduction of signalized
intersections in some areas of the project alignment.
The impetus for the Project was, and is, the future residential growth and development along the
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor. The Elsinore Area Plan and Sun City/Menifee Area
Plan components of the 2003 Riverside County General Plan designated the areas between I-
15 and I-215 as desirable for future residential growth, and designated the vicinity of the two
8.1
Packet Pg. 9
City of Menifee Planning Commission
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Imp
December 9, 2020
Page 3 of 7
freeway interchanges as key locations for planned community centers with a mix of commercial
and regional commercial land uses. In anticipation of future growth along the project corridor,
Riverside County began preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the
Project. However, the Cities of Wildomar and Menifee were incorporated in July 2008 and
October 2008, respectively. Therefore, both Cities are responsible for joint efforts in project
design, environmental review, and ultimately, the implementation of the Project since the project
alignment is within the jurisdictions of Wildomar and Menifee.
Bundy Canyon Road and Scott Road
Proposed Alignment and Cross Section
8.1
Packet Pg. 10
City of Menifee Planning Commission
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Imp
December 9, 2020
Page 4 of 7
PROJECT LOCATION
The Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor is a two-lane rural connector that occurs within
the southwestern portion of the City of Menifee and the northeastern portion of the City of
Wildomar (Exhibit 1) in the southwestern area of Riverside County. The connector is called
Bundy Canyon Road from I-15 to the intersection of Murrieta Road, then continues on as Scott
Road from Murrieta Road to I-215. The project alignment straddles between the two cities,
serving as one of the major connections between the Cities of Menifee and Wildomar.
Sunset Avenue runs perpendicular to the project corridor (north-south traffic flow) and serves as
the boundary between the Cities of Wildomar and Menifee, with approximately 3.3 miles of the
project corridor located within Wildomar on the west side of Sunset Avenue, and 3 miles of the
project corridor located within Menifee’s jurisdiction on the east side of Sunset Avenue. The
easterly terminus of the project alignment is located at the intersection of Scott Road and Haun
Road/Zeiders Road. Note that the I-215/Scott Road interchange is not part of the proposed
Project. The westerly terminus of the project alignment is located at the intersection of Bundy
Canyon Road and Cherry Street.
General Plan and Zoning
General Plan Designation
The project alignment is located in the public right-of-way (ROW) of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott
Road in the Cities of Menifee and Wildomar. The project alignment is designated as an Urban
Arterial (6-lanes, divided) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.
A majority of the land located on the northside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road in the portion
of the project alignment located in the City of Menifee has a General Plan land use designation
of Rural Residential (one acre minimum, RR1) with the exception of the northwest corner of
8.1
Packet Pg. 11
City of Menifee Planning Commission
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Imp
December 9, 2020
Page 5 of 7
Murrieta Road and Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a land use designation of
Commercial Retail (CR); and the block between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road,
which has a land use designation of Economic Development Corridor (EDC).
The land located on the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road between Sunset Avenue
and Loerch Lane has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (half acre
minimum, RR1/2). The land located on the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
between Loerch Lane and Krimson Lane, and between Helen Lane and Howard Way have land
use designations of Rural Residential (two-acre minimum, RR2). The land located between
Krimson Lane and Helen Lane on the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road has a land
use designation of CR, and the block located between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders
Road has a land use designation of EDC.
Zoning
The project alignment is located in the public ROW of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road in the
Cities of Menifee and Wildomar. As such, the project alignment does not have zoning
classifications, in and of itself.
Zoning designations for land adjacent to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road in the portion of
the Project located in the City of Menifee are largely consistent with the General Plan land use
designations; a majority of which are residential with the following exceptions:
The northwest corner of Murrieta Road and Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road on the northside of
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of Commercial Retail (CR)
The block between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road on the northside of Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of Economic Development Corridor-
Southern Gateway (EDC-SG)The parcel located between Krimson Lane and Helen Lane on the
southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of CR
The eastern half of the block located between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road on
the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of EDC-SG.
ADDENDUM TO EIR ANALYSIS
The 2014 EIR addressed the potential environmental effects of the original project, and
concluded that implementation of the original project would result in significant impacts related
to the following issues (mitigation number[s] and type of impact shown in parentheses):
Potentially Significant but Mitigated Impacts
Air Quality. Potentially significant levels of PM10, PM2.5, and NOx emissions during construction
activities (mitigation measures AQ-C1 through AQ-C9; less than significant with mitigation)
Biological Resources.
Potentially significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat, disturbance of
burrowing owl habitat and nesting migratory birds, native plant communities, wildlife habitat, and
urban/wildlands interface during construction activities (mitigation measures BIO-C1 and BIO-
C2; less than significant with mitigation)
Potentially significant impacts to protected wildlife species and jurisdictional areas (mitigation
measures BIO-1 through BIO-3; less than significant with mitigation)
Cultural Resources. Potentially significant impacts to two known archaeological sites, and
paleontological resources where deeper excavations may occur (mitigation measures CUL-C1
through CUL-C6; less than significant with mitigation)
8.1
Packet Pg. 12
City of Menifee Planning Commission
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Imp
December 9, 2020
Page 6 of 7
Geology and Soils. Potentially significant impacts from secondary seismic hazards, such as
liquefaction, settlement and lateral spreading, and slope stability during construction activities
(mitigation measures GEO-C1 through GEO-C5; less than significant with mitigation)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potentially significant impacts from use of hazardous
materials during construction activities and in structural building components, and encountering
hazardous materials or waste during ground disturbance activities (mitigation measures HAZ-C1
through HAZ-C6; less than significant with mitigation)
Hydrology and Water Quality.
Potentially significant impacts from construction-related erosion and siltation, and dewatering
discharge during construction activities (mitigation measures WQ-C1 through WQ-C7; less than
significant with mitigation)
Potential significant impacts to erosion and runoff volume, and increased pollutants in surface
water runoff (mitigation measures WQ-1 through WQ-3; less than significant with mitigation)
Noise.
Potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities (mitigation
measures N-C1 through N-C3; less than significant with mitigation)
Significant impacts to sensitive receptors (mitigation measures N-1 and N-2; less than
significant with mitigation)
Population and Housing. Potentially significant impacts to property acquisitions in project
corridor (mitigation measure ACQ-1; less than significant with mitigation)
Recreation. Potentially significant impacts to trail access along project alignment during
construction activities (mitigation measure R-C1; less than significant with mitigation)
Transportation and Traffic. Potentially significant impacts to traffic from temporary lane
closures during construction activities (mitigation measure T-C1; less than significant with
mitigation)
Utilities and Service Systems. Potential significant impacts to utilities during construction
activities and post-project relocation, and construction-related solid waste generation (mitigation
measures U-C1 and U-C2; less than significant with mitigation)
Less Than Significant but Mitigated Impacts
Aesthetics.
Less than significant impacts to the visual character and quality of project corridor during
construction activities (mitigation measure AE-C1; less than significant with mitigation)
Less than significant impacts to visual element of proposed sound attenuation walls (mitigation
measures AE-1; less than significant with mitigation)
Summary of Findings
The proposed Project as detailed and analyzed is adequately addressed in the 2014 EIR noted
above, and there is no change in circumstance, substantial additional information, or substantial
project changes that warrant additional environmental review.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and as set forth in the
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation (Exhibit A), the Project would not have effects that were
not examined in the 2014 EIR because:
No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, that will require major revisions to the
EIR, due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in
8.1
Packet Pg. 13
City of Menifee Planning Commission
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Imp
December 9, 2020
Page 7 of 7
the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no new information of
substantial importance as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
The City of Menifee (project proponent) does not refuse to implement any mitigation measures
that were previously infeasible but are now feasible, or any other mitigation measures, including
mitigation measures considerably different from those in the EIR, that would be necessary to
substantially reduce significant environmental impacts.
The City of Menifee is required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in
the EIR (included in each CEQA issue discussion herein).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164(a) and as demonstrated by the substantial evidence
contained in the Checklist for Consistency Evaluation and the entire administrative record, the
City further finds that the Project is an activity covered by and within the scope of the original
project adopted through the 2014 EIR, and no further environmental documentation is required.
In summary, no substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial
changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no
"new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified EIR is adequate upon completion of an
ADDENDUM (Exhibit B).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City of Menifee Community Development Department has determined based on the
environmental summaries provided above and the analysis presented in the Initial Study
(Exhibit A), the Project would not result in a measurable increase in environmental impacts
greater than those previously identified and mitigated in the 2014 EIR. Although the Project
(interim configuration) contains minor refinements compared to the original project, no new
significant impacts have been identified, nor is the severity of newly identified impacts
substantially greater than the conclusions of the 2014 EIR. Based on this substantial evidence,
the Project would not result in a substantial change in the conclusions and analysis included in
the 2014 EIR. As a result, an Addendum to the 2014 EIR is appropriate to meet the
requirements of CEQA (Exhibit B).
PUBLIC NOTICE
California Code of Regulations § 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (c) states
an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
final EIR or adopted negative declaration. As such, no public notice was warranted or distributed
with respect to the action regarding the proposed Addendum to the EIR. It should be noted, the
widening project will warrant a separate review and approval by the City Council prior to notice
of award and construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution EIR Addendum for Scott Rd
2. 19-07883_ScottRoad_Addendum_Nov2020
8.1
Packet Pg. 14
Resolution PC 20-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA FINDING THAT NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE BUNDY CANYON ROAD/SCOTT ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER
2007051156
Whereas, in 2014 the City of Wildomar prepared and certified the Environmental
Impact Report to address potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements. The EIR covered not only the portion of the
project in Wildomar but also the segment of the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road in the City of
Menifee; and
Whereas, the proposed Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road widening from Haun Road
to Sunset Avenue Project includes widening the existing two-lane road to a five-lane
corridor with a 55 mph Design Speed; and
Whereas, the 2013 City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element designates
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road as an Urban Arterial that will ultimately provide six divided
lanes of traffic (i.e., three in each direction) within a 152-foot (ft) ROW; and
Whereas, the City of Wildomar and the City of Menifee propose to construct an interim
alignment to reduce impacts to private properties within the project corridor; and
Whereas, the project proposes to improve the roadway to an interim “urban arterial”
configuration of 110’ ROW with 82’ curb-to-curb that includes two lanes each direction and
a 14’ striped median. The interim configuration would also include a 10’ bike lane on both
the north and south sides of the roadway; and
Whereas, additional project improvements include drainage upgrades, higher
capacity stream/culvert crossings and water quality elements such as infiltration basins and
bio-swales; and
Whereas, the interim Project does not intensify in scope the original project; and
Whereas, the City is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”); and
Whereas, the interim project improvements were determined to be consistent with the
previously analyzed project (Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements) and thus likely
result in similar or reduced impacts compared to those previously analyzed in the original EIR;
and
Whereas, pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, an addendum has been prepared
to document the proposed changes from the original EIR; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission reviewed the Addendum on December 9, 2020,
where the public was allowed to comment on the absence of any need for additional
environmental review; and
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
C
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
f
o
r
S
c
o
t
t
R
d
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Resolution PC 20-___
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements
2
Whereas, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all of the comments
received from the public as well as the information provided by the City’s staff regarding
environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Menifee, California hereby makes the following findings as established by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
Section 1. The City of Wildomar had reviewed the original EIR and found that those
documents fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the project as it was
originally approved in 2014.
Section 2. The Project will result in similar or reduced impacts as those analyzed in the EIR
and will not result in any new or increased impacts on the environment.
Section 3. CEQA authorizes a Lead or Responsible Agency to prepare an Addendum to a
previously certified EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative
Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary to a previously analyzed
project and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 requiring the preparation of a Supplement to an EIR are met.
A. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that no further environmental
review is required. The proposed modifications would not prompt the need for a
subsequent EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to Section
15162 of the CEQA Guidelines which mandates the preparation of the same,
when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the previous EIR was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous EIR;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
C
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
f
o
r
S
c
o
t
t
R
d
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Resolution PC 20-___
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements
3
c. Mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
B. No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and there are no
substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be
undertaken, that will require major revisions to the EIR, due to the
involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no new
information of substantial importance as that term is used in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
C. The City of Menifee (project proponent) does not refuse to implement any
mitigation measures that were previously infeasible but are now feasible, or
any other mitigation measures, including mitigation measures considerably
different from those in the EIR, that would be necessary to substantially
reduce significant environmental impacts.;
D. The City of Menifee is required to comply with the applicable mitigation
measures identified in the EIR (included in each CEQA issue discussion
herein).
E. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the
time the EIR or was adopted; and
F. There are no newly feasible, or considerably different, mitigation measures or
alternatives which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project as originally analyzed but which the Project proponent declines to
adopt.
Section 4. In summary, no substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are
no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be
undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the
involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
C
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
f
o
r
S
c
o
t
t
R
d
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Resolution PC 20-___
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements
4
"new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified EIR is
adequate upon completion of an Addendum.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 9th day of December, 2020:
_________________________
Randy Madrid, Chairman
Attest:
___________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Thai Viet Phan, Assistant City Attorney
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
C
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
E
I
R
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
f
o
r
S
c
o
t
t
R
d
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road
Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report
SCH Number 2007051156
prepared for
City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
8825 Aero Drive, Suite 120
San Diego, California 92123
November 2020
2
11/28/2020
11/28/2020
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road
Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report
SCH Number 2007051156
prepared for
City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
8825 Aero Drive, Suite 120
San Diego, California 92123
November 2020
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of Addendum ........................................................................................................ 2
2 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................... 3
2.2 Project Overview ................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.1 ROW Acquisition ................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Site Preparation .................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Project Refinements Since Adoption of the 2014 EIR ......................................................... 4
3 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................ 11
4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 15
5 References .................................................................................................................................... 17
Tables
Table 1 Project Refinements .......................................................................................................... 5
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location .............................................................................................................. 6
Exhibit 2 Project Location ................................................................................................................. 7
Exhibit 3 Proposed Alignment Cross Section ................................................................................... 8
Exhibit 4 Proposed Alignment Right-of-way and Ingress/Egress ..................................................... 9
Appendices
Appendix A Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project, Initial Study - 15162 Consistency
Evaluation
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
ii
This page left intentionally blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Introduction
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 1
1 Introduction
This environmental document is an Addendum to the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road Improvement
Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2014 EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007051156),
adopted on September 10, 2014 by the City Council of the City of Wildomar. The Final EIR analyzed
the Bundy Canyon/Scott Road Improvement Project, which entails widening and realigning portions
of a six-mile segment of Bundy Canyon Road and Scott Road (between Cherry Street near
Interstate 15 [I-15] on the west, and Haun Road/Zeiders Road near I-215 on the east) from its
existing two-lane configuration to a four-lane cross section.
The impetus for the Project was, and is, the future residential growth and development along the
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor. The Elsinore Area Plan and Sun City/Menifee Area Plan
components of the 2003 Riverside County General Plan designated the areas between I-15 and I-215
as desirable for future residential growth, and designated the vicinity of the two freeway
interchanges as key locations for planned community centers with a mix of commercial and regional
commercial land uses. In anticipation of future growth along the project corridor, Riverside County
began preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the Project. However, the
Cities of Wildomar and Menifee were incorporated in July 2008 and October 2008, respectively.
Therefore, both Cities are responsible for joint efforts in project design, environmental review, and
ultimately, the implementation of the Project since the project alignment is within the jurisdictions
of Wildomar and Menifee.
Since the adoption of the2014 EIR, conceptual planning and design of the Bundy Canyon Road/
Scott Road improvements have progressed to include an interim “urban arterial” configuration of
110’ right of way (ROW) with 82’ curb-to-curb that includes two lanes each direction and a 14’
striped median. Minor adjustments to the project alignment were made to ensure conformity with
the Oak Creek development project (located in the City of Wildomar, just west of Sunset Avenue
and adjacent to the Project/City limit line), to avoid Southern California Edison (SCE) pole
relocations, and to reduce impacts to private properties within the project corridor.
This Addendum is supported by additional analysis that was conducted for the interim
configuration. The City of Menifee prepared an Initial Study (IS) in July 2020 (Appendix A) that
provides a full analysis of the Project. The purpose of this Addendum is to address the interim
configuration in the context of the 2014 EIR, with the IS as supporting documentation. As
demonstrated in this Addendum, the 2014 EIR continues to serve as the document required under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for assessing the environmental impacts of the
Project.
1.1 Background
The City of Wildomar prepared the 2014 EIR to address potentially significant environmental
impacts resulting from the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road improvements. The range of potential
environmental effects analyzed included aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and
water quality, land use, population and housing, noise, public services, recreation, transportation,
and utilities.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
2
The 2014 EIR determined that the majority of impacts (from temporary construction activities and
long-term operational activities) can be been mitigated to less than significant through
implementation of mitigation measures.
However, impacts with respect to aesthetics (potential removal of oak trees) and air quality (particulate
matter generated during construction activities) were found to be significant and unavoidable after
mitigation. In approving the project as analyzed in the 2014 EIR, the City of Wildomar also adopted a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (included as Appendix I in the 2014 EIR).
1.2 Purpose of Addendum
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 through 15164 set forth the
criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be
completed when a project has a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set criteria for determining the appropriate course of
CEQA documentation that may be required if conditions of a project have changed since approval of
the original project ND or EIR. If the following criteria are all true, then a Subsequent EIR or
Mitigated ND is not required, and an Addendum is the appropriate document:
No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures.
No substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact will occur.
No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously
found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible.
Based on the analysis that was conducted in the IS (Attachment A), the proposed improvements in
the interim configuration (Project) will not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase
the severity of impacts previously identified in the 2014 EIR; nor are there any previously infeasible
alternatives that are now feasible.
None of the factors set forth in Section 15162(a)(3) (new information of substantial importance) are
present; therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Project. The City
of Menifee has prepared this Addendum to address the environmental effects of the Project, as
compared to the project previously analyzed in the 2014 EIR.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Project Description
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 3
2 Project Description
2.1 Project Location and Setting
The Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor is a two-lane rural connector that occurs within the
southwestern portion of the City of Menifee and the northeastern portion of the City of Wildomar
(Exhibit 1) in the southwestern area of Riverside County. The connector is called Bundy Canyon Road
from I-15 to the intersection of Murrieta Road, then continues on as Scott Road from Murrieta Road
to I-215 (Exhibit 2). The project alignment straddles between the two cities, serving as one of the
major connections between the Cities of Menifee and Wildomar.
Sunset Avenue runs perpendicular to the project corridor (north-south traffic flow) and serves as
the boundary between the Cities of Wildomar and Menifee, with approximately 3.3 miles of the
project corridor located within Wildomar on the west side of Sunset Avenue, and 3 miles of the
project corridor located within Menifee’s jurisdiction on the east side of Sunset Avenue. The
easterly terminus of the project alignment is located at the intersection of Scott Road and Haun
Road/Zeiders Road. Note that the I-215/Scott Road interchange is not part of the proposed Project.
The westerly terminus of the project alignment is located at the intersection of Bundy Canyon Road
and Cherry Street.
2.2 Project Overview
The proposed Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road widening from Haun Road to Sunset Avenue (City
Limits) Project (“Project”) includes widening the existing two-lane road to a five-lane corridor with a
55 mph Design Speed. While the 2013 City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element designates
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road as an Urban Arterial that will ultimately provide six divided lanes of
traffic (i.e., three in each direction) within a 152-foot (ft) ROW (Exhibit 3); the Project proposes to
improve the roadway to an interim “urban arterial” configuration of 110’ ROW with 82’ curb-to-curb
that includes two lanes each direction and a 14’ striped median (Exhibit 3). The interim
configuration would also include a 10’ bike lane on both the north and south sides of the roadway.
Other improvements include drainage upgrades, higher capacity stream/culvert crossings and water
quality elements such as infiltration basins and bio-swales.
The interim configuration is what is currently being proposed for the Project in order to match up
with the roadway sections that are being designed and constructed by the City of Wildomar from
Sunset Avenue to the I-15 (Exhibit 3).
2.2.1 ROW Acquisition
As previously discussed, the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element designates Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road as an Urban Arterial which was intended to ultimately provide six divided
lanes of traffic (i.e., three in each direction) with 106’ curb-to-curb within a 152-ft ROW. The current
interim proposal includes 110’ ROW with 82’ curb-to-curb in order to match up with the Wildomar
portion of the alignment. To obtain a continuous 110’ ROW from Sunset Avenue to Haun Road
would require the acquisition of additional ROW from property owners fronting the roadway
alignment. The City intends to appraise, make offers of just compensation, and acquire ROW from
property owners on a cooperative basis. However, the City reserves the right to use condemnation
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
4
powers if absolutely necessary for these frontage acquisitions within the City limits. As such, this
CEQA document includes analysis of the necessary ROW acquisitions, including slope and temporary
construction easements, and associated exhibits such as ROW exhibits, plats and legals, deed
documents, and property appraisals.
In addition to the primary ROW of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, there are several ingress/egress
points which are included within the project limits (Exhibit 4) and would be improved as part of the
Project. This includes the Loerch Lane driveway, which provides access to a number of residences on
the south side of Bundy Canyon Road; it would be combined with another easement access to the
west and a new graded road would be constructed as part of the Project in order to provide access
for the Loerch Lane residences. Additionally, several properties with direct access to Bundy Canyon
Road may have their access moved to the back or sides of the properties due to roadway
realignment and safer ingress / egress to Bundy Canyon Road.
2.2.2 Site Preparation
The Project will be designed such that the horizontal and vertical alignments meet the requirements
of the California Highway Design Manual, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and
current City Standards with a 55 mph Design Speed. This will require some curve straightening in
both the horizontal and vertical directions. In addition to the roadway improvements, the Project
proposes to relocate existing facilities impacted by the widening of the road, construct new culverts
and/or upgrade existing culverts to handle 100-yr storm flows. Additionally, due to the realignment
and widening of the Bundy Canyon Road portion (west of Murrieta Road), some water wells may be
impacted and will need to be abandoned and re-drilled or adjusted to grade if possible. Some leach
fields may also be impacted and will need relocation/redesign. Water wells are addressed in greater
detail within the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document.
The Project also fronts a proposed commercial development called “The Junction” that was
approved by the City of Menifee City Council in July 2020. The design of the Project has been
coordinated with the developer of the Junction project to ensure that their frontage area is
consistent with this Project and the General Plan. In addition, the design of the Project has been
coordinated with the Oak Creek (formerly known as “The Farm”) residential development located
within the City of Wildomar, just west of Sunset Avenue and adjacent to the Project/City limit line.
Lastly, the Project includes modifications of the traffic signal at Murrieta Road (to be installed in
Year 2020) such that it would be compatible with the ultimate configuration of Scott Road, with left
turn restrictions.
2.3 Project Refinements Since Adoption of the 2014 EIR
Since certification of the 2014 EIR, Project design has progressed. The interim configuration would
match up with roadway sections designed and to be constructed by the City of Wildomar from
Sunset Avenue to the I-15. Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics of the original project
and the interim configuration (Project).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Project Description
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 5
Table 1 Project Refinements
Original Project Current Project
Four-lane roadway, including four 12-ft travel lanes, 14-ft-
wide center median for turning movements, two 8-ft
outside shoulders, and areas beyond the outside
shoulders to accommodate the intended ROW acquisition.
Five-lane roadway, within a 152-ft right of way (ROW).
Interim “urban arterial” configuration of 110-ft ROW with
82-ft curb-to-curb that includes two lanes in each
direction, a 14-ft striped median, and 10-ft bike lane on
both sides of the roadway.
Realignment proposed in two areas:
Approximately one mile between Oak Canyon Drive,
and approximately 1,650 ft east of Oak Circle Drive
Approximately one mile from approximately 1,500 ft
west of The Farm Road to Sunset Avenue
Alignment would be consistent with original project, with
minor adjustments made to ensure conformity with the
Oak Creek development project, to avoid SCE pole
relocations, and to reduce impacts to private properties
within the project corridor.
Between the western project limits and The Farm Road,
the City of Wildomar may acquire private property and
provide grading to accommodate a six-lane roadway
(“ultimate scenario”); however, only four lanes would be fully constructed at this time.
City of Menifee may acquire additional ROW from
property owners fronting the roadway alignment between
Sunset Avenue and Haun Road.
Up to 100 parcels identified for full or partial acquisitions
as part of the project.
Five parcels, previously identified as partial acquisitions,
would result in full acquisitions.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
6
Exhibit 1 Regional Location
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Project Description
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 7
Exhibit 2 Project Location
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
8
Exhibit 3 Proposed Alignment Cross Section
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Project Description
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 9
Exhibit 4 Proposed Alignment Right-of-way and Ingress/Egress
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
10
This page is left intentionally blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Environmental Analysis
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 11
3 Environmental Analysis
The following comparative analysis was completed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and
15164, to provide the City of Menifee with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in
the project as analyzed in the 2014 EIR, changes in circumstances, or new information since the
2014 EIR was adopted require preparation of a Subsequent EIR. The Initial Study, which contains
Project consistency evaluation with the 2014 EIR, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 is included as Appendix A.
The refinements to the original project (analyzed in the 2014 EIR) are described in Section 2.3,
above. The environmental analysis provided in the 2014 EIR remains current and applicable to the
Project for the environmental topics listed below:
Aesthetics. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to aesthetic
resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures AE-C1 and AE-1
(pertaining to replacement landscaping and vegetation after project construction; and
soundwall designs and treatments in select sections of the corridor that balance noise
attenuation with aesthetics, respectively), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project.
No new aesthetics-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Agriculture. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to agricultural
resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. The Project would retain a similar roadway
alignment and impact area as the original project. No new agriculture-related mitigation
measures are required for the Project.
Air Quality. The interim configuration would not result in new or additional air quality impacts
beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures AQ-C1 through AQ-C9 (pertaining
to actions applicable during project construction to reduce particulate matter and maintain dust
control), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new air quality-related
mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Biological Resources. The interim configuration would not result in new or additional impacts to
biological resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures BIO-C1
through BIO-C3 (pertaining to pre-construction wildlife surveys, revegetation of disturbed plant
communities after project construction, and implementation of wildlife crossings at specific
locations along the corridor) and BIO-1 through BIO-3 (pertaining to the procurement of
applicable permits, shielding of direct roadway night lighting from wildlife, and prevention of
chemical runoff during roadway maintenance activities), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply
to the Project. No new biological resources-related mitigation measures are required for the
Project.
Cultural Resources. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to cultural
resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. A Historical Resources Study memorandum
was completed for four of the five properties that are proposed for potential full acquisitions
(rather than partial acquisition as previously analyzed in the 2014 EIR). The memorandum is
included as an appendix to the Initial Study (Appendix A). Two of the four evaluated properties
(25555 Bundy Canyon Road and APN 362-060-020) did not require further evaluation due to
construction age and vacant site condition, respectively. The properties located at 25521 and
25551 Bundy Canyon Road were determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
12
of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources because the existing
manufactured homes on these two properties do not embody distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region or method of construction and neither properties played any roles in the
development of the community through association with significant events or individuals. The
fifth parcel (APN 362-050-013) was not evaluated for historic significance since it is vacant and
heavily disturbed. Therefore, the overall impact of these five parcels undergoing full acquisitions
would not be a significant impact beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR, and any modification
which may occur on the five properties under the Project would not result in a significant impact
to historical resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Furthermore, mitigation
measures CUL-C1 through CUL-C6 (pertaining to archaeological and tribal cultural resource
monitoring during project construction, and proper handling and documentation of discovered
resources and human remains), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new
cultural resources-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Energy. The 2014 EIR analyzed energy impacts of the original project and determined the
project would have a less than significant impact on energy consumption due to the improved
flow of traffic that would result from the project. The interim configuration would not result in
additional energy consumption impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. No new
energy-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Geology and Soils. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to geology
and soils beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures GEO-C1 through GEO-C5
(pertaining to slope stability and topsoil management during project construction) and CUL-C5
(pertaining to paleontological monitoring during construction activities), as stated in the
2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new geology and soils-related mitigation measures are
required for the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The interim configuration would not result in additional greenhouse
gas emissions impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. No new greenhouse gas
emissions-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The interim configuration would not result in additional
hazards or hazardous materials impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation
measures HAZ-C1 through HAZ-C6 (pertaining to the use, storage, transportation of hazardous
materials during project construction; proper handing and disposal of demolition and
construction waste; and management of potentially contaminated soil or groundwater
discovered during project construction), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project.
No new hazards and hazardous materials-related mitigation measures are required for the
Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts
to hydrology or water quality beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures
WQ-C1 through WQ-C7 (pertaining to stormwater management, pollution prevention, and
wastewater management during construction activities) and WQ-1 through WQ-3 (pertaining to
BMPs for pollution prevention, maintenance, and stormwater treatment during Project
operation), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new hydrology and water
quality-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Land Use and Planning. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to land
use and planning beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. The Project would accommodate the
anticipated future development along the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor that is
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Environmental Analysis
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 13
consistent with planned land uses in the Cities of Wildomar and Menifee. No General Plan land
use or zoning changes would be required to implement the Project. No new land use and
planning-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Mineral Resources. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to mineral
resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. The Project would retain a similar roadway
alignment and impact area as the original project. No new mineral resources-related mitigation
measures are required for the Project.
Noise. The interim configuration would not result in additional noise impacts beyond those
identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures N-C1 through N-C3 (pertaining to the reduction
of construction and equipment noise) and N-1 and N-2 (pertaining to the reduction of roadway
noise during Project operation), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new
noise-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Population and Housing. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to
population and housing beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measure ACQ-1
(pertaining to compensation for parcel acquisitions required to implement the original project
and interim configuration), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new
population and housing-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Public Services. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to public
services beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. No new public services-related mitigation
measures are required for the Project.
Recreation. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts to recreational
resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measure R-C1 (pertaining to
public noticing for trail closures and detours during construction activities), as stated in the
2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new recreation-related mitigation measures are
required for the Project.
Transportation. The interim configuration would not result in additional transportation impacts
beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) was completed to
assess the operating conditions of the project corridor in opening year 2025 and the horizon
year 2040. The TIA is included as an appendix to the Initial Study (Appendix A). The TIA
determined that all five study intersections would operate under improved and acceptable level
of service (LOS) under the “Existing Conditions with Project” scenario. However, unacceptable
intersection LOS would result in opening year 2025 and horizon year 2040 scenarios due to
growth in traffic from ambient background growth in the region and due to the cumulative
effects of future development projects. The Project, in and of itself, would not attract more
traffic due to the roadway widening; rather, the purpose of the Project is further justified based
on future population and traffic growth estimates for the project corridor. Therefore, the
Project would not cause a significant impact on the operation of study intersections. Mitigation
measure T-C1 (pertaining to the preparation and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan
by the City of Wildomar), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new
transportation-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources. The 2014 EIR analyzed tribal cultural resource impacts of the original
project along with cultural resources, and determined the project would have a less than
significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures. The interim configuration would
not result in additional impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond those identified in the
2014 EIR. Mitigation Measure CUL-C4 (pertaining to the implementation of tribal monitoring
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
14
during construction activities), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project. No new
tribal cultural resources-related mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems. The interim configuration would not result in additional impacts
to utilities and service systems beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures
U-C1 and U-C2 (pertaining to pre-construction coordination with utilities providers; and
construction waste management, respectively), as stated in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the
Project. No new utilities and services systems-related mitigation measures are required for the
Project.
Since certification of the 2014 EIR, CEQA Guidelines were amended to include “Wildfire” as an
environmental issue area in 2019. Therefore, potential wildfire impacts were also analyzed pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines (circa 2020) to ensure thorough review of potential Project impacts, in addition
to the above environmental issue areas that were analyzed in the 2014 EIR and the Initial Study
(Appendix A):
Wildfire. The 2014 EIR did not discuss nor analyze wildfire impacts; however, the Initial Study
prepared by Parsons (circa 2007) for the original project discussed wildfire risks of the project
corridor. The interim configuration would not result in additional wildfire hazards or impacts
beyond those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. As stated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the
Project would not require additional fuel breaks or infrastructure to reduce wildfire hazards
since the proposed roadway improvements would be a hardscape roadway that is not
susceptible to nor would exacerbate wildfires. No new wildfire-related mitigation measures are
required for the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Conclusions
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 15
4 Conclusions
Based on the environmental issue areas summaries provided above and the analysis presented in
the Initial Study (Appendix A), the Project would not result in a measurable increase in
environmental impacts greater than those previously identified and mitigated in the 2014 EIR.
Although the Project (interim configuration) contains minor refinements compared to the original
project, no new significant impacts have been identified, nor is the severity of newly identified
impacts substantially greater than the conclusions of the 2014 EIR. Based on this substantial
evidence, the Project would not result in a substantial change in the conclusions and analysis
included in the 2014 EIR. As a result, an Addendum to the 2014 EIR is appropriate to meet the
requirements of CEQA.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
16
This page is left intentionally blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
References
Addendum to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Environmental Impact Report 17
5 References
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020. Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project, Initial Study –
15162 Consistency Evaluation. July 2020.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1B1BCity of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
18
This page is left intentionally blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Appendix A
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation
prepared for
The City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
8825 Aero Drive, Suite 120
San Diego, California 92123
November 2020
6
11/28/2020
11/28/2020
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation
prepared for
The City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
8825 Aero Drive, Suite 120
San Diego, California 92123
November 2020
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Table of Contents
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation i
Table of Contents
Initial Study ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Project Title ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address ....................................................................................... 1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number .................................................................................. 1
4. Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ............................................................................... 1
6. Project Background ........................................................................................................... 2
7. General Plan Designation .................................................................................................. 2
8. Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 3
9. Description of Project........................................................................................................ 3
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting................................................................................... 5
11. Prior Environmental Document(s) ..................................................................................... 5
12. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) .................................................................. 5
13. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ......................................................... 5
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162 .................................................................................................. 6
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Determination of Prior Environmental Document ........................................................................ 7
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 8
Environmental Effects & Determination............................................................................................. 11
Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or Substantially More Severe Significant Effects
Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR .......................................................... 11
Determination ............................................................................................................................ 11
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation .................................................................................................. 13
1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 13
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................ 17
3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 21
4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 27
5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 33
6 Energy ............................................................................................................................. 39
7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 43
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 49
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 53
10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 59
11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 67
12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 71
13 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 75
14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 79
15 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 83
16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 87
17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 91
18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 95
19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 99
20 Wildfire ......................................................................................................................... 105
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Table of Contents
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation ii
References ........................................................................................................................................ 109
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 109
List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 111
Appendices
Appendix A Exhibits
Appendix B Historical Resources Study for Four Properties on Bundy Canyon Road
Appendix C Traffic Impact Analysis (2020)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Initial Study
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 1
Initial Study
1. Project Title
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Widening Project (Project) (CIP 20-01)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Menifee
Public Works Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California, 92586
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director
951-723-3706
Carlos Geronimo, PE QSD, Senior Civil Engineer
951-672-6777
4. Project Location
The Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor is a two-lane rural connector that occurs within the
southwestern portion of the City of Menifee and the northeastern portion of the City of Wildomar
(Exhibit 1) in the southwestern area of Riverside County. The connector is called Bundy Canyon Road
from I-15 to the intersection of Murrieta Road, then continues on as Scott Road from Murrieta Road
to I-215 (Exhibit 2). The project alignment straddles between the two cities, serving as one of the
major connections between the Cities of Menifee and Wildomar.
Sunset Avenue runs perpendicular to the project corridor (north-south traffic flow) and serves as
the boundary between the Cities of Wildomar and Menifee, with approximately 3.3 miles of the
project corridor located within Wildomar on the west side of Sunset Avenue, and 3 miles of the
project corridor located within Menifee’s jurisdiction on the east side of Sunset Avenue. The
easterly terminus of the project alignment is located at the intersection of Scott Road and Haun
Road/Zeiders Road. Note that the I-215/Scott Road interchange is not part of the proposed Project.
The westerly terminus of the project alignment is located at the intersection of Bundy Canyon Road
and Cherry Street.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Menifee (as specified above under Lead Agency)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Initial Study
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 2
6. Project Background
The environmental impacts of the City of Menifee Project were examined in the Bundy Canyon
Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number
2007051156), dated September 2014 (2014 EIR), of which the City of Wildomar was the lead
agency. The project examined in the 2014 EIR proposed to widen and realign portions of Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road located between Cherry Street on the west and Haun Road/Zeiders Road
on the east. The Project, as examined in the 2014 EIR, entailed widening the existing two lanes (i.e.,
one lane in each direction of travel) of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road to a proposed four-lane
roadway (i.e., two lanes in each direction), including a center striped median, left-turn lanes at
major intersections, signage, and the introduction of signalized intersections in some areas of the
project alignment.
The impetus for the Project was, and is, the future residential growth and development along the
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road corridor. The Elsinore Area Plan and Sun City/Menifee Area Plan
components of the 2003 Riverside County General Plan designated the areas between I-15 and I-215
as desirable for future residential growth, and designated the vicinity of the two freeway
interchanges as key locations for planned community centers with a mix of commercial and regional
commercial land uses. In anticipation of future growth along the project corridor, Riverside County
began preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the Project. However, the
Cities of Wildomar and Menifee were incorporated in July 2008 and October 2008, respectively.
Therefore, both Cities are responsible for joint efforts in project design, environmental review, and
ultimately, the implementation of the Project since the project alignment is within the jurisdictions
of Wildomar and Menifee.
Since the City of Wildomar EIR certification in 2014 the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a) and 15163 (further explained herein in the section titled “Overview of
CEQA Guidelines §15162”).
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Consistency Findings Checklist below provides an analysis to
determine whether the City of Menifee shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Therefore, the City of Menifee, as lead agency, determined additional CEQA documentation would
be required to implement the portion of the Project within Menifee (Scott Road between Sunset
Avenue and Haun Road/Zeiders Road). The appropriate CEQA process was determined to be a
Consistency Evaluation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (further discussed herein, in the
section titled Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162) since the Project was evaluated in the
2014 EIR, which was certified by the City of Wildomar in September 2014. The Project analyzed
herein, is specifically focused on the portion of the Project within Menifee.
7. General Plan Designation
The project alignment is located in the public right-of-way (ROW) of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
in the Cities of Menifee and Wildomar. The project alignment is designated as an Urban Arterial (6-
lanes, divided) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Initial Study
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 3
A majority of the land located on the northside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road in the portion of
the project alignment located in the City of Menifee has a General Plan land use designation of Rural
Residential (one acre minimum, RR1) with the exception of the northwest corner of Murrieta Road
and Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a land use designation of Commercial Retail (CR);
and the block between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road, which has a land use designation
of Economic Development Corridor (EDC).
The land located on the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road between Sunset Avenue and
Loerch Lane has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (half acre minimum,
RR1/2). The land located on the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road between Loerch Lane
and Krimson Lane, and between Helen Lane and Howard Way have land use designations of Rural
Residential (two-acre minimum, RR2). The land located between Krimson Lane and Helen Lane on
the southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road has a land use designation of CR, and the block
located between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road has a land use designation of EDC.
8. Zoning
The project alignment is located in the public ROW of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road in the Cities
of Menifee and Wildomar. As such, the project alignment does not have zoning classifications, in
and of itself.
Zoning designations for land adjacent to the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road in the portion of the
Project located in the City of Menifee are largely consistent with the General Plan land use
designations; a majority of which are residential with the following exceptions:
The northwest corner of Murrieta Road and Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road on the northside of
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of Commercial Retail (CR)
The block between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road on the northside of Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of Economic Development Corridor-
Southern Gateway (EDC-SG)The parcel located between Krimson Lane and Helen Lane on the
southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of CR
The eastern half of the block located between Howard Way and Haun Road/Zeiders Road on the
southside of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, which has a zoning designation of EDC-SG.
9. Description of Project
Proposed Improvements
The proposed Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road widening from Haun Road to Sunset Avenue (City
Limits) Project (“Project”) includes widening the existing two-lane road to a five-lane corridor with a
55 mph Design Speed. While the 2013 City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element designates
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road as an Urban Arterial that will ultimately provide six divided lanes of
traffic (i.e., three in each direction) within a 152-foot (ft) ROW (Exhibit 3); the Project proposes to
improve the roadway to an interim “urban arterial” configuration of 110’ ROW with 82’ curb-to-curb
that includes two lanes each direction and a 14’ striped median (Exhibit 3). The interim
configuration would also include a 10’ bike lane on both the north and south sides of the roadway.
Minor adjustments to the project alignment were made to ensure conformity with the Oak Creek
development project (located in the City of Wildomar, just west of Sunset Avenue and adjacent to
the Project/City limit line), to avoid Southern California Edison (SCE) pole relocations, and to reduce
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Initial Study
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 4
impacts to private properties within the project corridor. Other improvements include drainage
upgrades, higher capacity stream/culvert crossings and water quality elements such as infiltration
basins and bio-swales.
The interim configuration is what is currently being proposed for the Project in order to match up
with the roadway sections that are being designed and constructed by the City of Wildomar from
Sunset Avenue to the I-15 (Exhibit 3).
ROW Acquisition
As previously discussed, the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element designates Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road as an Urban Arterial which was intended to ultimately provide six divided
lanes of traffic (i.e., three in each direction) with 106’ curb-to-curb within a 152-ft ROW. The current
interim proposal includes 110’ ROW with 82’ curb-to-curb in order to match up with the Wildomar
portion of the alignment.
The 2014 EIR identified 100 parcels for full or partial acquisitions as part of the project. To obtain a
continuous 110’ ROW from Sunset Avenue to Haun Road would require the full acquisition of
additional ROW from five property owners fronting the roadway alignment, which were identified
as partial acquisitions in the 2014 EIR. The City intends to appraise, make offers of just
compensation, and acquire ROW from property owners on a cooperative basis. However, the City
reserves the right to use condemnation powers if absolutely necessary for these frontage
acquisitions within the City limits. As such, this CEQA document includes analysis of the necessary
ROW acquisitions, including slope and temporary construction easements (TCE’s), and associated
exhibits such as ROW exhibits, plats and legals, deed documents, and property appraisals.
In addition to the primary ROW of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road, there are several ingress/egress
points which are included within the project limits (Exhibit 4) and would be improved as part of the
Project. This includes the Loerch Lane driveway, which provides access to a number of residences on
the south side of Bundy Canyon Road; it would be combined with another easement access to the
west and a new graded road would be constructed as part of the Project in order to provide access
for the Loerch Lane residences. Additionally, several properties with direct access to Bundy Canyon
Road may have their access moved to the back or sides of the properties due to roadway
realignment and safer ingress / egress to Bundy Canyon Road.
Site Preparation
The Project will be designed such that the horizontal and vertical alignments meet the requirements
of the California Highway Design Manual, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and
current City Standards with a 55 mph Design Speed. This will require some curve straightening in
both the horizontal and vertical directions. In addition to the roadway improvements, the Project
proposes to relocate existing facilities impacted by the widening of the road, construct new culverts
and/or upgrade existing culverts to handle 100-yr storm flows. Additionally, due to the realignment
and widening of the Bundy Canyon Road portion (west of Murrieta Road), some water wells may be
impacted and will need to be abandoned and re-drilled or adjusted to grade if possible. Some leach
fields may also be impacted and will need relocation/redesign. Water wells are addressed in greater
detail within the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document.
The Project also fronts a proposed commercial development called “The Junction” that was
approved by the City of Menifee City Council in July 2020. The design of the Project has been
coordinated with the developer of the Junction project to ensure that their frontage area is
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Initial Study
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 5
consistent with this Project and the General Plan. In addition, the design of the Project has been
coordinated with the Oak Creek (formerly known as “The Farm”) residential development located
within the City of Wildomar, just west of Sunset Avenue and adjacent to the Project/City limit line.
Lastly, the Project includes modifications of the traffic signal at Murrieta Road (to be installed in
Year 2020) such that it would be compatible with the ultimate configuration of Scott Road, with left
turn restrictions.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project alignment is located in an area of the City that is predominantly rural residential, with a
few existing commercial uses. In addition to rural residential uses, land adjacent to the project
alignment is predominantly undeveloped land that was once used for dry land agriculture; some of
which is in the process of conversion to residential use. The central portion of the project alignment
passes through a low range of hills intersected by several intermittent and ephemeral creeks.
The posted speed limit along the corridor is generally 50 miles per hour (mph). A no passing zone is
in effect within the portion of the project alignment that is located in the City of Menifee. Traffic
movement within the alignment flows westward in the morning peak hours and eastward in the
evening peak hours.
11. Prior Environmental Document(s)
City of Wildomar, Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Impact
Report, September 2014 (2014 EIR). State Clearinghouse Number 2007051156.
12. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
The prior environmental document (2014 EIR) is available at the following website:
http://www.cityofwildomar.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_9894739/File/Government/Departments/
Public%20Works/Bundy%20Canyon-Scott%20Road%20Final%20EIR_September2014.pdf]
13. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit(s)
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification(s)
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement(s)
General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Construction
Activities, Order No. 99-08-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 6
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162
Overview
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 through 15164 set forth the
criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be
completed when a project has a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) and 15163 state that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or
Subsequent ND shall be prepared for a project with an adopted ND or certified EIR unless the lead
agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or
more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the ND was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The analysis pursuant to Section 15162 demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the
activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the existing certified EIR, that an
addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as
a new IS or EIR, would be required.
The City has prepared a Checklist for Consistency Evaluation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 for the Project to evaluate whether the Project’s environmental impacts are covered by and
within the scope of the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project EIR (circa September
2014, State Clearinghouse Number 2007051156). The attached Checklist for Consistency
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 7
Evaluation detail any changes in the Project, changes in circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that may cause one or more
effects to environmental resources. The responses herein substantiate and support the City’s
determination that the Project’s environmental impacts are within the scope of the 2014 EIR, do not
require a subsequent negative declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and, in conjunction
with the EIR, adequately analyze the modified project’s environmental impacts.
Therefore, an addendum to the 2014 EIR is the appropriate environmental document, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. As demonstrated herein, the modifications in the Project are minor
and would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
Determination of Prior Environmental Document
The 2014 EIR addressed the potential environmental effects of the original project, and concluded
that implementation of the original project would result in significant impacts related to the
following issues (mitigation number[s] and type of impact shown in parentheses):
Potentially Significant but Mitigated Impacts
Air Quality. Potentially significant levels of PM10, PM2.5, and NOx emissions during construction
activities (mitigation measures AQ-C1 through AQ-C9; less than significant with mitigation)
Biological Resources.
Potentially significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat, disturbance
of burrowing owl habitat and nesting migratory birds, native plant communities, wildlife
habitat, and urban/wildlands interface during construction activities (mitigation measures
BIO-C1 and BIO-C2; less than significant with mitigation)
Potentially significant impacts to protected wildlife species and jurisdictional areas
(mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3; less than significant with mitigation)
Cultural Resources. Potentially significant impacts to two known archaeological sites, and
paleontological resources where deeper excavations may occur (mitigation measures CUL-C1
through CUL-C6; less than significant with mitigation)
Geology and Soils. Potentially significant impacts from secondary seismic hazards, such as
liquefaction, settlement and lateral spreading, and slope stability during construction activities
(mitigation measures GEO-C1 through GEO-C5; less than significant with mitigation)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potentially significant impacts from use of hazardous
materials during construction activities and in structural building components, and encountering
hazardous materials or waste during ground disturbance activities (mitigation measures HAZ-C1
through HAZ-C6; less than significant with mitigation)
Hydrology and Water Quality.
Potentially significant impacts from construction-related erosion and siltation, and
dewatering discharge during construction activities (mitigation measures WQ-C1 through
WQ-C7; less than significant with mitigation)
Potential significant impacts to erosion and runoff volume, and increased pollutants in
surface water runoff (mitigation measures WQ-1 through WQ-3; less than significant with
mitigation)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 8
Noise.
Potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities
(mitigation measures N-C1 through N-C3; less than significant with mitigation)
Significant impacts to sensitive receptors (mitigation measures N-1 and N-2; less than
significant with mitigation)
Population and Housing. Potentially significant impacts to property acquisitions in project
corridor (mitigation measure ACQ-1; less than significant with mitigation)
Recreation. Potentially significant impacts to trail access along project alignment during
construction activities (mitigation measure R-C1; less than significant with mitigation)
Transportation and Traffic. Potentially significant impacts to traffic from temporary lane
closures during construction activities (mitigation measure T-C1; less than significant with
mitigation)
Utilities and Service Systems. Potential significant impacts to utilities during construction
activities and post-project relocation, and construction-related solid waste generation
(mitigation measures U-C1 and U-C2; less than significant with mitigation)
Less Than Significant but Mitigated Impacts
Aesthetics.
Less than significant impacts to the visual character and quality of project corridor during
construction activities (mitigation measure AE-C1; less than significant with mitigation)
Less than significant impacts to visual element of proposed sound attenuation walls
(mitigation measures AE-1; less than significant with mitigation)
Summary of Findings
The proposed activity detailed and analyzed in this Checklist for Consistency Evaluation is
adequately addressed in the 2014 EIR noted above, and there is no change in circumstance,
substantial additional information, or substantial project changes that warrant additional
environmental review.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and as set forth in the Checklist for
Consistency Evaluation below, the Project would not have effects that were not examined in the
2014 EIR because:
No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, that will require major revisions to
the EIR, due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no new
information of substantial importance as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3).
The City of Menifee (project proponent) does not refuse to implement any mitigation measures
that were previously infeasible but are now feasible, or any other mitigation measures,
including mitigation measures considerably different from those in the EIR, that would be
necessary to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts.
The City of Menifee is required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in
the EIR (included in each CEQA issue discussion herein).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 9
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164(a) and as demonstrated by the substantial evidence
contained in the Checklist for Consistency Evaluation and the entire administrative record, the
City further finds that the Project is an activity covered by and within the scope of the original
project adopted through the 2014 EIR, and no further environmental documentation is
required.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Overview of CEQA Guidelines §15162
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 10
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Environmental Effects & Determination
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 11
Environmental Effects & Determination
Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or
Substantially More Severe Significant Effects
Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to
be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in
project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the
checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ NONE
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire
Determination
On the basis of this analysis:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the previous ND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term
is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
■ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes
in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Environmental Effects & Determination
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 12
Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified EIR is adequate
upon completion of an ADDENDUM.
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Aesthetics
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 13
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation
1 Aesthetics
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
AE-C1
AE-C
No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Aesthetics
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 14
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant (C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Aesthetics
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 15
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to aesthetics and scenic resources.
Construction Impacts
As stated on page 2-15 of the 2014 EIR, construction impacts identified for the Project include
temporary nighttime lighting to support nighttime construction work. Nighttime lighting would
comply with the Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy to ensure Project construction has no
significant impacts. Other construction impacts to the visual character (such as temporary signs for
traffic detours and demarcation of staging areas) and quality of the project corridor would be
temporary; therefore, construction impacts on aesthetics are considered less than significant.
Though there would be less than significant aesthetic impacts from Project construction, Mitigation
Measure AE-C1 (stated below) is included to ensure revegetation and replacement of trees along
the project alignment, following California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements.
Operational Impacts
Operational aesthetic impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-16 through 2-
32, and are summarized as follows:
The project corridor is not a designated scenic roadway. Therefore, implementation of the
Project would have no impact on scenic highways or corridors.
The only lighting proposed for the Project is safety lighting for signals at intersections, which is
exempt from the Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy. Therefore, the Project would have a
less than significant impact on lighting or signage.
No unique rock outcroppings would be affected by the Project. Therefore, the Project would
have no impacts on scenic vistas or topographic visual resources.
No scenic vistas, including those from hilltop homes, would be significantly altered as a result of
the Project. The visual simulations completed for the project demonstrate less than significant
changes in the existing viewshed and visual character of the project alignment that would result
from the proposed roadway widening. The hilly topography of the area surrounding the project
alignment would remain intact, and the visual experience for travelers through this area would
not be substantially altered following Project construction and site restoration.
Recognizing the high visual quality imparted by the presence of mature oak trees, roadway
geometry of the Project was modified in some areas to reduce the number of oak trees subject
to removal, consistent with applicable highway design and safety standards. Therefore, the
Project would not in conflict with applicable Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines
and would have no impact.
Several homes along the project alignment would be acquired for project ROW. However, the
rural residential character of the project corridor area would remain intact. Therefore, the
project would have a less than significant impact on the visual effect and character of the
project corridor.
Though there would be less than significant aesthetic impacts from Project operation, Mitigation
Measure AE-1 (stated below) is included to ensure proposed soundwalls along the project alignment
are compatible and enhance the existing landscape.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Aesthetics
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 16
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AE-C1 Provide replacement landscaping or vegetation consistent with the
project design.
Mitigation Measure AE-1 Soundwall designs and treatment that balance noise attenuation with
aesthetics will be developed.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR from an aesthetic impact perspective. The
2014 EIR includes visual simulations of existing conditions (which remain largely unchanged in
present day) and the Project upon completion, to provide side-by-side comparisons of anticipated
visual and aesthetic changes post-Project. These visual simulations remain applicable to the Project.
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial
increase in severity of aesthetic impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project
changes or new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the aesthetic
impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Mitigation measures AE-C1 and AE-1,
as stated in the 2014 EIR and above, would apply to the Project. Therefore, the Project is within the
scope of the 2014 EIR regarding aesthetic impacts.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 17
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Less Than Significant (C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 18
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant (C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 19
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to agricultural resources.
Construction Impacts
As stated on page 2-35 of the 2014 EIR, the Project would have no significant construction impacts
to farmlands, forest lands, or timberlands. Project construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
would be employed to minimize dust and manage stormwater, and construction staging would not
occur on agricultural land outside of the Project footprint. Agricultural lands adjacent to the project
alignment would not be affected during project construction. Therefore, construction impacts on
agricultural resources are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures were identified.
Operational Impacts
Operational agricultural impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-35 through
2-27, and are summarized as follows:
The project area does not contain special-status farmlands, and the project would not result in
the conversion of any existing farmland, forest land, or timberland into non-agricultural uses.
The Project entails widening an existing roadway in accordance with local land use plans, and
would not alter adjacent land uses. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant
impact to agricultural resources.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR from an agricultural resources
perspective. Figure 2.2-1, Farmland Designations, in the 2014 EIR shows several parcels adjacent to
the project alignment as having “Farmland of Local Importance” designations, which remain
unchanged in present existing conditions.
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial
increase in severity of agricultural impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project
changes or new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the agricultural
impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the
scope of the 2014 EIR regarding agricultural impacts.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 20
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Air Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 21
3 Air Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a.Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b.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?
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
AQ-C1 through
AQ-C9
Yes Yes
c.Expose sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant (C)
No Impact (O)
AQ-C1 through AQ-C9 No No No Yes Yes
d.Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Air Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 22
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Air Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 23
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes air quality impacts of the Project. The discussion and analysis
was based on a project-specific Air Quality Technical Report completed by the Entech Consulting
Group (circa 2007).
Construction Impacts
Construction air quality impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-57 through
2-60, and are summarized as follows:
No air quality emissions exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD’s) regional significance thresholds is anticipated during any phase of Project
construction activities.
The estimated maximum localized construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily
significance thresholds for NOx and CO during any construction phase. However, the maximum
localized PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the corresponding Localized Significance
Threshold (LST) at the residences closest to the project alignment/area, during three of four
phases of construction activities1. The air quality emissions impacts would be reduced as
construction activities conclude near the construction site perimeter. Therefore, Mitigation
Measures AQ-C1 through AQ-C9 were identified to reduce potential Project construction
impacts to the extent feasible.
Construction activities would generate objectionable odors related to operation of diesel-
powered equipment and off-gas emissions during road-building activities, such as paving and
asphalting. However, these potential odor emissions would generally be limited to the project
site and temporary in nature. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required to reduce project
odor impacts from construction activities.
Operational Impacts
Operational air quality impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-60 through 2-
74, and are summarized as follows:
The Project was included in the regional emission budget calculations for the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Improvement Programs
(RTIP). Therefore, the project operational emissions remain within the regional acceptable
levels, would not violate state or federal ambient air quality standards, and would not delay
State Implementation Plan (SIP) attainment goals.
A CO hot-spot screening analysis was completed. The Project would not increase traffic
volumes, but would improve traffic flow and therefore, would accommodate future traffic
increase due to the predicted population growth in the area. The screening analysis determined
that no quantitative CO analysis would be required since implementation of the project would
improve intersection level of service (LOS), reduce traffic congestion delays at project
intersections, and the average speed of traffic would increase.
The Project would not create a new, or worsen an existing, PM10 or PM2.5 violation and it would
comply with any local, state, and federal rules and regulations developed as a result of
implementing control or mitigation measures and/or strategies in the 2003 PM10 SIP and 2007
1 PM = Particulate Matter
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Air Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 24
PM2.5 SIP (approved by EPA in May 2008). Therefore, a project-specific PM hot-spot analysis
would not be required.
The Project is not anticipated to significantly affect traffic patterns or fleet mix in the project
area, since the Project would improve traffic operations of an existing facility by providing safe
traffic flow. Therefore, based on Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) tiered approach,
the Project would be considered to have minimal potential Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
effects
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-C1 In addition to SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, all land clearing/
earth-moving activity areas shall be watered as necessary to remain
visibly moist during active operations.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C2 Water, three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied,
as needed, to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all
unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C3 Streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more
frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto
adjacent public paved roads.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C4 Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving
the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as
necessary.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C5 Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 mph.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C6 All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C7 Construction equipment shall be operated such that exhaust
emissions are minimized. For example, engines shall be turned off
while in queues or while loading/unloading. Additionally, heavy,
diesel-powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
Construction activities shall be discontinued during second-stage
smog alerts.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C8 To the extent practicable, petroleum powered construction
equipment shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than
temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power
generators.
Mitigation Measure AQ-C9 Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural
coatings shall be implemented. Emissions associated with
architectural coatings would be reduced by implementing such
measures as use of pre-coated/natural colored building materials,
water-based or low-VOC coatings and paints, and manual brush or
spray equipment with high transfer efficiency.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The 2007 Air Quality Technical Report
acknowledges the ultimate build-out conditions for the Project to contain six lanes, pursuant to the
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Air Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 25
design of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road as an “urban arterial” in the Riverside County General
Plan. Construction and operational emissions were analyzed in the 2007 Air Quality Technical
Report. The report concludes that maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds as shown in Table 6, Build Alternative Construction Phase Emissions of the
report (and Table 2.3-5, Estimate of Project Daily Construction Emissions of the 2014 EIR as
summarized above). Project construction emissions are anticipated to be similar in nature and
extent as analyzed in the 2007 study, and all construction mitigation measures pertaining to air
quality impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
The 2007 Air Quality Technical Report states that the Project would not result in traffic volume
increases during operations; therefore, no net emission increases are anticipated for the Project.
STC Traffic, Inc. completed a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) in 2020 based on existing traffic
conditions (further discussed in Section 17, Transportation). The 2020 TIA concludes that the
Project, in and of itself, would not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening, which is
consistent with the findings and conclusions for Project operations impacts in the 2007 Air Quality
Technical Report.
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial
increase in severity of air quality impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project
changes or new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the air quality
impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the
scope of the 2014 EIR regarding air quality impacts. The findings and recommendations provided in
the 2007 Air Quality Technical Report, and by extension the discussion and analysis contained in the
2014 EIR, are applicable to the Project. As previously stated, all construction mitigation measures
pertaining to air quality impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Air Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 26
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Biological Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 27
4 Biological Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. 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?
Potentially
Significant
(C and O)
BIO-C1, BIO-C2
BIO-2, BIO-3
No No No Yes Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Potentially
Significant
(C and O)
BIO-1, BIO-3 No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Biological Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 28
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Potentially Significant (C and O)
BIO-1 No No No Yes Yes
d. 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?
Potentially
Significant (C)
BIO-C3 No No No Yes Yes
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Biological Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 29
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes biological resource impacts of the Project on pages 2-110
through 2-128. The analysis was based on the project-specific Biological Technical Report prepared
by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (circa 2009), and a Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey completed
and a Burrowing owl focused survey completed by the Riverside County Environmental Programs
Department (circa 2010).
Project impacts are summarized as follows:
No special-status plant species were observed within the project area. However, there are oak
trees with diameters greater than 36 inches, located in the project corridor, which required
shifts in project alignment and design to avoid impacts to existing significant oak trees. The
realignment would also reduce impacts to riverine/riparian resources. Therefore, the Project
would have a less than significant impact to plant species.
Five special-status animal species were observed within the project area: coastal California
gnatcatcher, white-tailed kite, northern red-diamond rattlesnake, San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit, and San Diego desert woodrat. Potential impacts to these species are expected
because of habitat loss, but Project impacts would be less than significant and are covered
under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
Burrowing owls were not observed during surveys conducted in 2010, though observed in
the project area vicinity. Two other listed species, Stephens’ kangaroo rat and the Quino
checkerspot butterfly, were not found in the biological resources study area, although
habitat is present in the project area. Impacts to all three of these species are potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-C1 (stated below) is included to ensure preconstruction surveys are
completed for coastal California gnatcatchers, burrowing owls, and migratory birds.
The Project would impact approximately 8.9 aces of Riversidean sage scrub, which is a
potentially significant impact due to its habitat suitability for coastal California gnatcatcher. The
Project would also impact approximately 0.37-are of southern willow scrub and 1.56 acres of
southern coast live oak riparian woodland, which are MSHCP-defined riverine/riparian habitats
with suitable habitats for two sensitive wildlife species identified in the MSHCP (least Bell’s vireo
and southern willow flycatcher). Therefore, the loss of these vegetation communities would be
a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-C2 (stated below) is included to ensure
these habitats are restored after Project construction.
Several project design features, such as treatment of stormwater runoff and compliance with
residential noise standards along the project corridor, would ensure indirect Project impacts to
the urban/wildlands interface would be less than significant pursuant to MSHCP Guidelines.
Approximately 0.46 acre of the project site is located in USACE jurisdiction of which 0.07 acre
consists of jurisdictional wetlands, and approximately 2.85 acres of the project site consist of
CDFW jurisdictional riparian habitat. The Project would impact freshwater marsh, southern
willow scrub, and southern coast live oak riparian forest. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would
ensure necessary permits from USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB are obtained prior to engaging in
project activities that would impact jurisdictional areas.
Several project design features specific to the sizing and placement of culverts would ensure
Project impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-
C2 and BIO-2 would further reduce potential Project impacts to wildlife movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Biological Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 30
The Project was determined to be consistent with applicable MSHCP sections. The existing
alignment was also determined to be the most feasible alternative for the Project since it would
produce the least impacts to riverine/riparian resources. No fuel management would be
necessary outside of the permanent disturbance limit of the project corridor. Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would reduce the impact of long-term maintenance activities during Project
operations on wildlife species, habitat, and water quality within the MSHCP area.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-C1 Pre-construction surveys will be undertaken for the following species:
Coastal California gnatcatcher - Potential gnatcatcher habitat
(between Station Numbers 55.5 and 67 and 81.5 and 127, located
in the City of Wildomar) will not be cleared between March 1st
and June 30th unless a qualified biological monitor deems that no
nesting gnatcatchers are present.
Burrowing owl - Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for
burrowing owl within the survey area where suitable habitat is
present will be conducted before any grading or demolition
activities onsite within 30 days before disturbance. Take of active
nests will be avoided. Passive relocation (i.e., use of one-way
doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present
outside the nesting season.
Migratory birds - To ensure that the proposed project will not
adversely affect nesting migratory birds, if vegetation is to be
removed during the nesting season (March 1 through August
15th) a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey no
more than twenty-one days before vegetation removal. If active
nests are identified, then the nesting vegetation will be avoided
until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can
survive independently from the nest. The biologist will flag the
nesting vegetation and will establish an adequate buffer around
the nesting vegetation. Clearing/grading shall not occur within the
buffer until the nesting event has completed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-C2 Plant communities including Riversidean sage scrub, southern coast
live oak riparian forest, southern willow scrub, and freshwater marsh
that are temporarily disturbed during construction activities will be
revegetated with native species similar in composition to the existing
habitat. Non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP
shall not be included in the revegetation program.
In addition, cut and fill slopes that occur within or adjacent to native
habitat within Proposed Linkage 8 (Sedco Hills/Wildomar) of the
MSHCP and contained approximately within Station Numbers 56+50
through 126+00 (located in the City of Wildomar) will be revegetated
with native species similar in composition to the existing habitat. Non-
native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP shall not be
included in the revegetation program.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Biological Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 31
Construction activities will be limited to the project footprint and
designated staging area and routes of travel. The construction
footprint and sensitive environmental areas will be delineated with
orange exclusion fencing and will be shown on the construction plans.
Prior to construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) will be prepared for the disturbance area to avoid discharge
of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into
MSHCP Conservation Areas.
Construction activities that utilize chemicals that are potentially toxic
or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall
not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Mitigation Measure BIO-C3 The following wildlife crossings will be constructed as feasible and
appropriate at the following roadway station locations, located in the
City of Wildomar:
Station Number 88+30 - 48-inch culvert
Station Number 93+80 - 60-inch culvert
Station Number 115+20 – 36 -inch culvert
Such crossings may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders,
fencing, walls, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Necessary permits from USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB will be obtained
before causing any impacts within jurisdictional areas. Potential
impacts to listed species will be mitigated through conservation of
core populations in MSHCP conservation areas.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Roadway night lighting shall be focused and directed away from the
MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species from direct night lighting
and shall not result in increased ambient lighting conditions.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Maintenance activities that utilize chemicals that are potentially toxic
or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall
not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. However, the parameters of the original
project that were analyzed in the 2009 project-specific Biological Technical Report differ from the
Project described in this Consistency Evaluation. The 2009 Biological Technical Report acknowledges
the ultimate build-out conditions for the Project to contain six lanes, pursuant to the design of
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road as an “urban arterial” in the Riverside County General Plan. The
2009 Biological Technical Report limited the original project scope to four lanes for the entire six-
mile project corridor.
However, the survey area analyzed in the 2009 Biological Technical Report extended approximately
300 feet to either side of the existing Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road centerline, which
encompasses the entire width of the ultimate build-out condition of the project corridor. Therefore,
the findings and recommendations provided in the 2009 Biological Technical Report, and by
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Biological Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 32
extension the biological resources discussion and analysis contained in the 2014 EIR, are applicable
to the Project. Existing conditions have remained relatively unchanged since completion of the 2009
Biological Technical Report and certification of the 2014 EIR.
Likewise, the 2010 endemic plant species survey included a 40-foot survey footprint from both sides
of the centerline of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road limited to a two-mile segment of Scott Road
between I-215 to the east and Murrieta Road to the west, and the 2010 burrowing owl focused
survey included a 300-foot survey footprint from both sides of the centerline of Bundy Canyon
Road/Scott Road for the entire project corridor. Both survey areas encompass the entire width of
the ultimate build-out condition of the project corridor. Therefore, the findings and
recommendations provided in the 2010 endemic plan species survey and 2010 burrowing owl
focused survey, and by extension the discussion and analysis contained in the 2014 EIR, are
applicable to the Project.
All mitigation measures pertaining to biological resources impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would
apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 33
5 Cultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
CUL-C1, CUL-
C2, CUL-C4,
CUL-6
No No No Yes Yes
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact
(C and O)
CUL-C3 No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 34
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 35
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to cultural resources. The analysis was based
on the project-specific Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by Applied Earth Works,
Inc. (circa 2007) and a Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum completed by
Parsons (circa 2007).
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-139 and 2-140. There
are two archaeological sites within the project area that may be impacted. CA-RIV-8163H is
assumed to be a significant resource and an archaeological monitor shall be present during ground
disturbance to ensure Project construction activities occur away from the resource site. CA-RIV-
8282 is determined to be ineligible for the California or National historic registers. No significant
built-environment resources were identified.
Mitigation Measures CUL-C1, CUL-C2, CUL-4, and CUL-C6 (stated below) would ensure
archaeological monitoring and proper documentation in the event that previously unknown cultural
resources are discovered during Project construction and ground disturbing activities such that
Project construction has a less than significant impact. Mitigation measure CUL-C3 (stated below)
would ensure respectful and proper handling of human remains, if discovered during construction
and ground disturbing activities, such that Project construction has a less than significant impact.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts to cultural resources are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-141, and no
impacts to archaeological or built environment resources were determined to be expected during
Project operation.
Relevant EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-C1 Before starting construction, a qualified archaeologist will be retained
as project archaeologist to oversee archaeological monitoring during
construction activities near CA-RIV-8163H.
Mitigation Measure CUL-C2 If an unexpected archaeological discovery occurs during ground
disturbances, immediately halt work in the area(s). The project
archaeologist is to be contacted immediately to evaluate the nature
and significance of the find and implement appropriate mitigation
measures. Archaeological materials are to be left undisturbed and in
place in accordance with state law.
Mitigation Measure CUL-C3 If human remains are discovered, they are to be left undisturbed and
in place. The Riverside County Coroner’s office must be notified
immediately (California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5), and all
activities in the immediate area of the find must cease until
appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the
Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, then the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted
(PRC §5097.98). The NAHC will designate a Most Likely Descendent
(MLD) who will make recommendations concerning the disposition of
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 36
the remains in consultation with the property owner, lead agency,
and project archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure CUL-C4 Before starting construction, a tribal Monitoring Agreement will be in
place for monitoring of Native American artifacts during construction
activities involving excavation in areas considered to have a higher
sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-C6 A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of
specimens will be prepared. The report and inventory, when
submitted to the City, along with confirmation of the curation of
recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum
repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts
to paleontological resources.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. However, the parameters of the original
project that were analyzed in the 2007 project-specific Archaeological Resources Survey Report
differ from the Project described in this Consistency Evaluation. The 2007 Archaeological Resources
Survey Report acknowledges the ultimate build-out conditions for the Project to contain six lanes.
The 2007 Archaeological Resources Survey Report limited the original project scope to four lanes for
the entire six-mile project corridor.
However, the survey area analyzed in the 2007 Archaeological Resources Survey Report extended
approximately 200 feet to either side of the existing Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road centerline,
which encompasses the entire width of the ultimate build-out condition of the project corridor.
Therefore, the findings and recommendations provided in the 2007 Archaeological Resources
Survey Report, and by extension the cultural resources discussion and analysis contained in the
2014 EIR, are applicable to the Project. Existing conditions have remained relatively unchanged since
completion of the 2007 Archaeological Resources Survey Report and certification of the 2014 EIR.
The 2007 Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum identified a total of 199
parcels within the study area of the project corridor. Of the 199 parcels, 18 parcels contained
properties with improvements completed 45 or more years ago, circa 2007. These 18 parcels were
determined to be ineligible for consideration and listing on the California and National Historic
Registers because they lack sufficient integrity to impart historic significance, or if the integrity loss
was less obvious, are evaluated on 523 forms for historic significance as part of the 2007 Built-
Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum.
According to the 2014 EIR, direct project impacts were narrowed to 100 parcels listed for full and
partial acquisitions. The Project would impact these 100 parcels as identified in the 2014 EIR. In
addition to the previously identified parcels, the following five parcels were identified for partial
acquisition in the 2014 EIR; however, the Project would result in the potential full acquisition of the
following five parcels, shown in Exhibit 5:
APN 362-060-016 (25525 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1973)
APN 362-060-017 (25551 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1975)
APN 362-060-018 (25555 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1979)
APN 362-060-020 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 37
APN 362-050-013 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
Parcels APNs APN 362-060-016 (25525 Bundy Canyon Road) and 362-060-017 (25551 Bundy Canyon
Road) were built 47 and 45 years ago, respectively. These two parcels may be considered for
evaluation as historic built resources and were noted in the 2007 Built-Environment Historic
Resources Technical Memorandum and 2014 EIR as potential partial acquisitions.
A Historical Resources Study was completed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (2020) to evaluate the
historic value of four of the five properties listed above (Appendix B). The properties at 25555 Bundy
Canyon Road and APN 263-060-020 were determined to not require further evaluation due to
construction age and vacant site condition, respectively. An in-depth historic built environment
review of 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road were completed, and both properties were
determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California
Register of Historical Resources because the existing manufactured homes on these two properties
do not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction and
either properties played any roles in the development of the community through association with
significant events or individuals. The property at APN 362-050-013 was not evaluated for historic
significance since it is vacant and heavily disturbed (Wright Road, which connects to Bundy Canyon
Road, runs through the eastern portion of the site).
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial
increase in severity of cultural or historic resource impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR
due to project changes or new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the
cultural or historic resource impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. The
Project would entail potential full acquisitions of five additional parcels which were previously noted
in the 2007 Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum and 2014 EIR as potential
partial acquisitions. The overall impact of these five parcels undergoing full acquisitions would not
be a significant impact beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR, as the overall impact of partial and
full acquisitions on 100 total parcels remains unchanged.
Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding cultural and historic resource
impacts. The findings and recommendations provided in the 2007 Archaeological Resources Survey
Report and 2007 Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum, and by extension
the discussion and analysis contained in the 2014 EIR, are applicable to the Project. All mitigation
measures pertaining to cultural resources impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the
Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 38
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Energy
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 39
6 Energy
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Less Than
Significant
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Not Analyzed None No No No No Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Energy
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 40
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Energy
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 41
Section 15153 Summary
Since certification of the 2014 EIR, CEQA Guidelines were amended to include “Energy” as an
environmental issue area in 2019. However, the 2014 EIR addressed direct and indirect energy
consumption impacts of the original project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, Energy
Conservation (circa 2014). The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes energy impacts of the Project.
Energy impacts of the Project are qualitatively discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-297 and 2-298.
The 2014 EIR states that the impact of the project in the context of countywide travel is too small to
demonstrate energy impacts quantitatively, and that the project itself would not affect traffic
volume or traffic mix, nor affect diesel truck percentage along the project corridor.
Rather, the proposed addition of new traffic lanes on each side of Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road,
within the project area, would relieve traffic congestion along the project corridor. As a result of the
Project, LOS at intersections would improve, delay due to traffic congestion at Project intersections
would be greatly reduced, and average speed along the project alignment would increase.
These effects would translate into more efficient energy consumption for the Project compared to
existing (no project) conditions. Though existing conditions (no project) would not require
immediate consumption of energy for construction activities, it may use larger quantities of energy
in the future as traffic worsens. Therefore, the overall savings in operational energy requirements
would offset construction energy requirements due to the inherent long-term benefits of the
Project. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts on energy consumption.
Construction Impacts
Not analyzed or discussed separately in the 2014 EIR.
Operational Impacts
Not analyzed or discussed separately in the 2014 EIR.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR from an energy consumption perspective.
Project construction would consume energy resources (i.e. primarily diesel use for operation of
construction equipment, and diesel and gasoline fuel consumption for trucks). Project construction
would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road
construction vehicles and equipment along the project corridor, construction worker travel to and
from the project corridor, and delivery and haul truck trips for construction materials and debris.
Project construction would result in electricity use for project trailers or security lighting, if needed;
such electricity use would be minimal compared to the overall construction energy use, which
would primarily be in the form of petroleum-based fuels as stated above. The project corridor is
located within Southern California Edison’s (SCE) service area, and construction of the Project would
not cause a substantial increase in the existing demand for electricity or require the development of
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Energy
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 42
new electricity sources (further summarized in Section 19, Utilities and service Systems, as analyzed
in the 2014 EIR for the original project).
All construction equipment would be powered off to avoid unnecessary energy consumption and to
maintain worker and public safety during non-construction hours. Energy consumption during
Project construction would be temporary, and would cease upon the completion of construction.
Therefore, construction activities would require limited fuel and electricity consumption that would
not cause an adverse impact to existing energy supplies. (Potential relocation of existing service
infrastructures or impacts to utilities and service systems are further summarized in Section 19,
Utilities and Service Systems.)
Project operation would not increase energy consumption since there are no proposed uses that
would demand energy (such as residential, commercial, manufacturing, or institutional uses).
Consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR, the Project would reduce traffic congestion along the
project corridor, which would translate into more efficient energy consumption for passenger
vehicles and trucks traversing the project corridor.
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. Implementation of the Project would be consistent with the goals,
policies, and/or program objectives of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, the Menifee
Active Transportation Plan, or the City’s Capital Improvement Program (2019-2024; CIP).2 In fact,
the Project is identified as a top priority CIP for the City of Menifee. Furthermore, implementation of
the Project would not conflict with any citywide, regional, or statewide, energy reduction measures
and initiatives.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of energy
consumption impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the energy consumption impacts
of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of
the 2014 EIR regarding energy consumption impacts.
2 Information about the Menifee Active Transportation Plan will be finalized in September 2020, and is available in draft format on the
City’s website(https://cityofmenifee.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=df943a01aaec4b1182742d48ced3e946).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Geology and Soils
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 43
7 Geology and Soils
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a.Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
No No No Yes Yes
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Mapissued by the State Geologist for the area or based on othersubstantial evidence of aknown fault?
Less Than
Significant (C
and O)
GEO-C1
through GEO-
C4
No No No Yes Yes
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less ThanSignificant (C and O)
GEO-C1 through GEO-C4
No No No Yes Yes
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant (C and O)
GEO-C1 through GEO-C4
No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Geology and Soils
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 44
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
4. Landslides? Less Than
Significant (C
and O)
GEO-C1
through GEO-
C4
No No No Yes Yes
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
Less Than
Significant (C
and O)
GEO-C5 No No No Yes Yes
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Potentially
Significant (C)
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
Less Than
Significant (C
and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Geology and Soils
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 45
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant (C)
No Impact (O)
CUL-C5 No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Geology and Soils
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 46
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Geology and Soils
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 47
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to geology and soils. The discussion and
analysis were based on a project-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report completed by Group
Delta Consultants, Inc. (circa 2007)
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-156. The project
corridor is located in a seismically active region of southern California near the Elsinore Fault.
Liquefaction, settlement and lateral spreading (or expansion), and slope stability are identified as
secondary seismic hazards in the seismically active project area. However, significant impacts
resulting from liquefaction, settlement, and expansion are not anticipated from project construction
because the Project involves widening and realignment of an existing roadway and does not include
construction of any structures or substantial excavation and trenching.
Implementation of construction BMPs in compliance with State building standards would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level, and project construction is not expected to increase risk or
result in hazards associated with slope instability. Mitigation Measures GEO-C1 through GEO-C5
(stated below) would further ensure project construction results in less than significant impacts to
geology and soils.
Project construction impacts on paleontological resources are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-
140. Ground disturbance may extend up between 8 to 50 feet in depth in areas with high potential
for paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-C5 (stated below) would reduce potential
construction impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels through the
employment of a paleontological monitor.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-157. The project-specific
Preliminary Geotechnical Study concluded that the potential for liquefaction, settlement, and
expansion would not be great enough to have a significant impact on the proposed roadway (Group
Delta Consultants, Inc. 2007). The Project would not result in the construction of structures, for
which liquefaction, settlement, and expansion can pose substantial hazards. There is a low potential
for the identified secondary seismic hazards to affect the roadway substantially; therefore, the
Project would not result in significant impacts due to soil liquefaction, settlement, or lateral
spreading.
Furthermore, Project fill slopes would not exceed 30 feet in height, and with proper compaction, fill
slopes are expected to be stable during seismic events. No retaining walls or bridge structures have
been identified as required to support the project.
The Project would not entail development or use of septic tanks since no permanent inhabitable
structures would be constructed. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-C1 Avoid Excessive Blasting Disturbance and Scale Cut Slopes: to avoid
disturbance below finished slope faces. Loose or broken rock
materials disturbed by blasting to be carefully scaled or removed from
the slope following excavation.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Geology and Soils
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 48
Mitigation Measure GEO-C2 Rock Catchment Area. Provide a 3- to 5-ft-wide level area between
the toe of cut and curb or sidewalk to serve as a catchment area.
Inclusion of a small rock fence as necessary.
Mitigation Measure GEO-C3 Control Top-of-Slope-Drainage. Earth berms or concrete v-ditches to
be installed along the tops of cut slopes to minimize erosion potential
and potential for slope instability.
Mitigation Measure GEO-C4 All cut slopes and foundation subgrade would be observed by a
registered geologist during construction.
Mitigation Measure GEO-C5 To minimize impacts from the loss of topsoil, topsoil removed during
project construction would be stockpiled and replaced on the site at
the same location to the maximum extent possible.
Mitigation Measure CUL-C5 Before starting construction, a qualified paleontologist will be
retained as project paleontologist to oversee paleontological
monitoring during construction activities in areas identified as likely to
contain paleontological resources. (Note: Paleontological monitoring
is not necessary unless the potentially fossiliferous rock units (located
in or adjacent to Station Numbers: 35+00 through 50+00, 65+00
through 116+00, and 143+00 through 163+00, located in the City of
Wildomar) are determined by the field assessment to have a high
potential to contain significant paleontological resources.)
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of
impacts to geology and soils beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the geology and soils impacts of
the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the
2014 EIR regarding impacts to geology and soils. All mitigation measures pertaining to geology and
soils impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 49
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant (C
and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact (C
and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 50
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 51
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts of the Project, and
states that at the time of preparation of the 2014 EIR, no significance criterion was established for
transportation projects to evaluate the Project GHG emission impact.
Construction Impacts
As stated on page 2-79 of the 2014 EIR, project construction activities would generate
approximately 1,081 metric tons of CO2 during the 18-month construction period.
Operational Impacts
Operational greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages
2-80 and 2-81. Project operation would generate an additional 68 metric tons of CO2 per year above
existing conditions (circa 2006).
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The project construction period and
proposed construction activities remain unchanged.
The 2007 Air Quality Technical Report states that the project would not result in traffic volume
increases during operations; therefore, no net emission increases are anticipated for the Project.
STC Traffic, Inc. completed a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) in 2020 based on existing traffic
conditions (further discussed in Section 17, Transportation). The 2020 TIA concludes that the
Project, in and of itself, would not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening, which is
consistent with the findings and conclusions for Project operations impacts in the 2007 Air Quality
Technical Report. Project operations would not increase GHG emissions since there are no proposed
uses that would generate such emissions beyond existing and projected vehicle traffic.
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial
increase in severity of GHG emissions impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project
changes or new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the GHG
emissions impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is
within the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding GHG emissions impacts.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 52
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 53
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
HAZ-C1, HAZ-
C2
No No No Yes Yes
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
HAZ-C3, HAZ-
C4, HAZ-C5,
HAZ-C6
No No No Yes Yes
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant (C)
No Impact (O)
None No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 54
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant (C)
No Impact (O)
None No No No Yes Yes
e. For a project located in 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, would the project
result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing
or working in the project area?
No Impact (C
and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 55
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
The analysis was based on the project-specific Initial Site Assessment (Phase I) Report prepared by
Group Delta Consultants (circa 2007).
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-167 and 2-168, and are
summarized as follows:
Project construction could involve the use of hazardous materials. Several schools are also
located within 0.25 mile of the project alignment. As a result, the public, environment, or school
attendees may be exposed to hazardous materials during construction activities. However, the
use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials would be controlled through standard
construction practices to reduce the risk of upset conditions. Therefore, construction impacts
would be less than significant.
One travel lane in each direction would be kept open during construction activities to ensure
traffic and emergency vehicle access are not impeded. Therefore, construction impacts would
be less than significant.
Removal of asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paints (LBP), or suspected
mercury-containing materials would be completed prior to demolition following appropriate
working safety, hazardous materials, and waste management regulations. Therefore,
construction impacts would be less than significant.
Some of the properties identified for ROW acquisitions may have hazardous materials on site or
in storage. Soils suspected to be contaminated with hazardous materials would be handled in
accordance with appropriate regulations. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than
significant.
Though there would be less than significant Project impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials during temporary construction activities, Mitigation Measures HAZ-C1 through HAZ-C6
(stated below) are included to ensure proper handling of hazardous construction materials and
waste, and proper identification and handling of contaminated soil or groundwater discovered
during construction.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-169. No operational
impacts are anticipated during project operation. Trucks hauling hazardous materials or wastes
would be operated in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding hazardous
substance transport. The Project would result in improved visual sight distances along Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road, which would reduce potential accidents and hazardous conditions.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-C1 The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials would be
controlled through standard construction practices.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-C2 Before starting demolition activities, structural building components
of structures to be demolished within the proposed project limits
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 56
shall be tested for ACM, LBP, and mercury according to applicable
standard hazardous material testing guidelines. Manage all
remediated materials in accordance with all pertinent laws and
regulations. A Remedial Actions Options Report may be completed to
address the proper handling, cleanup, and disposal of the hazardous
material.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-C3 If the proposed project involves any subsurface disturbance at the
sites listed below, soil sampling and analysis should be conducted
prior to the start of construction to determine proper handling and
disposal methods.
26035 Scott Road, Menifee (APN 384-010-006 – scheduled to be a
partial acquisition; Figure ID #70 on Table 2.13-1 [of the 2014
EIR]);
The former landfill is (APN 366-320-079 (Wildomar) – scheduled
for partial acquisition; Figure ID #9 on Table 2.13-1 [of the 2014
EIR] and APN 366-320-048 (Wildomar) – scheduled for partial
acquisition; Figure ID #11 on Table 2.13-1 [of the 2014 EIR]); and
23263 Bundy Canyon Road (APN 367-250-007 (Wildomar) –
scheduled for partial acquisition; Figure ID #13 on Table 2.13-1 [of
the 2014 EIR]).
Mitigation Measure HAZ-C4 If any buried trash is discovered during construction activities near
the location of the closed landfill, the Riverside County Waste
Management Department shall be consulted before excavation and
removal of the trash.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-C5 If potentially contaminated soil or groundwater is discovered during
construction, work shall stop in the affected area and sampling and
analysis of the soil or groundwater shall be conducted to determine
properly handling and disposal methods.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-C6 Waste removal will be handled according to Section 7-1.13, “Disposal
of Material Outside of Highway Right of Way” of the Caltrans
Standard Specifications (2002 edition). A professional waste hauler
will be utilized to remove waste (from construction activities) from
the site. The hauler will comply with all local, State, and federal
requirements for waste diversion, including the provisions of AB 939.
Some diversion methods would include composting and recycling.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. According to the 2014 EIR, the Project
was determined to cause direct impacts to 100 parcels listed for full and partial acquisitions. The
Project would impact these 100 parcels as identified in the 2014 EIR. In addition to the previously
identified parcels, the following five parcels were identified for partial acquisition in the 2014 EIR;
however, the Project would result in the potential full acquisition of the following five parcels,
shown in Exhibit 5:
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 57
APN 362-060-016 (25525 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1973)
APN 362-060-017 (25551 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1975)
APN 362-060-018 (25555 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1979)
APN 362-060-020 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
APN 362-050-013 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
The five parcels do not contain any contaminated sites or sites under PFAS investigation directives,
based on review of the following databases:
EnviroStor, administered by California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Formerly Used Defense Sites, administered by USACE
GeoTracker, administered by State Water resources Control Board
Per- and Pollyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Non-Drinking Water Investigation Map and PFAS
Drinking Water System Quarterly Testing Results Map, administered by State Water resources
Control Board
Well Finder, administered by California Geologic Energy Management Division
Mitigation measures HAZ-C2, HAZ-C4, and HAZ-C5 would be implemented prior to any site
disturbance work on the above five parcels, as well as other parcels identified for full and partial
acquisitions. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to
project changes or new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to Project
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR.
Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials. All mitigation measures pertaining to hazards and hazardous impacts identified
in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 58
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 59
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a.Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Less Than
Significant (C)
Potentially
Significant
(O)
WQ-2, WQ-3 No No No Yes Yes
b.Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less Than
Significant
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
c.Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river or through the addition ofimpervious surfaces, in a mannerwhich would:
Potentially Significant (C)
Less Than Significant (O)
WQ-C1 through WQ-C7
No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 60
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
(i)Result in substantial erosion orsiltation on- or off-site;
Potentially Significant (C and O)
WQ-C1
WQ-1
No No No Yes Yes
(ii)Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
Potentially
Significant
(C and O)
WQ-C5, WQ-
C6, WQ-C7
WQ-1
No No No Yes Yes
(iii)Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed the capacity of existing or plannedstormwater drainage systemsor provide substantial additional sources of pollutedrunoff; or
Potentially Significant (C and O)
WQ-C2, WQ-C3, WQ-C4
WQ-1, WQ-2, WQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
(iv)Impede or redirect flood
flows?
Potentially
Significant (C)
Less Than
Significant
(O)
WQ-C1
through WQ-
C7
No No No Yes Yes
d.In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 61
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e.Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a waterquality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Not Analyzed None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 62
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 63
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to hydrology and water quality. The analysis
was based on the project-specific Water Resources and Water Quality Technical Report prepared by
Parsons (circa 2007).
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-174 and 2-175, and are
summarized as follows:
Erosion and siltation in the project area could be increased during Project construction activities
because of grading and vegetation removal leaving soil bare. These activities, as well as heavy
truck traffic on bare ground, can cause a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure WQ-
C1 (stated below) would ensure the Project adheres to the requirements of the General NPDES
Permit for Construction Activities.
Dewatering may be required after a storm event if runoff becomes pooled in any depressions at
the construction site or if groundwater is encountered during excavation activities.
Groundwater dewatering discharge could adversely affect surface water quality if effluent that
is rich in sediment or contaminated with chemicals is not managed properly. Mitigation
Measure WQ-C5 and WQ-C6 (stated below) would ensure storm water runoff is prohibited from
entering other water sources.
In addition, Mitigation Measures WQ-C2, WQ-C3, WQ-C4, and WQ-C7 would apply to reduce Project
construction impacts to hydrology and water quality to less than significant levels.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-175 through 2-177, and
are summarized as follows:
The overall increase in road surface would be approximately 58 acres. The Project would have
the potential to alter the erosion and absorption rates, and runoff volume, which would be
significant impacts. Mitigation Measures WQ-1, WQ-2, and WQ-3 would ensure BMPs are
incorporated into project design such that surface runoff is captured and treated prior to
conveyance.
The amount of motor vehicle-related pollutants discharged into the watershed and drainage
channels from the highway would increase with or without the Project due to the anticipated
growth in future traffic volumes. Likewise, the post-construction stormwater runoff will increase
from the preconstruction stormwater runoff due to the increased pavement areas. Mitigation
Measures WQ-1, WQ-2, and WQ-3 would ensure BMPs are incorporated into project design
such that surface runoff is captured and treated prior to conveyance.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure WQ-C1 The requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction
Activities, Order No. 99-08-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and any
subsequent General Permit in effect at the time of project
construction will be adhered to.
Mitigation Measure WQ-C2 A SWPPP will be prepared before commencement of any soil-
disturbing activities. The SWPPP will address all local, state, and
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 64
federal stormwater control requirements and regulations and all
construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have
the potential to impact water quality. The SWPPP will include BMPs to
control pollutants, sediment from erosion, stormwater runoff, and
other construction-related impacts; and the provisions of State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Resolution No. 2001-046, which
requires implementation of specific Sampling Analysis Procedures
(SAP) to ensure that the implemented BMPs are effective in
preventing exceedance of any water quality standards.
Mitigation Measure WQ-C3 A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be filed with the SWRCB at least 30 days
before any soil-disturbing activities. Ensure that a Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) number is received from the SWRCB pending
receipt of the NOI.
Mitigation Measure WQ-C4 Construction activities will give special attention to stormwater
pollution control during the “Rainy Season” (October 1 through May
1). No work will be conducted whenever rain is predicted. Water
Pollution Control BMPs will be used to minimize impacts to receiving
waters. Measures will be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and
avoid any tracking of materials that may fall or blow onto Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road.
Mitigation Measure WQ-C5 All projects requiring dewatering discharges to surface waters or
storm drains must comply with the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board regulations. For the proposed project, areas that
require groundwater dewatering that are within the jurisdiction of the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board must comply with
Order No. R9-2008-0002, NPDES No. CAG919002, and any subsequent
Permit in effect at the time of project construction will be adhered to.
Areas that require groundwater dewatering that are within the
jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boards
must comply with Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001,
and any subsequent Permit in effect at the time of project
construction will be adhered to.
Mitigation Measure WQ-C6 The discharge of waste material shall be prohibited from entering any
drainage areas, channels, streambeds, streams, lakes, wetlands, or
rivers. Spoil sites will be prohibited within any streams or adjacent
areas where spoil material could be washed into a water body.
Mitigation Measure WQ-C7 Water Quality Management Plans will be prepared before
commencement of any soil-disturbing activities. These plans will be
written in accordance with the requirements of the San Diego and
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boards, respectively.
Mitigation Measure WQ-1 Design Pollution Prevention BMPs – Permanent soil stabilization BMPs
will be incorporated into project design, such as preservation of
existing vegetation, concentrated flow conveyance systems (e.g.,
drainage ditches, dikes, berms, swales), and slope/surface protection
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 65
systems that use either vegetated or hard surfaces. Appropriate BMPs
will be selected during final design.
Mitigation Measure WQ-2 Maintenance BMPs - Routine maintenance work, such as litter pickup,
toxics control, street sweeping, drainage, and channel cleaning shall
be performed.
Mitigation Measure WQ-3 Treatment BMPs – Shall be designed and constructed as part of the
project. A total of 61 BMP locations have been sited along the
alignment which will treat 100 percent of the pavement area. These
include 59 biofiltration swales and 2 biofiltration strips.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment.
The overall increase in road surface was projected to be approximately 58 acres, as stated above.
Existing asphalt pavement is approximately 9 acres, and would be 28 acres under the Project which
is less than the road surface estimated in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the 2014 EIR may have
overestimated operational hydrology and water quality impacts, and Project impacts may be less in
scale and impact than previously discussed. All mitigation measures pertaining to hydrology and
water quality construction impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
The 2014 EIR did not disclose the presence of active and inactive/abandoned wells that may be
located in properties adjacent to the project corridor. As stated in the Project Description, some
water wells may be impacted and will need to be abandoned and re-drilled or adjusted to grade if
possible. The identification of existing active and inactive/abandoned wells within the proposed
roadway footprint would be completed prior to project construction activities. The pre-construction
well survey would determine the course of action for identified active wells (i.e., leave in place,
abandon and re-drilled, or adjusted to grade).
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of impacts related
to hydrology or water quality beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to Project impacts related to
hydrology and water quality beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within
the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding impacts related to hydrology and water quality. All mitigation
measures pertaining to hydrology and water quality impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply
to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 66
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 67
11 Land Use and Planning
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 68
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 69
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to land use and planning.
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-196. The Project would
have no adverse land use impacts during construction activities since the Project would not convert
land uses in the project area, nor would it conflict with any adopted land use plans, policies, or
regulations.
Operational Impacts
Operational land use and planning impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-
196. The Project would be compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the project corridor; the
proposed alignment is along an existing roadway already established as a transportation corridor.
Existing adjacent land uses currently coexist with the existing road, and are presumably accustomed
to the general effects of the existing transportation corridor. The Project would result in beneficial
impacts by reducing the level of vehicle congestion that currently exists as a vital connection
between I-15 and I-215. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of land
use and planning impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the land use and planning impacts
of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of
the 2014 EIR regarding land use and planning impacts.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 70
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Mineral Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 71
12 Mineral Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Mineral Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 72
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Mineral Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 73
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts on mineral resources.
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-204. Project
construction activities would have no impact on mineral resources. Project construction BMPs
would be employed to minimize dust and manage stormwater runoff to reduce Project impacts on
operation of the existing granite strip mine located west of Tulip Lane in the Project vicinity.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-204 and 2-205, and are
summarized as follows:
The Project would not alter adjacent land uses, including existing and future mineral extraction
activities along the project corridor.
The Project would improve roadway safety and reduce congestion along Bundy Canyon
Road/Scott Road, and would likely benefit truck hauling operations of the existing granite mine.
The Project would not deplete any mineral resources or otherwise conflict with any established
mineral resource protection policies. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of
impacts to mineral resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to mineral resource impacts of the
Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the
2014 EIR regarding impacts to mineral resources.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Mineral Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 74
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Noise
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 75
13 Noise
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Potentially
Significant
(C and O)
N-C1, N-C2,
N-C3
N-1, N-2
No No No Yes Yes
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant (C and O)
N-C1, N-C2, N-C3
N-1, N-2
No No No Yes Yes
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Noise
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 76
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Noise
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 77
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes noise impacts of the Project. The analysis was based on the
project-specific Noise Technical Report prepared by Entech Consulting Group (circa 2007).
Construction Impacts
Construction noise impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-223. Project
construction activities would generate noise from equipment, which may vary depending on the
location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating
activities. Noise levels would be elevated during construction activities, and these noise impacts
would be temporary and intermittent. Project construction activities would comply with the
Riverside County noise ordinance for construction hours (limited to 7:00AM to 7:00PM, Monday
through Saturday). Therefore, Project construction would have potentially significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures N-C1 through N-C3 (stated below) would reduce potential construction noise
impacts to sensitive receptors located along the project alignment.
Operational Impacts
Operational noise impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-223. Operational
noise levels would vary depending on the distance between the Project and sensitive receptors, and
the presence of noise-attenuating features such as buildings or terrain. In the cases that were
analyzed in the 2007 Noise Technical Report, affected land uses were single-family homes adjacent
to the project corridor. Therefore, Project operation would have potentially significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 (stated below) would reduce potential operational noise impacts
to sensitive receptors located along the project alignment.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure N-C1 During all project site excavation and grading on site, all construction
equipment, whether fixed or mobile, shall be outfitted with properly
operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’
standards. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest
the project site.
Mitigation Measure N-C2 As practicable, locate equipment staging in areas that will create the
greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during project
construction.
Mitigation Measure N-C3 Construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels
will be limited to the hours of 7:00AM and 7:00PM Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and public
holidays.
Mitigation Measure N-1 The planned roadway will be constructed with rubberized asphalt.
Mitigation Measure N-2 Construct a noise abatement wall as discussed on Table 2.11-7 [of the
2014 EIR], and as shown in Figures 2.11-7, 2.11-8 and 2.11-9 [of the
2014 EIR]. Table 2.11-7 and Figures 2.11-7 and 2.11-8 [of the 2014
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Noise
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 78
EIR] show the soundwalls proposed for the four-lane project, in year
2015.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The project construction period and
proposed construction activities remain unchanged.
The 2007 Air Quality Technical Report states that the project would not result in traffic volume
increases during operations; therefore, no net increases in traffic-related noise is anticipated for the
Project. STC Traffic, Inc. completed a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) in 2020 based on existing
traffic conditions (further discussed in Section 17, Transportation). The 2020 TIA concludes that the
Project, in and of itself, would not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening, which is
consistent with the findings and conclusions for Project operations impacts in the 2007 Air Quality
Technical Report.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of noise impacts
from traffic within the project corridor beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project
changes or new circumstances. Project operations would not increase noise impacts since there are
no proposed uses that would generate such emissions beyond existing and projected vehicle traffic;
for which, the Project would not generate additional traffic in and of itself. As such, there is no new
information pertaining to Project noise impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore,
the Project is within the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding noise impacts. All mitigation measures
pertaining to noise impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Population and Housing
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 79
14 Population and Housing
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact (C)
Less Than
Significant
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact (C)
Less Than
Significant
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Population and Housing
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 80
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Population and Housing
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 81
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to population and housing, and acquisitions.
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-246. The supply of
construction workers needed to support Project construction would be obtained from the local
area’s existing labor force. Project construction would support a temporary labor force, and workers
are not anticipated to move into the area as a result of Project-related construction work.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Construction impacts to Project acquisitions are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-248. Because
no displacements are required to accommodate construction of the Project, there are no
construction-related impacts associated with acquisitions.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-246. The Project would
be compatible with existing and planned land uses because it would widen an existing roadway that
is already established as a transportation corridor. The Project would not induce substantial
population growth in the local area. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts.
Operational impacts to Project acquisitions are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-249 through 2-
255. The Project would require full (four mobiles homes) and partial (93 properties) acquisitions.
The majority of the parcels identified for Project acquisition are vacant. Approximately 12 persons
would be displaced as a result of the Project, which would account for approximately 0.1 percent of
the study area population. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure ACQ-1 Persons subject to displacement will receive relocation assistance in
accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act. Provisions of the Uniform
Act will also be followed to provide compensation for partial acquisitions.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment.
As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the 2007 Built-Environment Historic Resources
Technical Memorandum identified a total of 199 parcels within the study area of the project
corridor. All of the parcels identified for partial or full acquisitions would be impacted by the Project,
as discussed in the 2014 EIR. According to the 2014 EIR, direct project impacts were narrowed to
100 parcels listed for full and partial acquisitions. In addition to the previously identified parcels, the
following five parcels were identified for partial acquisition in the 2014 EIR; however, the Project
would result in the potential full acquisition of the following five parcels, shown in Exhibit 5:
APN 362-060-016 (25525 Bundy Canyon Road)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Population and Housing
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 82
APN 362-060-017 (25551 Bundy Canyon Road)
APN 362-060-018 (25555 Bundy Canyon Road)
APN 362-060-020 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
APN 362-050-013 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
The impacts of full and partial acquisitions were thoroughly discussed in the 2014 EIR. The five
parcels listed above account for 5 percent of the 100 parcels that may be impacted as a result of the
Project. The number of full acquisitions has increased from 7 parcels (four with structures and three
vacant) to 12 parcels (seven with structures and five vacant), an increase from 7 percent to 12
percent in the composition of full acquisitions of the 100 parcels identified in the 2014 EIR. The
increase in impacts to these five parcels from partial to full acquisition would be negligible due to
the overall scale of acquisition impacts. Additionally, two of the five parcels are completely vacant,
and would therefore have no impact on the loss of homes or displacement of residents.
Implementation of the Project would not increase the number of impacted parcels beyond those
identified and analyzed in the 2014 EIR. As stated in the Project Description, the City intends to
appraise, make offers of just compensation, and acquire ROW from property owners on a
cooperative basis. However, the City reserves the right to use condemnation powers if absolutely
necessary.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of population and
housing impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to population and housing impacts
of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of
the 2014 EIR regarding population and housing impacts. The mitigation measure pertaining to
property acquisition impacts identified in the 2014 EIR would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Public Services
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 83
15 Public Services
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or
the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
1 Fire protection? Less Than
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
2 Police protection? Less Than
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Public Services
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 84
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
3 Schools? Less Than
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
4 Parks? Less Than
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
None No No No Yes Yes
5 Other public facilities? Less Than Significant (C)
No Impact (O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Public Services
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 85
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts on public services on page 3-8. Construction-
related impacts to public services were determined to be less than significant since traffic would be
allowed in both directions, but minor access impairments would occur which may affect vehicle
access for public services.
Project operations would have no impact on public services since the Project would not result in a
long-term increase in the demand for any public service facilities. Rather, the Project would improve
accessibility for emergency vehicles in the local area due to improvements to traffic flow; public
services in the area would benefit from improved travel and response times.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of
impacts to public services beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to public services impacts of the
Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the
2014 EIR regarding impacts to public services.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Public Services
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 86
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Recreation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 87
16 Recreation
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a.Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact
(C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b.Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect onthe environment?
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
R-C1 No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Recreation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 88
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Recreation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 89
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to recreational facilities.
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-264 and 2-265. No
existing parks are located in the project corridor or vicinity. No construction or expansion of
recreational facilities is planned as part of the Project. Access to existing community and regional
trails may be limited during construction activities, and detour crossings would be provided to the
extent practicable. Therefore, the Project may have potentially significant impacts. Mitigation
Measure R-C1 (stated below) would ensure postings for trail closures and detour crossings are
visibly posted during Project construction.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-266. The Project would
not increase the use of existing parks. The Project would accommodate planned growth and would
not otherwise result in the increased use of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project
would have no impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure R-C1 Public notices will be posted at temporarily closed trail crossings
during construction activities, and plans will be prepared for the
realignment of parallel trails to construct them in conjunction with
site restoration activities.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of
impacts to recreational facilities beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or
new circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to impacts to recreational
facilities of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the
scope of the 2014 EIR regarding impacts to recreational facilities. Mitigation Measure R-C1, as
identified in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Recreation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 90
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Transportation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 91
17 Transportation
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
No Impact (C
and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Not Analyzed None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact (C and O) None No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
T-C1 No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Transportation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 92
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Transportation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 93
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to transportation and traffic. The discussion
and analysis was based on a project-specific Traffic Study completed by the Parsons (circa 2011).
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on page 2-274. Temporary lane
closures and inconveniences may be experienced by roadway users for the duration of Project
construction along the project corridor. Impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation
Measure T-C1 (stated below) would reduce inconveniences during Project construction to ensure
adequate access for emergency vehicles and properties.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-275 through 2-284.
There are no expected adverse long-term impacts to traffic and transportation from the Project. The
Project is designed to accommodate the increased traffic that is expected to accompany future
growth within western Riverside County. The Project would improve the level of service (LOS) on
both the project corridor and at intersections, and all of the signalized study intersections are
expected to operate during the peak hours at LOS D or better. Overall, the Project would have a
beneficial impact. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure T-C1 The City of Wildomar will prepare and implement a Traffic
Management Plan (TMP) to minimize the inconveniences during
construction. Included among the provisions, the City and contractor
will coordinate with local police, fire, and emergency medical service
providers regarding construction scheduling and any other practical
measures to maintain adequate access to properties and response
times.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. In order to determine a more accurate
projection of Project operations, a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) was completed by STC Traffic,
Inc. (2020) to assess the operating conditions of the Project corridor in opening year 2025 and the
horizon year 2040 (Appendix C).
Five study intersections and roadway segments were analyzed in the TIA:
Study Intersections
Murrieta Road/Scott Road-Bundy Canyon Road
Haun Road-Zeiders Road/Scott Road
I-215 southbound (SB) Ramps/Scott Road
I-215 northbound (NB) Ramps/Scott Road
Antelope Road/Scott Road
Study Roadway Segments
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Transportation
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 94
Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Murrieta Road
Scott Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road - Zeiders Road
Scott Road between Haun Road Zeiders Road and I-215 SB Ramps
Scott Road between I-215 SB Ramps and I-215 NB Ramps
Scott Road between I-215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road
All study intersections are expected to operate under improved and acceptable LOS (D or better)
under the “Existing Conditions with Project” scenario. Year 2025 and 2040 scenarios result in
greater incidents of unacceptable intersection LOS. However, these unacceptable operating
conditions would attribute to the growth in traffic from ambient background growth in the region
and due to the cumulative effect of future development projects. The Project, in and of itself, would
not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening. Therefore, the Project would not cause a
significant impact on the operation of any of the study intersections (STC Traffic, Inc. 2020;
Appendix B).
All the study roadway segments are anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS for at least one
analysis scenario (“Existing Conditions with Project,” Year 2020, and Year 2040). Although the
roadway segments may operate at an unacceptable LOS, the intersections on either side of the
roadway segment, except for Haun Road-Zeiders Road/Scott Road intersection, would operate at an
acceptable LOS. The flow of traffic along a roadway segment is generally governed by the operating
condition of the intersection on either side of the roadway segment. If the intersections operate at
an acceptable condition, then the roadway segment is anticipated to operate at an acceptable
condition (STC Traffic, Inc. 2020).
Similar to the study intersections, the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study
roadway segments in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the
ambient background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects.
The Project would not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening. Therefore, the Project
would not cause a significant impact on the operation of any of study segments (STC Traffic, Inc.
2020).
The TIA states that there are no bus routes that run along the project corridor, and there are no
sidewalks or bicycle lanes on the existing road. The Project includes development of 10’ wide bicycle
lanes on both north and south sides of Scott Road. Implementation of the project would not hinder
nor restrict the development of alternative transportation facilities.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of transportation
and traffic impacts beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. As such, there is no new information pertaining to the transportation and traffic
impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the
scope of the 2014 EIR regarding impacts to transportation and traffic. Mitigation Measure T-C1, as
identified in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 95
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
e. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
CUL-C4 No No No Yes Yes
f. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Potentially
Significant (C)
No Impact
(O)
CUL-C4 No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 96
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 97
Section 15153 Summary
Since certification of the 2014 EIR, CEQA Guidelines were amended to include “Tribal Cultural
Resources” as an environmental issue area in 2016. As stated in Section 5, Cultural Resources,
above, the 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes Project impacts to cultural resources. The analysis was
based on the project-specific Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by Applied Earth
Works, Inc. (circa 2007) and a Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum
completed by Parsons (circa 2007).
Construction Impacts
Please refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources. Construction impacts specific to tribal cultural
resources were not discussed or analyzed in the 2014 EIR. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-C4
would ensure tribal monitoring during construction activities, and Project construction impacts
would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-141, and no impacts to
archaeological resources were determined to be expected during Project operation.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-C4 Before starting construction, a tribal Monitoring Agreement will be in
place for monitoring of Native American artifacts during construction
activities involving excavation in areas considered to have a higher
sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Though construction impacts specific to tribal cultural resources were not discussed or
analyzed in the 2014 EIR and the project corridor is developed with the existing roadway alignment
and adjacent properties, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-C4 provides precautionary
measures to prevent potential impacts to previously undocumented tribal cultural resources that
may be discovered during ground disturbing construction activities.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of impacts to tribal
cultural resources beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new
circumstances. The Project is within the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding tribal cultural resource
impacts. Mitigation Measure CUL-C4 would ensure tribal monitoring during construction activities,
and would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 98
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 99
19 Utilities and Service Systems
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would the project:
a.Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant (C)
Less Than
Significant
(O)
U-C1 No No No Yes Yes
b.Have sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve the project andreasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant (C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
c.Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment providerwhich serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’sprojected demand in addition tothe provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant (C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 100
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d.Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Potentially
Significant (C)
Less Than
Significant
(O)
U-C2 No No No Yes Yes
e.Comply with federal, state, andlocal management and reductionstatutes and regulations relatedto solid waste?
Less Than Significant (C and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
C = Construction; O = Operations
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency EvaluationUtilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 101
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR discusses and analyzes utilities and service systems impacts of the Project.
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-287 through 2-291.
Project construction would result in minor temporary impacts to utilities, which include the
relocation of some utilities (which include existing electricity, water, natural gas, and
telecommunication lines) to accommodate post-project conditions in the project corridor.
Construction of the Project would not cause a substantial increase in the existing demand for
electricity. Disruptions to electric service are not expected during Project construction activities,
except minor de-energizing for cut overs from old to new facilities. An estimated 100 utility
poles would need to be relocated to accommodate the Project. Relocation of poles and
associated electrical/telecommunication lines would be completed in coordination with the
respective electrical power and electrical providers, as identified in Mitigation Measure U-C1
(stated below). Specific to Southern California Edison (SCE), approximately 38 SCE transmission
and 34 SCE distribution poles will be relocated overhead to overhead within existing or newly
acquired Right of Way. The 38 transmission poles are a part of the Valley-Newcomb-Skylark 115
kilovolt line. The pole heights will vary from 45 feet to 85 feet, and the poles will be replaced
with wood or steel poles. The poles are located on both the north and south sides of Scott Road
between Haun Road and Sunset Avenue. For those poles being relocated, the relocation offset
varies from 0 feet to 45 feet. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Construction activities may require the relocation of natural gas lines serving the area. No
disruptions in service are expected since any relocation of utilities would be coordinated with
the respective utility providers, pursuant to Mitigation Measure U-C1. Construction activities
would not require an increase in the demand for these utilities. Therefore, the Project would
have no impact.
All of the existing culverts in the project corridor would be maintained during Project
construction, and construction activities would not result in substantially increased demand on
the storm drain system. Additionally, the runoff from the widened roadway would be conveyed
in biofiltration BMPs prior to entering drainage courses in the project corridor. An estimated 23
drainage crossings may require lengthening or other modification to accommodate the Project.
Construction of these storm drain facilities would result in less than significant impacts,
pursuant to Mitigation Measures WQ-C1 through WQ-C7, and WQ-1 through WQ-3, previously
stated in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Therefore, the Project would have no
impact.
Disruptions to the water supply during Project construction are not expected. Project
construction would require relocation of several water valves, fire hydrants, and water meters
maintained by the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District. Relocations would be coordinated with the respective utility provider according to
Riverside County standards to avoid service interruptions, pursuant to Mitigation Measure U-C1.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Project construction would require relocation of a sewer lift station and 8-inch force sewer
main, a sewer manhole, and an approximately 150-ft-long, 8-inch gravity sewer main at the
intersection of Harvest Way and Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road to match the proposed
grading. Relocations would be coordinated with the respective utility provider according to
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 102
Riverside County standards to avoid service interruptions, pursuant to Mitigation Measure U-C1.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Project construction would require the relocation of telephone lines in the project corridor.
However, the Project would not result in any increased demand on telephone, cable, and fiber
optic services. Relocations would be coordinated with the respective utility provider according
to Riverside County standards to avoid service interruptions, pursuant to Mitigation Measure U-
C1. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
Project construction would generate a large amount of solid waste, including asphalt, concrete,
soil, and landscaping, which would be a product of roadway demolition. Excavations and fill
would be balanced on-site and asphalt concrete would be recycled to the extent possible. Solid
waste that remains after recycling would be disposed of at appropriate landfills within the
region, and sufficient landfill capacity exists to accommodate construction waste from the
Project. Therefore, the Project would have potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure
U-C2 (stated below) would ensure Project waste generated during construction activities would
be properly handled and disposed.
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts of the Project are discussed in the 2014 EIR on pages 2-291. Operation of the
Project would not result in an increase in demand on any utilities or result in disruptions to utilities.
Therefore, the project would have no impacts.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure U-C1 The Cities of Menifee and Wildomar will coordinate with utility
providers before and during construction. Interruptions of service, if
any, would be done in consultation with individual providers, and
follow guidelines and schedules set in place by the City, including
notification to affected residences and businesses.
Mitigation Measure U-C2 Waste removal will be handled according to Section 7-1.13, “Disposal
of Material Outside of Highway Right of Way” of the Caltrans
Standard Specifications (2002 edition). A professional waste hauler
will be utilized to remove waste (from construction activities) from
the site. The hauler will comply with all local, State, and federal
requirements for waste diversion, including the provisions of AB 939.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR. The Project includes specification
pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located within the City of Menifee, for
which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the entirety of the project
alignment. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of
impacts to utilities and service systems beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project
changes or new circumstances. Specific details have been updated as a result of recent coordination
with SCE; however no new significant impacts are anticipated.
As such, there is no new information pertaining to utilities and service systems impacts of the
Project beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 103
2014 EIR regarding impacts to utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures U-C1 and U-C2, as
identified in the 2014 EIR, would apply to the Project.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 104
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Wildfire
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 105
20 Wildfire
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact (C
and O)
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Not Analyzed No No No Yes Yes
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Not Analyzed No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Wildfire
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 106
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR Mitigation
Measures /
Proponent
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162
Occurred?
(§15164(b))
Project within
scope of EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or a
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New or
a Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Not Analyzed N/A No No No Yes Yes
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Wildfire
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 107
Section 15153 Summary
The 2014 EIR does not discuss nor analyze Project impacts to wildfires. “Wildfire” as a CEQA issue
area was adopted in 2019. The summary herein is based on the wildfire discussion included in the
Project Initial Study, completed by Parsons (circa 2007).
The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death
involving wild land fires since the entire project area is located along established roadways or within
cultivated croplands. The entire eastern portion of the project corridor is located outside a wildland
fire hazard area according to the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan component of the County of
Riverside General Plan.
However, according to Elsinore Area Plan component of the County of Riverside General Plan, some
areas within the western part of the project corridor are classified as having a high risk for wildfires.
Future projects in the area would be developed in accordance with the Fire Hazards section of the
County of Riverside General Plan Safety Element. The Project would improve traffic flow and may
provide improved emergency access throughout the project area and local region. Therefore, the
Project would have a less than significant impact.
Relevant 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures identified.
Section 15162 Evaluation
The Project as described in Description of Project, and project site and circumstances remain
unchanged from that which was analyzed in the 2014 EIR from a wildfire hazards perspective.
According to Exhibit S-6, High Fire Hazard Areas, in the City of Menifee General Plan Safety Element,
the project alignment is located in areas within moderate to very high fire hazard severity zones of
local and state responsibilities. According to Figure S-11, Wildfire Susceptibility, in the County of
Riverside/City of Wildomar General Plan Safety Element, the project alignment is located in areas
within low to high wildfire susceptibility zones in the City of Wildomar.
The Project includes specification pertaining to ROW acquisition for portion of the Project located
within the City of Menifee, for which the ultimate intent is to ensure a continuous 110’ ROW for the
entirety of the project alignment. As summarized above, implementation of the project would
improve traffic flow which would most likely improve emergency access by reducing response times
throughout the project area and local region. The project would not require additional fuel breaks
or infrastructure to reduce wildfire hazards since the proposed roadway improvements would be a
hardscape roadway that is not susceptible to nor would exacerbate wildfires.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantial increase in severity of wildfire impacts
beyond those identified in the 2014 EIR due to project changes or new circumstances. As such, there
is no new information pertaining to the wildfire impacts of the Project beyond those identified in
the 2014 EIR. Therefore, the Project is within the scope of the 2014 EIR regarding wildfire impacts.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Checklist for Consistency Evaluation Wildfire
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 108
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
References
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 109
References
Bibliography
Applied Earth Works, Inc. 2007. Archaeological Resources Survey for the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott
Road Improvement Project.
Entech Consulting Group. 2007. Air Quality Technical Report: Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road
Improvement Project.
_____. 2007. Noise Technical Report: Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project.
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 2009. Biological Technical Report for the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott
Road Improvement Project, Riverside County, CA.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. 2007. Addendum No. 1. Report of Initial Site Assessment: Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road Between the Farm Road and Sunset Avenue, County of Riverside,
California.
_____. 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Report: Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Widening Project,
Riverside County, California.
Menifee, City of. 2014. City of Menifee General Plan. Available online:
https://cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan. Accessed April 2020.
_____. 2018. City of Menifee Land Use Man. Updated April 2018. Available online:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/7685/Updated-General-Plan-Land-
Use-Map-May-2018.
_____. 2019a. City of Menifee Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2019-2024. Available
online: http://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/8224/FY2019-20-thru-FY2023-
24-. Accessed April 2020.
_____. 2019b. City of Menifee Zoning Map. Adopted December 18, 2019. Available online:
http://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/10408/Zoning-Map-5-2020?bidId=.
Accessed May 2020.
Parsons. 2007. Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum for Bundy Canyon-
Scott Road Improvement Project.
_____. 2007. Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project: Water Resources and Water
Quality Technical Report.
_____. 2011. Traffic Study for Bundy Canyon and Scott Roads from I-15 to I-215, Riverside County.
_____. 2014. Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact
Report, SCH 2007051156.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020. Historical Resources Study for Four Properties on Bundy Canyon
Road, Menifee, California.
Riverside County Environmental Programs Department. 2010. Results of Focused Surveys for
Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Conducted for Scott Road/Bundy Canyon Road Widening.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
References
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 110
_____. 2010. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: Burrowing Owl
Focused Survey for County of Riverside Transportation Department, Scott Road/Bundy
Canyon Road Improvement Project.
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. 2003. County of Riverside General
Plan. Available online:
http://www.cityofwildomar.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_9894739/File/Government/Depar
tments/Planning/General%20Plan.pdf. Accessed April 2020.
STC Traffic, Inc. 2020. Scott Road-Bundy Canyon Road Widening: Traffic Impact Analysis Report.
Wildomar, City of. 2014. Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project, Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH 2007051156). September 2014. Available online:
http://www.cityofwildomar.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_9894739/File/Government/Depar
tments/Public%20Works/Bundy%20Canyon-
Scott%20Road%20Final%20EIR_September2014.pdf. Accessed April 2020.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
References
Initial Study – 15162 Consistency Evaluation 111
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Checklist for Consistency Evaluation under contract to the
City of Menifee. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality
control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Lorraine Ahlquist, CEM, Environmental Manager
Lynette Leighton, MEM AICP, Senior Planner
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
112
This page intentionally left blank.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Appendix A
Exhibits
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Exhibit 1 Regional Location
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Exhibit 2 Project Alignment
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Exhibit 3 Proposed Alignment Cross Section
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Exhibit 4 Proposed Alignment Right-of-way and Ingress/Egress
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
Exhibit 5 Proposed Full Property Acquisitions
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Appendix B
Historical Resources Study for Four Properties on Bundy Canyon Road
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1980 Orange Tree Lane
Suite 105
Redlands, California 92374
909 253 0705 OFFICE AND FAX
info@rinconconsultants.com
www.rinconconsultants.com
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s
July 30, 2020
Project No: 19-07883
City of Menifee
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director
Subject: Historical Resources Study for Four Properties on Bundy Canyon Road, Menifee, California
Dear Ms. Kitzerow:
Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Menifee to prepare a historical resources
evaluation of four properties in support of the Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project
(Project). The environmental impacts of the of the project were previously examined in the Bundy
Canyon Road/Scott Road Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
Number 2007051156), dated September 2014 (2014 EIR), of which the City of Wildomar was the lead
agency. The City of Menifee, as lead agency, determined additional California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) documentation would be required to implement the portion of the Project within Menifee (Scott
Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road/Zeiders Road). The appropriate CEQA process was
determined to be a Consistency Evaluation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section since the Project was
evaluated in the 2014 EIR, which was certified by the City of Wildomar in September 2014.
As part of this process, Rincon was asked to prepare a historical resources evaluation of four parcels,
which are now proposed for potential full acquisition rather than a partial acquisition, as previously
analyzed in the 2014 EIR. These four parcels are:
▪APN 362-060-016 (25525 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1973)
▪APN 362-060-017 (25551 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1975)
▪APN 362-060-018 (25555 Bundy Canyon Road, built in 1979)
▪APN 362-060-020 (Bundy Canyon Road, Vacant)
Rincon Consultants assessed these four properties to determine if they qualify as historical resources,
and if so, if they would be impacted by the Project. Our scope of work was limited to determining the
historical resources eligibility of these four properties; it did not address historical resource issues across
the larger project area, or archaeological or tribal cultural resources within these four parcels or across
the larger project area. In accordance with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation,
only properties containing built environment improvements were carried forward for evaluation,
specifically 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995). 25555
Bundy Canyon Road was constructed in 1979 and APN 362-060-020 is vacant; thus, neither require
further evaluation.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 2
The present study included background and archival research, a field survey conducted from the public
right-of-way, and preparation of this memorandum and California Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) 523 series forms. All work was completed in compliance with CEQA.
Rincon Architectural History Program Manager Steven Treffers, MHP managed this historical resources
study. With ten years of experience, Mr. Treffers has managed and conducted numerous historic
resource surveys and evaluations in compliance with CEQA and local ordinances throughout California.
Architectural Historian Alexandra Madsen, MA conducted the field survey, and Architectural Historian
Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, MHP completed archival research and served as a co-author of this
memorandum. Mr. Treffers, Ms. Madsen and Ms. Zamudio-Gurrola exceed the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and history (NPS 1983). Rincon
Principal Shannon Carmack, reviewed this memorandum for quality control.
Regulatory Framework
CEQA
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and PRC
§§21083.2 and 21084.1 were used as the basic guidelines for this historic resource study. CEQA
(§21084.1) requires that a lead agency determine if a project could have a significant effect on historical
resources. A historical resource is one listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (§21084.1), included in a local register of historical resources
(§15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead
agency determines to be historically significant (§15064.5[a][3]). Resources listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR.
According to CEQA, impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for
listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could result
from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an
adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance
and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative guide
to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s
cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction
or impairment” (CFR 36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national,
state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it meets one of the
following:
Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 3
Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction
Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain
integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together,
define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven
qualities, defined in the following manner:
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of
a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property
Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was created by Assembly Bill 2881, which was established in 1992. The California Register is
an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in
identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC, 5024.1(a)). The
criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the National Register criteria but have been
modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of
California (PRC, 5024.1(b)). Certain properties are determined by the statute to be automatically
included in the CRHR by operation of law, including California properties formally determined eligible
for, or listed in, the National Register.
The CRHR consists of properties that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through
an application and public hearing process. The CRHR automatically includes the following:
Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past
Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 4
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
City of Menifee
The City of Menifee’s Municipal Code does not include specific criteria to evaluate a resource for
historical significance. The City of Menifee General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element
includes goals and policies pertaining to Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Relevant information
taken from the Open Space and Conservation element regarding built environment historical resources
are listed below.
Paleontological and Cultural Resources
Paleontological and cultural resources are important for scientific, historic, and/or religious reasons
to cultures, communities, groups or individuals. Menifee has a rich history dating back to the area's
first inhabitants 10,000 years ago, and descendants of which still live in and around the city today.
The city's prehistoric and historic-period archeological resources, historic resources, cultural
resources, and cultural landscapes enrich the community's heritage and identity.
Goal
OSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources are protected and integrated into the city's
built environment.
Policies
OCS-5.1: Preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places,
districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and
other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulations or policies which may be adopted
by the city to implement this goal and associated policies.
OCS-5.4: Establish clear and responsible policies and best practices to identify, evaluate, and protect
previously unknown archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, following applicable CEQA and
NEPA procedures and in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes who have
ancestral lands within the city.
Brief Historical Context
Located in southwestern Riverside County, the City of Menifee encompasses the communities of Sun
City, Quail Valley, and portions of Romoland. Following the eras of Spanish and Mexican rule over the
area and the larger territory of Alta California, farming activity during the American era (1848-present)
began in the Menifee area in the mid-1800s. Luther Menifee Wilson discovered a significant quartz lode
which commenced mining activity in the area in the early 1880s. The community’s name is derived from
that operation (City of Menifee 2006-2020a).
In the 1940s many of Menifee’s roads were named after early settlers who owned property in the
vicinity. Bundy Canyon Road, for example, was named after Joseph and Martha Bundy who migrated to
the area in 1883 from Iowa and lived in the canyon. Local residents referred to Bundy Canyon as the “Y”
because taking the left branch would lead one to Murrieta and taking the right branch would lead to
Elsinore (City of Menifee 2006-2020a and 2006-2020b).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 5
The population density of the Menifee Valley remained low through the 1950s. However, in the early
1960s, real estate developer and contractor Del Webb developed a Sun City retirement community in
Menifee. Sun City continued to grow and reached 5,000 homes in 1977 (Padon 2010). In the 1980s and
1990s development in the Menifee area began to increase, and continues through present day. In 2008,
residents of the communities that comprise Menifee voted to incorporate, and the city was officially
established in October of that year. Currently, the city encompasses approximately 50 square miles and
is home to a population of approximately 91,900 people (City of Menifee 2006-2020a).
Methodology
Archival and Background Research
Archival research was completed in July 2020 and focused on the review of a variety of primary and
secondary source materials relating to the history and development of the subject property and its
surroundings. Sources included, but were not limited to, historic maps and photographs, contemporary
newspaper articles, and written histories of the area. The following is a list of sources consulted in order
to conduct research pertaining to the subject property.
▪ City of Menifee Historical Monuments Map
▪ City of Menifee General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element
▪ Archival Report for Cultural and Paleontological Resources: City of Menifee, Riverside County.
Prepared for the Planning Center by Beth Padon, Discovery Works, Incl, September 2010
▪ City of Menifee Municipal Code
▪ Riverside County Built Environment Resources Directory
▪ National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State
Landmarks, and Points of Interest lists
▪ Initial site Assessment Report for Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road Between Cherry Street and The
Farm Road and Sunset Avenue and Bailey Park Boulevard, County of Riverside, California. Prepared
by Group Delta Consultants, June 15, 2007.
▪ Historic aerial photographs accessed digitally via Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR)
Online, Inc. and the University of California, Santa Barbara Map & Imagery Lab
▪ Phone directory information available at WhitePages.com
▪ Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com
Field Survey
On July 16, 2020, Rincon Architectural Historian Alexandra Madsen conducted a historical resources field
survey of 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road, which consisted of a visual inspection of the two
properties from the public right-of-way. The purpose of the survey was to assess the age, construction,
condition and integrity of the properties, and to identify and document any potential character-defining
features. Documentation included digital photographs to support field observations. Described in
further detail below, the properties were recorded and evaluated on California Department Parks and
Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms, which are included in Attachment B.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 6
Findings
25525 Bundy Canyon Road
Physical Description
The property consists of a nearly-rectangular, 0.63-acre parcel containing a one-story manufactured
home and a detached garage (Figure 1). View of the property from the public right-of-way was
constrained by its elevation and large setback. The home has a rectangular footprint and a low-pitched,
side-gabled roof that appears to be covered with composite shingles. Its exterior cladding was not
ascertained. Fenestration includes vinyl-sash sliding windows. Located slightly to the southeast, the
detached garage contains one contemporary roll-up door. Access to the property is via a long driveway
from Bundy Canyon Road which forks into a Y to reach the home or the garage. Landscaping is sparse
and consists of small trees, groundcover and boulders. A seemingly hand-written sign leaning on a post
near Bundy Canyon Road identifies the property’s address.
Figure 1 View of 25525 Bundy Canyon Road from Public Right-of-Way, View Southwest
Property History
Located in Menifee, the area immediately surrounding the property was sparsely developed through the
1970s (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The property was improved with the extant manufactured home and
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 7
detached garage in 1973 per Riverside County Assessor records. Archival research was limited by data
available online due to the current COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, and included Riverside County
Assessor and Recorder data, a check of city directories available on Ancestry.com and Sanborn maps
available on LAPL.org, a review of occupant information on WhitePages.com, and aerial photographs.
No consequential information was found on owners/occupants. Through present day, the area
immediately surrounding the subject property has remained sparsely developed with small roads and
driveways leading to generally rural home sites which include manufactured homes (NETRonline,
various).
Figure 2 Aerial View of 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road and Surrounding Area in 1967
Source: Group Delta Consultants 2007
25525 Bundy Canyon 25551 Bundy Canyon
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 8
Figure 3 Aerial View of 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road and Surrounding Area in 1980
Source: Group Delta Consultants 2007
Significance Evaluation
25525 Bundy Canyon Road does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
or the California Register of Historical Resources. The semi-rural property was improved with a
manufactured home and detached garage constructed in 1973. Archival research did not demonstrate it
played any significant roles in the development of the community, nor is it associated with events or
individuals that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national
history (Criteria A/1 and Criteria B/2). As a manufactured home, the property does not embody the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, nor does it represent the
work of a master or possess high artistic values (Criteria C/3). A review of available evidence did not
indicate the property may yield important information about prehistory or history (Criteria D/4). The
property does not appear to contribute to any known or potential historic district.
25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Physical Description
The property consists of a nearly-rectangular, 0.51-acre parcel containing a manufactured home and
ancillary buildings. View of the property from the public right-of-way was constrained by its elevation,
foliage, and large setback (Figure 4). Based on Google aerial and street view photographs, the grouping
of buildings appears to include one manufactured home near the southwestern corner of the parcel and
25525 Bundy Canyon
25551 Bundy Canyon
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 9
a larger manufactured home near the southeastern corner of the parcel, with additional ancillary
buildings around them. The smaller home has a narrow, rectangular plan, a flat or nearly-flat roof, and
vertical paneling on the exterior. The larger home has a rectangular footprint, a low-pitched, side-gabled
roof, and patio covers mounted on its north and south elevations. Fenestration, entries and materials
were not clearly visible from the public right-of-way. Access to the property is via a long driveway from
Bundy Canyon Road which forks into a Y to serve both 25551 Bundy Canyon Road and the neighboring
property to the west (Figure 5). A seemingly hand-written sign mounted where the driveway forks
between the two properties identifies the address. A cylindrical tank is located near the northern edge
of the property. Landscaping is sparse and consists of large, mature trees, boulders, and potted plants.
Figure 4 View of 25551 Bundy Canyon Road from Public Right-of-Way, View Southwest
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 10
Figure 5 View of 25551 Bundy Canyon Road from Google Street View
Property History
Located in Menifee, the area immediately surrounding the property was sparsely developed through the
1970s (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The property was improved in 1975 with a manufactured home; presently
it appears to include two manufactured homes and smaller ancillary buildings like sheds. Archival
research was limited by data available online due to the current COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, and
included Riverside County Assessor and Recorder data, a check of city directories available on
Ancestry.com and Sanborn maps available on LAPL.org, a review of occupant information on
WhitePages.com, and aerial photographs. No consequential information was found on owners/
occupants. Through present day, the area immediately surrounding the subject property has remained
sparsely developed with small roads and driveways leading to generally rural home sites which include
manufactured homes (NETRonline, various).
Significance Evaluation
25551 Bundy Canyon Road does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
or the California Register of Historical Resources. The semi-rural property was improved with a
manufactured home and detached garage constructed in 1973. Archival research did not demonstrate it
played any significant roles in the development of the community, nor is it associated with events or
individuals that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national
history (Criteria A/1 and Criteria B/2). As a manufactured home, the property does not embody the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, nor does it represent the
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 11
work of a master or possess high artistic values (Criteria C/3). A review of available evidence did not
indicate the property may yield important information about prehistory or history (Criteria D/4). The
property does not appear to contribute to any known or potential historic district.
Conclusion
As a result of this study, four properties were considered for historical resources eligibility. In
accordance with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation, only properties containing
built environment improvements were carried forward for evaluation, specifically 25525 and 25551
Bundy Canyon Road (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995). 25555 Bundy Canyon Road was
constructed in 1979 and APN 362-060-020 is vacant; thus, neither require further evaluation. Following
intensive-level evaluation, the properties at 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road are recommended
ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and therefore are not considered historical resources as
defined by CEQA. Therefore, any modification which may occur to the four subject properties under
the project would not result in a significant impact to historical resources as defined by Section 15064.5
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Should you have any questions concerning this study, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
at (510) 834-4455 ext. 9984 or streffers@rinconconsultants.com.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, MHP
Architectural Historian
Steven Treffers, MHP
Senior Architectural Historian
Attachments
Attachment A California DPR 523 Series Forms
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
City of Menifee
Historical Resources Study for 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
Page 12
References
Bean, Walton
2003 California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 1968; Rolle,
Andrew. California: A History. Revised and Expanded Sixth Edition. Harlan Davidson, Inc.,
Wheeling, Illinois
California Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Electronic document accessed June 2, 2019.
http://scic.org/docs/OHP/manual95.pdf.
City of Menifee
2006-2020a History. Accessed July 22, 2020 at:
https://cityofmenifee.us/85/History#:~:text=The%20area%20was%20eventually%20annexe
d,by%20miner%20Luther%20Menifee%20Wilson
2006-2020b History of Menifee Roads. Accessed July 22, 2020 at:
https://cityofmenifee.us/502/History-of-Menifee-Roads
National Park Service (NPS)
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines.
Electronic document accessed June 2, 2019 Online at http://www.nps.gov/history/local-
law/Arch_Standards.htm.
1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin. U.S.
Department of the Interior. Accessed on June 2, 2019 at
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/
NETRonline
Var. Aerial photographs of 25525 and 25551 Bundy Canyon Road and Menifee.
Historicaerials.com [digital photograph database]. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Accessed July 2020.
Padon, Beth
2010 Archival Report for Cultural and Paleontological Resources: City of Menifee, Riverside County.
Prepared by Discovery Works, Inc. for The Planning Center, September 2010.
Shumway, Burgess McK.
2007 California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County. Rockville, Maryland:
Borgo Publishing Press.
UCSB Map & Imagery Lab.
Var. “FrameFinder” [aerial photograph database]. Aerials of project area viewed online.
http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed December 5, 2019.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Attachment A
California DPR 523 Series Forms
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code____6Z______________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _4_ Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 25525 Bundy Canyon Road P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ◼Unrestricted *a. County Riverside
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad: Romoland Date: 1953 (1985 ed.) Township 6S; Range 3W
*c. Address 25525 Bundy Canyon Road City: Menifee Zip: 92584
*e. Other Locational Data: APN 362-060-016
*P3a. Description:
The property consists of a nearly-rectangular, 0.63-acre parcel containing a one-story manufactured home and a detached garage.
View of the property was constrained by its elevation and large setback from the public right-of-way. The home has a rectangular
footprint and a low-pitched, side-gabled roof that appears to be covered with composite shingles. Its exterior cladding was not
ascertained. Fenestration includes vinyl-sash sliding windows. Located slightly to the southeast, the detached garage contains one
contemporary roll-up door. Access to the property is via a long driveway from Bundy Canyon Road which forks into a Y to reach the
home or the garage. Landscaping is sparse and consists of small trees, groundcover and boulders. A seemingly hand-written sign
leaning on a post near Bundy Canyon Road identifies the property’s address.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ◼Building Structure Object Site District Other
P5b. Photo:
View of property from Bundy Canyon Road,
camera facing southwest, 7-16-2020.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
◼historic 1973 (Riverside County
Assessor/Clerk/Recorder)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Unknown
*P8. Recorded by:
Susan Zamudio-Gurrola
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90012
*P9. Date Recorded:
July 20, 2020
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”):
Zamudio-Gurrola, Susan and Steven Treffers. 2020. Historical Resources Assessment Memorandum for 25525 and 25551 Bundy
Canyon Road, Menifee, Riverside County, California. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
*Attachments: None ◼Location Map Sketch Map ◼Continuation Sheet ◼Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo: (See Continuation Sheet page 4)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 2_ of 4 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 25525 Bundy Canyon Road
*Recorded by Susan Zamudio-Gurrola *Date July 21, 2020 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 4 *CHR Status Code__6Z____
*Resource Name or #: 25525 Bundy Canyon Road
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: 25525 Bundy Canyon Road
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential
*B5. Architectural Style: Manufactured home
*B6. Construction History:
The home was constructed in 1973 per Riverside County Assessor/Clerk/Recorder.
*B7. Moved? No Yes ◼Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Context/Theme N/A Area: N/A
Period of Significance: N/A Property Type: N/A Applicable Criteria N/A
The property is located in Menifee, a city which was incorporated in 2008 and includes the communities of Sun City, Quail Valley,
and portions of Romoland. Areas east and northeast of the city remain unincorporated parts of Riverside County (City of Menifee
2006-2020a).
Farming began in the mid-1800s in the area, and mining activity began in the early 1880s following the discovery of a quartz lode by
Luther Menifee Wilson (City of Menifee 2006-2020a). Bundy Canyon Road (known as Scott Road east of Murietta Road) appears to
have been first paved in the 1940s (Parsons 2007). Many of the area roads were named in the 1940s after early settler families who
owned land in the vicinity. Bundy Canyon Road was named after Joseph and Martha Bundy who came to the area from Iowa in
1883 (City of Menifee 2006-2020b).
A Sun City retirement community was developed by Del Webb in Menifee in the late 1960s, and an increase in development
occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. Residents of the communities encompassing Menifee voted to incorporate and the city was
officially established in October 2008. In the northwestern section of the city is Quail Valley, a semi-rural residential community, and
in the northeastern section of the city is Romoland, a residential and commercial community (City of Menifee 2006-2020a).
The subject property was improved in 1973 with a manufactured home and a detached garage. Archival research was limited by
data available online due to the current COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, and included Riverside County Assessor and Recorder
data, a check of city directories available on Ancestry.com and Sanborn maps available on LAPL.org, a review of occupant
information on WhitePages.com, and aerial photographs. (See
Continuation Sheet page 4).
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See Continuation Sheet page 4)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, Rincon Consultants
*Date of Evaluation: July 21, 2020
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Sketch Map:
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 4_ of 4_ Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 25525 Bundy Canyon Road
*Recorded by Susan Zamudio-Gurrola *Date July 21, 2020 ◼ Continuation Update
*B10. Significance (continued):
No consequential information was found on owners/occupants. Through present day, the area immediately surrounding the subject
property has remained sparsely developed with small roads and driveways leading to generally rural home sites which include
manufactured homes (NETRonline, various).
25525 Bundy Canyon Road does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register
of Historical Resources. The semi-rural property was improved with a manufactured home and detached garage constructed in
1973. Archival research did not demonstrate it played any significant roles in the development of the community, nor is it associated
with events or individuals that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national history (Criteria
A/1 and Criteria B/2). As a manufactured home, the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region
or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values (Criteria C/3). A review of
available evidence did not indicate the property may yield important information about prehistory or history (Criteria D/4).
B12. References (continued):
City of Menifee
2006-2020a “History”. Accessed July 21, 2020 at https://cityofmenifee.us/85/History.
2006-2020b “History of Menifee Roads”. Accessed July 22, 2020 at https://cityofmenifee.us/502/History-of-Menifee-Roads.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. 2007. Report of Initial Site Assessment, Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road between Cherry Street and
The Farm Road and Sunset Avenue and Bailey Park Boulevard, County of Riverside, California. Prepared for Parsons, 15 June.
Parsons. 2007. Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum for Bundy Canyon-Scott Road Improvement Project.
Prepared for County of Riverside, 28 August.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code____6Z______________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _4_ Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 25551 Bundy Canyon Road P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ◼Unrestricted *a. County Riverside
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad: Romoland Date: 1953 (1985 ed.) Township 6S; Range 3W
*c. Address 25551 Bundy Canyon Road City: Menifee Zip: 92584
*e. Other Locational Data: APN 362-060-017
*P3a. Description:
The property consists of a nearly-rectangular, 0.51-acre parcel containing a manufactured home and ancillary buildings. View of the
property was constrained by its elevation, foliage, and large setback from the public right-of-way. Based on Google aerial and street
view photographs, the grouping of buildings appears to include one manufactured home near the southwestern corner of the parcel
and a larger manufactured home near the southeastern corner of the parcel, with additional ancillary buildings around them. The
smaller home has a narrow, rectangular plan, a flat or nearly-flat roof, and vertical paneling on the exterior. The larger home has a
rectangular footprint, a low-pitched, side-gabled roof, and patio covers mounted on its north and south elevations. Fenestration,
entries and materials were not clearly visible from the public right-of-way. Access to the property is via a long driveway from Bundy
Canyon Road which forks into a Y to serve both 25551 Bundy Canyon Road and the neighboring property to the west. A seemingly
hand-written sign mounted where the driveway forks between the two properties identifies the address. A cylindrical tank is located
near the northern edge of the property. Landscaping is sparse and consists of large, mature trees, boulders, and potted plants.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property
*P4. Resources Present: ◼Building Structure Object Site District Other
P5b. Photo:
View of property from Bundy Canyon Road,
camera facing southwest, 7-16-2020.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
◼historic 1975 (Riverside County
Assessor/Clerk/Recorder)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Unknown
*P8. Recorded by:
Susan Zamudio-Gurrola
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90012
*P9. Date Recorded:
July 20, 2020
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”):
Zamudio-Gurrola, Susan and Steven Treffers. 2020. Historical Resources Assessment Memorandum for 25525 and 25551 Bundy
Canyon Road, Menifee, Riverside County, California. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
*Attachments: None ◼Location Map Sketch Map ◼Continuation Sheet ◼Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo: (See Continuation Sheet page 4)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 2_ of 4 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
*Recorded by Susan Zamudio-Gurrola *Date July 21, 2020 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 4 *CHR Status Code__6Z____
*Resource Name or #: 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential
*B5. Architectural Style: Manufactured home
*B6. Construction History:
The home was constructed in 1975 per Riverside County Assessor/Clerk/Recorder.
*B7. Moved? No Yes ◼Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Context/Theme N/A Area: N/A
Period of Significance: N/A Property Type: N/A Applicable Criteria N/A
The property is located in Menifee, a city which was incorporated in 2008 and includes the communities of Sun City, Quail Valley,
and portions of Romoland. Areas east and northeast of the city remain unincorporated parts of Riverside County (City of Menifee
2006-2020a).
Farming began in the mid-1800s in the area, and mining activity began in the early 1880s following the discovery of a quartz lode by
Luther Menifee Wilson (City of Menifee 2006-2020a). Bundy Canyon Road (known as Scott Road east of Murietta Road) appears to
have been first paved in the 1940s (Parsons 2007). Many of the area roads were named in the 1940s after early settler families who
owned land in the vicinity. Bundy Canyon Road was named after Joseph and Martha Bundy who came to the area from Iowa in
1883 (City of Menifee 2006-2020b).
A Sun City retirement community was developed by Del Webb in Menifee in the late 1960s, and an increase in development
occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. Residents of the communities encompassing Menifee voted to incorporate and the city was
officially established in October 2008. In the northwestern section of the city is Quail Valley, a semi-rural residential community, and
in the northeastern section of the city is Romoland, a residential and commercial community (City of Menifee 2006-2020a).
The subject property was improved in 1975 with a manufactured home; presently it appears to include two manufactured homes and
smaller ancillary buildings. Archival research was limited by data available online due to the current COVID-19 pandemic
restrictions, and included Riverside County Assessor and Recorder data, a check of city directories available on Ancestry.com and
Sanborn maps available on LAPL.org, a review of occupant information
on WhitePages.com, and aerial photographs. (See Continuation Sheet
page 4).
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See Continuation Sheet page 4)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, Rincon Consultants
*Date of Evaluation: July 21, 2020
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Sketch Map:
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 4_ of 4_ Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 25551 Bundy Canyon Road
*Recorded by Susan Zamudio-Gurrola *Date July 21, 2020 ◼ Continuation Update
*B10. Significance (continued):
No consequential information was found on owners/occupants. Through present day, the area immediately surrounding the subject
property has remained sparsely developed with small roads and driveways leading to generally rural home sites which include
manufactured homes (NETRonline, various).
25551 Bundy Canyon Road does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register
of Historical Resources. The semi-rural property was improved with a manufactured home constructed in 1975 and presently
appears to include two manufactured homes and smaller ancillary buildings. Archival research did not demonstrate it played any
significant roles in the development of the community, nor is it associated with events or individuals that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national history (Criteria A/1 and Criteria B/2). The manufactured homes on the
property do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, nor do they represent the
work of a master or possess high artistic values (Criteria C/3). A review of available evidence did not indicate the property may yield
important information about prehistory or history (Criteria D/4).
B12. References (continued):
City of Menifee
2006-2020a “History”. Accessed July 21, 2020 at https://cityofmenifee.us/85/History.
2006-2020b “History of Menifee Roads”. Accessed July 22, 2020 at https://cityofmenifee.us/502/History-of-Menifee-Roads.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. 2007. Report of Initial Site Assessment, Bundy Canyon Road/Scott Road between Cherry Street and
The Farm Road and Sunset Avenue and Bailey Park Boulevard, County of Riverside, California. Prepared for Parsons, 15 June.
Parsons. 2007. Built-Environment Historic Resources Technical Memorandum for Bundy Canyon-Scott Road Improvement Project.
Prepared for County of Riverside, 28 August.
P5a. Photos (continued):
View of 25551 Bundy Canyon Road from Google street view
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Appendix C
Traffic Impact Analysis (2020)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road
Widening
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Prepared for:
City of Menifee
March 2020
Prepared By:
STC Traffic, Inc.
5865 Avenida Encinas, Suite 142-B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 3
2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 ROADWAY NETWORK ...................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 TRANSIT SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 12
3.3 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES .................................................................................................................. 12
3.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................................. 12
4 FUTURE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1 OPENING YEAR 2025 AND HORIZON YEAR 2040 ROADWAY GEOMETRY .................................................................. 15
4.2 OPENING YEAR 2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................ 15
4.3 HORIZON YEAR 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................ 15
5 LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 21
5.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 21
5.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 21
5.3 ACCEPTABLE OPERATING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 22
6 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 23
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 24
6.3 OPENING YEAR 2025 WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 26
6.4 HORIZON YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 27
7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 30
7.1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 30
7.2 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 31
7.3 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 32
7.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 34
8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 36
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2‐1: Project Site Location ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2‐2: Project Study Area .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3‐1: Existing Roadway Geometry ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3‐2: Existing Intersection and Roadway Segment Volumes ............................................................. 14
Figure 4‐1: Future Year Without Project Roadway Geometry .................................................................... 17
Figure 4‐2: Future Year With Project Roadway Geometry ......................................................................... 18
Figure 4‐3: Opening Year 2025 Intersection and Roadway Segment Volumes .......................................... 19
Figure 4‐4: Horizon Year 2040 Intersection and Roadway Segment Volumes ........................................... 20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1‐1: Intersection LOS Conditions Summary ........................................................................................ 2
Table 1‐2: Roadway Segment Conditions Summary ..................................................................................... 3
Table 1‐3: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary .......................................... 4
Table 1‐4: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary ........................................... 4
Table 1‐5: Existing With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary ................................................. 5
Table 1‐6: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary ............................... 5
Table 1‐7: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary ................................ 6
Table 5‐1: LOS Criteria for Intersections ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 5‐2: Roadway Segment Capacity Thresholds .................................................................................... 22
Table 6‐1: Existing Intersection LOS Summary ........................................................................................... 23
Table 6‐2: Existing Roadway Segment LOS Summary ................................................................................. 24
Table 6‐3: Existing Without and With Project Intersection LOS Summary ................................................. 25
Table 6‐4: Existing Without and With Project Roadway Segment LOS Summary ...................................... 25
Table 6‐5: Opening Year 2025 Without and With Project Intersection LOS Summary .............................. 26
Table 6‐6: Opening Year 2025 Without and With Project Roadway Segment LOS Summary .................... 27
Table 6‐7: Horizon Year 2040 Without and With Project Intersection LOS Summary ............................... 28
Table 6‐8: Horizon Year 2040 Without and With Project Roadway Segment LOS Summary ..................... 28
Table 7‐1: Intersection Conditions Summary ............................................................................................. 30
Table 7‐2: Roadway Segment Conditions Summary ................................................................................... 31
Table 7‐3: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary ........................................ 33
Table 7‐4: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary ......................................... 33
Table 7‐5: Existing With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary ............................................... 34
Table 7‐6: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary ............................. 34
Table 7‐7: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary .............................. 35
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix B: Intersection Turning Movement and Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Count Data
Appendix C: Approved and Pending Project Information
Appendix D: Existing Intersection LOS Worksheets
Appendix E: Opening Year 2025 Intersection LOS Worksheets
Appendix F: Horizon Year 2040 Intersection LOS Worksheets
Appendix G: With Improvements Intersection LOS Worksheets
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report 1
March 2020
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STC Traffic has completed this Traffic Study (“study”) for the proposed Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road
widening project in the City of Menifee, California. This study was developed to assess the operating
conditions of the roadway corridor in the project opening year 2025 and the horizon year 2040.
1.1 Project Description
The project proposes to widen Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road to a 5 – lane roadway (2 travel lanes in
either direction and a center two‐way‐left‐turn lane) between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road. The 5‐lane
roadway widening is an interim condition to accommodate the traffic growth in the near‐term (Year 2025)
condition. The roadway corridor with the interim 5‐lane was also assessed for the horizon year 2040
conditions. Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road is currently a 2‐lane
roadway and is classified as a 6‐Lane Urban Arterial in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation
Element.
The project site location is shown on Figure 2‐1.
1.2 Study Area
The intersections and roadway segments in this study are listed below and shown on Figure 2‐2:
Study Intersections
1. Murrieta Road/Scott Road‐Bundy Canyon Road
2. Haun Road‐Zeiders Road/Scott Road
3. I‐215 SB Ramps/Scott Road
4. I‐215 NB Ramps/Scott Road
5. Antelope Road/Scott Road
Study Roadway Segments
1. Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Murrieta Road
2. Scott Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road ‐ Zeiders Road
3. Scott Road between Haun Road Zeiders Road and I‐215 SB Ramps
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road
1.3 Analysis Results
Study analysis included intersection and roadway segment level of service (LOS). Results of the analysis
are summarized and presented below.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 2
1.3.1 Intersection LOS Analysis Results
The study intersection conditions for all the study scenarios for both AM and PM peak hours are
summarized in Table 1‐1 below:
Table 1‐1: Intersection LOS Conditions Summary
Study Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Year 2025
Conditions
Year 2040
Conditions
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd
‐ Bundy Canyon Rd
AM F B C B C C
PM F B B B C C
2 Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /
Scott Rd
AM D D F F F F
PM C C F F F F
3 I‐215 Southbound
Ramps / Scott Rd
AM D A B B B B
PM D B B B B B
4 I‐215 Northbound
Ramps / Scott Rd
AM C B C C C C
PM C B D D D D
5 Antelope Rd / Scott Rd AM D D D D D D
PM D C D D D D
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐1, the intersection of Murrieta Road/Scott Road‐Bundy operates at an unacceptable
LOS in the existing condition. The intersection of Haun Road‐Zeiders Road/Scott Road is forecast to
operate at an unacceptable LOS for all the future year without and with project conditions during both
the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the unacceptable operating condition at Haun Road‐
Zeiders Road/Scott Road intersection in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting
from the ambient background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development
projects. It is not anticipated that the project will attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and
hence the project will not cause a significance impact on any of the study intersections.
1.3.2 Roadway Segment LOS Analysis Results
The study roadway segments conditions for all the study scenarios are summarized in Table 1‐2 below:
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 3
Table 1‐2: Roadway Segment Conditions Summary
Segment
Existing
Conditions
Year 2025
Conditions
Year 2040
Conditions
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Bundy Canyon Rd between Sunset Ave
and Murrieta Rd F A F B F B
2 Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd and Haun
Rd – Zeiders Rd F A F C F C
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd – Zeiders Rd
and I‐215 SB Ramps D B F F F F
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps E C F F F F
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps and
Antelope Rd F F F F F F
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐2, all the study roadway segments operate at unacceptable LOS for at least one
analysis scenario. Although the roadway segments operate at an unacceptable LOS, the intersections on
either side of the roadway segment, except for Haun Road‐Zeiders Road / Scott Road intersection, operate
at an acceptable LOS. The flow of traffic along a roadway segment is generally governed by the operating
condition of the intersection on either side of the roadway segment. If the intersections operate at an
acceptable condition, then the roadway segment is anticipated to operate at an acceptable condition.
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study roadway segments in
the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient background growth and
due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. It is not anticipated that the project will
attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence the project will not cause a significance
impact on any of the study roadway segments.
1.4 Recommended Improvements
Although the project does not cause any significant impacts on the study area intersections and roadway
segments, recommendations were made to improve the roadway conditions. As the future development
projects are built, it is anticipated that those projects will contribute towards the cost and construction of
the roadway improvements.
1.4.1 Intersection Improvement Recommendations
Following are the recommended improvements at Haun Road‐Zeiders Road / Scott Road in the opening
year 2025:
Northbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane and 1‐Through lane. Change
the right turn phasing to an overlap phasing.
Southbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane, 1‐Through lane and 1‐Right
Turn lane with overlap phasing.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 4
Eastbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane and 1‐Through lane.
Westbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Right Turn lane. Change the right turn phasing
to an overlap phasing.
The intersection improvements and conditions at Haun Road‐Zeiders Road / Scott Road for the opening
year 2025 is shown in Table 1‐3.
Table 1‐3: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary
Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /
Scott Rd
Intersection Approach Lanes
AM PM Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS
Without Improvements 1 1 1 1 <1> ‐ 1 1+1> 1 2 1 >80 F >80 F
With Improvements 2 2 1‐o 2 2 1‐o 2 2+1> 1 2 2‐o 50.7 D 54.3 D
<1> ‐ Left/Through/Right shared lane; 1> ‐ Through/Right shared lane; o – Right Turn Overlap; Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐3, with the recommended improvements at the intersection of Haun Road‐Zeiders
Road/Scott Road in the opening year 2025, the intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D
during both the AM and PM peak hour.
In the horizon year 2040, following are the recommended improvements in addition to the
recommendations made for the year 2025:
Eastbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Right Turn lane. Change the right turn phasing
to an overlap phasing.
Westbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane and 1‐Through lane.
Recommendations and intersection conditions for the horizon year 2040 are summarized in Table 1‐4.
Table 1‐4: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary
Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /
Scott Rd
Intersection Approach Lanes
AM PM Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS
Without Improvements 1 1 1 1 <1> ‐ 1 1+1> 1 2 1 >80 F >80 F
With Improvements 2 2 1‐o 2 2 1‐o 2 3 1‐o 2 3 2‐o 34.9 C 49.8 D
<1> ‐ Left/Through/Right shared lane; 1> ‐ Through/Right shared lane; o – Right Turn Overlap; Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐4, with the recommended improvements at the intersection of Haun Road‐Zeiders
Road/Scott Road in the horizon year 2040, the intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D
or better during both the AM and PM peak hour.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 5
1.4.2 Roadway Segment Improvement Recommendation
It is recommended that Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road be widened to its
ultimate general plan classification as a 6‐lane Urban Arterial for the roadway to operate at acceptable
LOS in the current condition. In addition to the roadway improvements for the current condition, it is
recommended that Scott Road between Haun Road – Zeiders Road and I‐215 NB Ramps be widened to its
ultimate general plan classification as a 6‐lane Urban Arterial for the future year 2025 and 2040. Table 1‐
5 summarizes the results of the existing roadway conditions with the roadway improvement. For opening
year 2025 and horizon year 2040 the results of the roadway condition with the roadway improvements
are summarized in Table 1‐6 and Table 1‐7 respectively.
Table 1‐5: Existing With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Existing Conditions
Without
Project
With
Project With Improvements
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB
Ramps and Antelope Rd 34,461 1.011 F 1.011 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.612 B
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐5, the roadway segment is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS with the
recommended improvement.
Table 1‐6: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Year 2025 Conditions
Without
Project With Project With Improvements
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS 1
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd –
Zeiders Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 50,630 1.485 F 1.485 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.899 D
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 47,605 1.396 F 1.396 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.846 D
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB
Ramps and Antelope Rd 52,679 1.545 F 1.545 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.936 E
1 Per the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, LOS E is acceptable on roadway segments in close proximity to I‐215; Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐6, the roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS with the
recommended improvements in the opening year 2025.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 6
Table 1‐7: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Year 2040 Conditions
Without
Project With Project With Improvements
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS 1
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd –
Zeiders Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 53,922 1.581 F 1.581 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.958 E
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 51,090 1.498 F 1.498 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.907 E
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB
Ramps and Antelope Rd 55,985 1.642 F 1.642 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.994 E
1 Per the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, LOS E is acceptable on roadway segments in close proximity to I‐215; Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 1‐7, the roadway segments, that are in close proximity to the I‐215 freeway, are forecast
to operate at acceptable LOS with the recommended improvements in the horizon year 2040. Scott Road
between the I‐215 southbound and northbound ramps continue to operate at unacceptable LOS with the
recommended improvements. Although Scott Road between the I‐215 southbound and northbound
ramps operate at an unacceptable LOS, the intersections on either side of the roadway segment are
forecast to operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hour condition. The flow of traffic along a roadway
segment is generally governed by the operating condition of the intersection on either side of the roadway
segment. If the intersections operate at an acceptable condition, then the roadway segment is anticipated
to operate at an acceptable condition. The worst roadway condition, within a day, occurs during the peak
period and, analysis of the roadway condition for the peak hour is more representative of the worst
roadway condition than as indicated by the daily roadway condition. Hence, the roadway segment analysis
may not reflect the worst condition within a typical weekday, although it may show unacceptable LOS.
The City of Murrieta is proposing to construct a new I‐215 interchange at Keller Road, which is
approximately one mile south of Scott Road. The City of Menifee is proposing to construct an overpass on
Holland Road across the I‐215 freeway, which is anticipated to be completed by year 2023. With the Keller
Road interchange and Holland Road overpass constructed, it is anticipated that some traffic using Scott
Road would divert to Keller Road and Holland Road, resulting in improving the roadway condition along
Scott Road.
1.4.3 Conclusion
The widening of Scott Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road‐Zeiders Road from 2‐lane roadway
to a 5 – lane roadway (2 travel lanes in either direction and a center two‐way‐left‐turn lane) would
improve the roadway condition. It is anticipated that the project will not attract more traffic with the
roadway widening and hence the project will not cause significance impact on any of the study area
intersections and roadway segments.
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study intersections and
roadway segments in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 7
background growth and due to the cumulative effect of future development projects. As the future
development projects are built, it is anticipated that those projects will contribute towards the cost and
cosntruction of the roadway improvements.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 8
2 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of the traffic study for the proposed Scott Road ‐ Bundy Canyon Road
widening project in the City of Menifee, California. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the operating
conditions of the project in the project opening year 2025 and horizon year 2040. This study was
conducted in accordance with the City of Menifee’s General Plan Circulation Element, City’s Traffic Impact
Analysis Guidelines (January 2019) and in consultation with the City of Menifee staff during the scoping
agreement process. The approved project scoping agreement is included in Appendix A.
2.1 Project Description
The project proposes to widen Scott Road ‐ Bundy Canyon Road to a 5‐lane roadway (2 travel lanes in
either direction and a center two‐way‐left‐turn lane) between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road. The 5 ‐ lane
roadway widening is an interim condition to accommodate the traffic growth in the near‐term (Year 2025)
condition. The roadway corridor with the interim 5‐lane was also assessed for the horizon year 2040
conditions. Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road is currently a 2‐lane
roadway and is classified as a 6‐lane Urban Arterial in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation
Element.
The project site location is shown on Figure 2‐1.
2.2 Study Area
The intersections and roadway segments in this study are listed below and shown on Figure 2‐2:
Study Intersections
1. Murrieta Road/Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road
2. Haun Road‐Zeiders Road/ Scott Road
3. I‐215 SB Ramps/ Scott Road
4. I‐215 NB Ramps/ Scott Road
5. Antelope Road/ Scott Road
Study Roadway Segments
1. Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Murrieta Road
2. Scott Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road‐Zeiders Road
3. Scott Road between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and I‐215 SB Ramps
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
ScoƩ Road Widening
Legend
Project Location
215INTERSTATE
215INTERSTATE
Newport Road
Me
n
i
f
e
e
R
o
a
d
An
t
e
l
o
p
e
R
o
a
d
Ha
u
n
R
o
a
d
Mu
r
r
i
e
t
a
R
o
a
d
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Garbani RoadGarbani Road
Holland Road
Scott Road Scott RoadBundy Canyon Road
Holland Road
Figure 2-1
Project Site LocaƟon
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Da
i
l
y
R
d
Sw
e
e
t
w
a
t
er
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Bundy Canyon Rd Scott Rd
Keller Rd
Scott Rd
Mur
r
i
e
t
a
R
d
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
Ha
u
n
R
d
Ze
i
d
e
r
s
R
d
Ant
e
lo
p
e
R
d
As
c
o
t
W
a
y
Na
n
c
y
L
n
Ho
w
a
r
d
W
a
y
215INTERSTATE
ScoƩ Road Widening
51234
1 3
4
52
Legend
#Study Intersection
Study Segment
Figure 2-2
Project Study Area
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 11
2.3 Analysis Scenarios
The following scenarios are evaluated in this traffic impact analysis report:
Existing Traffic Conditions: This scenario reflects the conditions at the time traffic volume data
was collected in January 2020.
Existing With Project Conditions: This scenario reflects the existing roadway conditions with the
project constructed.
Opening Year 2025 Without Project Conditions: This scenario reflects the roadway conditions in
the year 2025, without the project constructed and with the year 2025 volumes.
Opening Year 2025 With Project Conditions: This scenario reflects the roadway conditions in the
year 2025, with the project constructed and with the year 2025 volumes.
Opening Year 2040 Without Project Conditions: This scenario reflects the roadway conditions in
the year 2040, without the project constructed and with the year 2040 volumes.
Horizon Year 2040 With Project Conditions: This scenario reflects the roadway conditions in the
year 2040, with the project constructed and with the year 2040 volumes.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 12
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following section summarizes the study area transportation system existing conditions. Intersection
and roadway segment geometries are shown in Figure 3‐1.
3.1 Roadway Network
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Antelope Road runs in the east – west
direction. The roadway west of Murrieta Road is named as Bundy Canyon Road and the roadway east of
Murrieta Road is named as Scott Road. The roadway between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road‐Zeiders Road
is currently a 2‐lane undivided roadway. The posted speed between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road‐
Zeiders Road is 50 mph.
The I‐215 interchange at Scott Road is currently undergoing construction for roadway improvements, and
the project extends to Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and Antelope Road on either side of the interchange. The
roadway between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and the I‐215 northbound ramps is a 3‐lane divided roadway,
with one travel lane in the westbound direction and two (2) travel lanes in the eastbound direction. The
roadway between the I‐215 northbound ramps and Antelope Road is a 4‐lane divided roadway. The
current interim geometry at intersections and roadway segments along Scott Road between Haun Road‐
Zeiders Road and Antelope Road was used for the Existing Conditions analysis.
3.2 Transit Service
The closest bus stop is located on Antelope Road approximately 600 feet south of Scott Road and Antelope
Road intersection and is served by Route 61 with part of the route being along Scott Road between
Antelope Road and Menifee Road. There are no bus routes that runs along Scott Road‐Bundy Canyon Road
between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road‐Zeiders Road.
3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
There is no bicycle facility along Scott Road‐Bundy Canyon Road for the whole length of the project study
corridor. There is no sidewalk on Scott Road‐Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road‐
Zeiders Road. Sidewalk exists southside and part of the roadway segment between I‐215 northbound
ramps and Antelope Road. The interchange improvement project proposes to build sidewalk on north side
of Scott Road between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and Antelope Road. The interchange improvement
project also proposes to install bike lanes on either side of the roadway between the I‐215 northbound
and southbound ramps.
3.4 Existing Traffic Volumes
Intersection turning movement counts were collected on Thursday, January 23, 2020 for the AM peak
period (07:00 AM to 09:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Daily roadway segment
volumes were also collected on Thursday, January 23, 2020. The AM/ PM peak hour intersection and daily
roadway segment volumes are shown in Figure 3‐2. The traffic count data is included in Appendix B.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Da
i
l
y
R
d
Sw
e
e
t
w
a
t
er
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Bundy Canyon Rd Scott Rd
Keller Rd
Scott Rd
Mur
r
i
e
t
a
R
d
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
Ha
u
n
R
d
Ze
i
d
e
r
s
R
d
Ant
e
lo
p
e
R
d
As
c
o
t
W
a
y
Na
n
c
y
L
n
Ho
w
a
r
d
W
a
y
215INTERSTATE
ScoƩ Road Widening
Legend
#
Signalized Intersection
Study Intersection
Study Segment
Stop Controlled
Lane Configuration
2-Lane Undivided2U
4-Lane Divided4D
3-Lane Divided3D
De Facto Right Turndf
Figure 3-1
ExisƟng Roadway Geomety
2U 2U 3D
3D
4D
df
51234
1 3
4
52
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Murrieta Rd @ Scott Rd ‐ Bundy Canyon Rd Haun Rd ‐ Zeiders Rd @ Scott Rd
xx / yy = AM / PM Peak‐Hour Turning
Movement Volumes
X,XXX = Daily Traffic
120 / 142
711 / 792
28
/
35
20
1
/
23
1
24
3
/
37
7
2
1 / 0
47 / 40
517 / 547
0
/ 0
0
/ 0
I‐215 NB Ramp @ Scott RdI‐215 SB Ramp @ Scott Rd
456 / 29550
0
/
38
9
12
1
/
16
2
1
/
8475 / 478
888 / 715
0 / 0
0
/
0
34 / 42
535 / 442
90 / 50
1 / 0
540 / 329
60
/
10
4
0
/ 0
0
/ 0
42
/
47
0 / 0
326 / 433
25
9
/
37
8
3
/ 2
362 / 508
0 / 0
2
/
0
112 / 102
640 / 842
1
/
0
32
2
/
34
7
4
Existing Intersection and Roadway Segment Volumes
Figure 3‐2
16
2
/
14
1
60
/ 58
13
7
/ 20
6
64
/ 17
6
5
47 / 79
0
/ 0
Scott Road Widening
30
6
/
15
7
0
/
0
20
8
/
12
2
14
9
/
83
1
40
3
/
22
3
366 / 382
56 / 47
3
320 / 450
23
6
/ 30
0
217 / 248
472 / 680
Antelope Rd @ Scott Rd
0
/ 0
528 / 665
0 / 0
296 / 277
172 / 228
LEGEND
14,998 14,792
22,819
25,270
34,461
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 15
4 FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section provides a forecast of roadway conditions in the opening year 2025 and horizon year 2040.
The improvements to I‐215 freeway interchange at Scott Road are currently under construction and are
anticipated to be completed mid‐year of 2020. The interchange improvement project along Scott Road
extends from Haun Road‐Zeiders Road to Antelope Road.
4.1 Opening Year 2025 and Horizon Year 2040 Roadway Geometry
As part of the City of Menifee’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), following improvements are
anticipated to be completed by the year 2025:
I‐215 / Scott Road interchange improvement project – the project will change the interchange
configuration to add loop ramps on north side of Scott Road. Scott Road will be widened to 4‐
Lanes between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and Antelope Road. In addition, the project proposes to
improve roadway geometry at intersections along Scott Road between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road
and Antelope Road.
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road / Murrieta Road roadway improvement and traffic signal project
– the project proposes to improve intersection geometry and install a traffic signal.
For both the future year 2025 and 2040, without and with the project, the above improvements were
assumed in the intersection and roadway segment analysis. The opening year 2025 and horizon year 2040
intersection and roadway segment geometry without and with the project are shown in Figure 4‐1 and
Figure 4‐2 respectively.
4.2 Opening Year 2025 Traffic Volumes
To derive the opening year 2025 traffic volumes, an annual ambient growth rate of 2% (10% total) was
applied to the existing traffic volumes. In addition, trips from approved and pending land development
projects that are anticipated to be completed by the year 2025 were added to obtain the year 2025 traffic
volumes. With the construction of the project, it is anticipated that the project will not attract more traffic
due to roadway widening. The year 2025 AM and PM peak hour intersection and daily roadway segment
volumes are shown in Figure 4‐3. The approved and pending land development projects information is
included in Appendix C.
4.3 Horizon Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
To derive the Horizon year 2040 traffic volumes, an annual growth rate of 1% per year (15% total) was
applied to the year 2025 traffic volumes. In addition, trips from approved and pending land development
projects that are anticipated to be completed by the year 2040 were added to obtain the horizon year
2040 traffic volumes. With the construction of the project, it is anticipated that the project will not attract
more traffic due to roadway widening. The year 2040 AM and PM peak hour intersection and daily
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 16
roadway segment volumes are shown in Figure 4‐4. The approved and pending land development projects
information is included in Appendix C.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Da
i
l
y
R
d
Sw
e
e
t
w
a
t
er
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Bundy Canyon Rd Scott Rd
Keller Rd
Scott Rd
Mur
r
i
e
t
a
R
d
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
Ha
u
n
R
d
Ze
i
d
e
r
s
R
d
Ant
e
lo
p
e
R
d
As
c
o
t
W
a
y
Na
n
c
y
L
n
Ho
w
a
r
d
W
a
y
215INTERSTATE
ScoƩ Road Widening
Legend
#
Signalized Intersection
Study Intersection
Study Segment
Lane Configuration
4-Lane Divided4D
2-Lane Undivided2U
Figure 4-1
Future Year Without Project Roadway Geomety
4D4D
4D2U2U
51234
1 3
4
52
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 209
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Da
i
l
y
R
d
Sw
e
e
t
w
a
t
er
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Bundy Canyon Rd Scott Rd
Keller Rd
Scott Rd
Mur
r
i
e
t
a
R
d
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
Ha
u
n
R
d
Ze
i
d
e
r
s
R
d
Ant
e
lo
p
e
R
d
As
c
o
t
W
a
y
Na
n
c
y
L
n
Ho
w
a
r
d
W
a
y
215INTERSTATE
ScoƩ Road Widening
Legend
#
Signalized Intersection
Study Intersection
Study Segment
Lane Configuration
4-Lane Divided4D
Figure 4-2
Future Year With Project Roadway Geomety
4D 4D 4D4D
4D
51234
1 3
4
52
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 210
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Murrieta Rd @ Scott Rd ‐ Bundy Canyon Rd Haun Rd ‐ Zeiders Rd @ Scott Rd
Scott Road Widening
I‐215 SB Ramp @ Scott Rd
0 / 0 234 / 95 0 / 0
3
0
/ 0
0
/ 0 834 / 891
92
/
19
2
118 / 131
xx / yy = AM / PM Peak‐Hour Turning
Movement Volumes
X,XXX = Daily Traffic
I‐215 NB Ramp @ Scott Rd
33
7
/
17
3
0
/
0
28
9
/
20
9
10
8
/
15
2
24
5
/
17
4
96
2
/
11
2
5
36
6
/
53
0
169 / 242 968 / 1230
509 / 664 571 / 962
0 / 0
0
/
0
41
3
/
68
5
58
3
/
87
5
0
/ 0
0
/ 0717 / 473 633 / 784
1396 / 1745 1509 / 1347
4
189 / 251 141 / 187 0 / 0 322 / 467
12
1077 / 1675
0
/ 0
0
/ 0
43
3
/
62
4
0 / 0 144 / 70 862 / 817 0 / 0
30
3
/
42
6
79
/
24
3 996 / 1434
0
/ 0
0
/ 0
0
/ 0491 / 602
0
/ 0
Antelope Rd @ Scott Rd
48
1
/
29
5
20
1
/
17
2
66
/ 64
37 / 46
1232 / 1306
Figure 4‐3
Opening Year 2025 Intersection and Roadway Segment Volumes
5
349 / 362
827 / 1555
35
8
/ 50
4
16
4
/ 25
4
97
/ 27
0
358 / 400
20,480 24,580 50,630
47,600
52,680
LEGEND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Murrieta Rd @ Scott Rd ‐ Bundy Canyon Rd Haun Rd ‐ Zeiders Rd @ Scott Rd
Scott Road Widening
I‐215 SB Ramp @ Scott Rd
0 / 0 245 / 114 0 / 0
3
0
/ 0
0
/ 0 921 / 945
18
9
/
38
1
140 / 150
xx / yy = AM / PM Peak‐Hour Turning
Movement Volumes
X,XXX = Daily Traffic
I‐215 NB Ramp @ Scott Rd
38
3
/
19
6
0
/
0
32
0
/
22
7
11
5
/
15
9
29
1
/
25
3
10
2
9
/ 11
8
1
38
4
/
55
4
188 / 263 1033 / 1298
632 / 910 605 / 1036
0 / 0
0
/
0
40
3
/
71
8
59
8
/
91
6
0
/ 0
0
/ 0784 / 514 673 / 803
1486 / 1877 1648 / 1482
4
215 / 285 150 / 195 0 / 0 339 / 482
12
1146 / 1797
0
/ 0
0
/ 0
47
9
/
67
5
0 / 0 267 / 238 935 / 840 0 / 0
34
3
/
56
4
90
/
26
0 1092 / 1536
0
/ 0
0
/ 0
0
/ 0669 / 815
0
/ 0
Antelope Rd @ Scott Rd
54
2
/
33
0
22
9
/
20
8
75
/ 73
43 / 53
1342 / 1414
Figure 4‐4
Horizon Year 2040 Intersection and Roadway Segment Volumes
5
394 / 408
911 / 1664
36
5
/ 50
3
18
3
/ 32
6
11
0
/ 31
6
339 / 421
22,500 26,580 53,920
51,090
55,980
LEGEND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 21
5 LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
This traffic impact analysis report was prepared in compliance with the City of Menifee’s Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (January 2019). The following section summarizes the analysis methodology
applied to intersections and roadway segments for the conditions evaluated.
5.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Signalized and unsignalized study intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
6th Edition methodology. It should be noted that HCM 6th Edition does not support Non‐NEMA phasing.
For intersections with Non‐NEMA phasing, HCM 2000 was used to report the intersection condition. The
study area was modeled in Synchro 10 software, which is based on HCM methodology, to calculate delays
and levels of service. Table 5‐1 provides description of the HCM signalized and unsignalized intersection
level of service thresholds.
Table 5‐1: LOS Criteria for Intersections
LOS
Control Delay (sec/veh)
Description Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
A <10 <10 Operations with very low delay and most vehicles do not stop.
B >10 and <20 >10 and <15 Operations with good progression but with some restricted
movements.
C >20 and <35 >15 and <25 Operations where a significant number of vehicles are stopping
with some backup and light congestion.
D >35 and <55 >25 and <35
Operations where congestion is noticeable, longer delays occur,
and many vehicles stop. The proportion of vehicles not stopping
declines.
E >55 and <80 >35 and <50 Operations where there is significant delay, extensive queuing,
and poor progression.
F >80 >50 Operations that are unacceptable to most drivers, when the
arrival rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
5.2 Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis
Roadway segment conditions were evaluated by comparing the roadway average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes to the two‐way daily capacity identified in the City of Menifee’s TIA Guidelines. The level of
service (LOS) E two‐way daily capacity for some roadway classification are shown in Table 5‐2 below.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 22
Table 5‐2: Roadway Segment Capacity Thresholds
Street Classification Number
of Lanes
LOS E Two‐Way Daily
Capacity
Urban Arterial 6 56,300
Arterial 4 37,000
Major 4 34,100
Secondary 4 25,900
Collector 2 13,000
Source: City of Menifee TIA Guidelines.
5.3 Acceptable Operating Conditions
City of Menifee has identified LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions for intersections
and roadway segments except at constrained locations in close proximity to I‐215, where LOS E is
acceptable during peak hours. The City of Menifee’s TIA Guidelines requires that the project TIA address
whether or not the required LOS will be achieved after the proposed project is constructed. Intersections
or roadway segments not meeting the required LOS may result in a significant impact. If a project results
in a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures shall be recommended.
As per Caltrans “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies”, Caltrans endeavors to maintain a
target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on state highway facilities.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 23
6 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
This section presents the LOS analysis results for the existing and future conditions for the study area
intersections and roadway segments according to the conditions presented in Sections 3 and 4.
6.1 Existing Conditions
Scott Road between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and Antelope Road is currently under construction as part
of the I‐215 / Scott Road interchange improvement project. The intersection and roadway geometry have
changed since the pre‐construction condition. The current interim geometry condition at intersections
and roadway segments along Scott Road between Haun Road‐Zeiders Road and Antelope Road, was used
for the existing conditions analysis.
Intersection levels of service (LOS) were evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday.
The peak hours with the highest volumes were analyzed between 7:00‐9:00 for AM peak hour and
between 4:00‐6:00 for PM peak hour. The Synchro model was calibrated with signal timing data provided
by the City and Caltrans. The existing intersection conditions analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐1.
The HCM analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
Table 6‐1: Existing Intersection LOS Summary
Study Intersection Control
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd ‐ Bundy Canyon Rd AWS 67.5 F 53.7 F
2 Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd / Scott Rd Signal 48.9 D 33.4 C
3 I‐215 SB Ramps / Scott Rd Signal 37.2 D 41.9 D
4 I‐215 NB Ramps / Scott Rd Signal 28.2 C 33.7 C
5 Antelope Rd / Scott Rd Signal 50.4 D 45.2 D
AWS = All Way Stop Control. Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 6‐1, the study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both AM
and PM peak hours with the exception of Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd ‐ Bundy Canyon Rd intersection which
operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 215
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 24
The existing roadway segment level of service is summarized in Table 6‐2 below.
Table 6‐2: Existing Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Study Segment Classification Capacity ADT V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Bundy Canyon Rd between
Sunset Ave and Murrieta Rd 2U 13,000 14,998 1.154 F
2 Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd
and Haun Rd – Zeiders Rd 2U 13,000 14,792 1.138 F
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd –
Zeiders Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 3D 25,600 22,819 0.891 D
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 3D 25,600 25,270 0.987 E
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps
and Antelope Rd 4D 34,100 34,461 1.011 F
U – Undivided, D – Divided, Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 6‐2, except for Scott Road between Haun Road – Zeiders Road and I‐215 SB Ramps
which operates at an acceptable LOS D, all the roadway segments operate at an unacceptable LOS E or
LOS F.
6.2 Existing With Project Conditions
The intersection and roadway segment conditions were evaluated with the proposed project in this
scenario. This scenario assumes the completion of the I‐215 / Scott Road interchange improvement
project and the Murrieta Road / Scott Road ‐ Bundy Canyon Road intersection improvement project. The
existing with the proposed project intersection conditions are summarized in Table 6‐3. The HCM analysis
worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 216
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 25
Table 6‐3: Existing Without and With Project Intersection LOS Summary
Study Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Without
Project With Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd ‐ Bundy
Canyon Rd
AWS 1/
Signal
AM 67.5 F 14.1 B
PM 53.7 F 12.7 B
2 Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd / Scott Rd Signal AM 48.9 D 48.2 D
PM 33.4 C 32.3 C
3 I‐215 Southbound Ramps / Scott Rd Signal AM 37.2 D 9.7 A
PM 41.9 D 13.5 B
4 I‐215 Northbound Ramps / Scott Rd 2 Signal AM 28.2 C 16.7 B
PM 33.7 C 19.5 B
5 Antelope Rd / Scott Rd Signal AM 50.4 D 37.2 D
PM 45.2 D 30.5 C
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold
1 – Existing intersection control is an all‐way stop.
2 – With project condition was reported in HCM 2000 as HCM 6th Edition does not support Non‐NEMA phasing.
As shown in Table 6‐3, the existing with project condition for all the study intersections operate at an
acceptable LOS D or better during both AM and PM peak hours. It is anticipated that the project will not
attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence, the project will not cause a significance
impact on any of the study intersections.
The existing with the proposed project roadway segment level of service is summarized in Table 6‐4
below.
Table 6‐4: Existing Without and With Project Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Existing Conditions Existing + Project Conditions
Classification
& Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Bundy Canyon Rd between Sunset
Ave and Murrieta Rd 14,998 2U 13,000 1.154 F 4D 34,100 0.440 A
2 Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd and Haun Rd – Zeiders Rd 14,792 2U 13,000 1.138 F 4D 34,100 0.434 A
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd – Zeiders
Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 22,819 3D 25,600 0.891 D 4D 34,100 0.669 B
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 25,270 3D 25,600 0.987 E 4D 34,100 0.741 C
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps
and Antelope Rd 34,461 4D 34,100 1.011 F 4D 34,100 1.011 F
U – Undivided, D – Divided, Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 6‐4, the existing with project condition for all the study roadway segments operate at
an acceptable LOS D or better except for Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road, which
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 26
operates at an unacceptable LOS F. Although the roadway segment operates at an unacceptable LOS, the
intersections on either side of the roadway segment operate at an acceptable LOS. The flow of traffic
along a roadway segment is generally governed by the operating condition of the intersection on either
side of the roadway segment. If the intersections operate at an acceptable condition, then the roadway
segment is anticipated to operate at an acceptable condition.
It is anticipated that the project will not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence, the
project will not cause a significance impact on any of the study intersections or roadway segments.
6.3 Opening Year 2025 Without and With Project Conditions
This section presents the intersection and roadway segment condition for the Opening Year 2025 without
and with the proposed project. It is anticipated that the I‐215 / Scott Road interchange improvement
project and the Murrieta Road / Scott Road ‐ Bundy Canyon Road intersection improvement project will
be completed by year 2025. Hence, the above mentioned improvements were assumed for both the
without and with the project intersection and roadway segment analysis.
The intersection conditions for the Opening Year 2025 without and with the project is presented in
Table 6‐5. The HCM analysis worksheets for without and with the project conditions are provided in
Appendix E.
Table 6‐5: Opening Year 2025 Without and With Project Intersection LOS Summary
Study Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Year 2025 Conditions
Without
Project With Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd ‐ Bundy
Canyon Rd Signal AM 20.4 C 16.9 B
PM 19.5 B 15.5 B
2 Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd / Scott Rd Signal AM >80 F >80 F
PM >80 F >80 F
3 I‐215 Southbound Ramps / Scott Rd Signal AM 12.9 B 12.9 B
PM 17.1 B 17.1 B
4 I‐215 Northbound Ramps / Scott Rd 1 Signal AM 24.8 C 24.8 C
PM 41.1 D 41.1 D
5 Antelope Rd / Scott Rd Signal AM 37.2 D 37.2 D
PM 40.7 D 40.7 D
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold
1 – With project condition was reported in HCM 2000 as HCM 6th Edition does not support Non‐NEMA phasing.
As shown in Table 6‐5, all the study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours for both the without and with the project except for Haun Road‐
Zeiders Road / Scott Road intersection, which operates at LOS F for both the without and with the project
during both AM and PM peak hour.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 27
Table 6‐6 below summarizes the roadway segment level of service for the opening year 2025 without and
with the project.
Table 6‐6: Opening Year 2025 Without and With Project Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Year 2025 Conditions Year 2025 + Project Conditions
Classification
& Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Bundy Canyon Rd between Sunset
Ave and Murrieta Rd 20,479 2U 13,000 1.575 F 4D 34,100 0.601 B
2 Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd and
Haun Rd – Zeiders Rd 24,580 2U 13,000 1.891 F 4D 34,100 0.721 C
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd – Zeiders
Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 50,630 4D 34,100 1.485 F 4D 34,100 1.485 F
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 47,605 4D 34,100 1.396 F 4D 34,100 1.396 F
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps
and Antelope Rd 52,679 4D 34,100 1.545 F 4D 34,100 1.545 F
U – Undivided, D – Divided, Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold
As shown in Table 6‐6, all the study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS F
for the opening year 2025 without project condition. For the opening year 2025 with the project condition,
all the study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better except for the
roadway segments as stated below:
3. Scott Road between Haun Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS F)
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Although Scott Road between I‐215 southbound ramps and Antelope Road operate at an unacceptable
LOS, the intersections on either side of the roadway segment operate at acceptable LOS. The flow of traffic
along a roadway segment is generally governed by the operating condition of the intersection on either
side of the roadway segment. If the intersections operate at an acceptable condition, then the roadway
segment is anticipated to operate at an acceptable condition.
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study intersections and
roadway segments in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient
background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. It is anticipated
that the project will not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence, the project will not
cause a significance impact on any of the study intersections and roadway segments.
6.4 Horizon Year 2040 Conditions
This section presents the intersection and roadway segment analysis for the horizon year 2040 conditions.
No additional changes to the roadway geometry was assumed for the year 2040, from what was assumed
for the year 2025. The intersection conditions for the Horizon Year 2040 without and with the project are
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 28
presented in Table 6‐7. The HCM analysis worksheets for without and with the project conditions are
provided in Appendix F.
Table 6‐7: Horizon Year 2040 Without and With Project Intersection LOS Summary
Study Intersection Control Peak
Hour
Year 2040 Conditions
Without
Project With Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd ‐ Bundy
Canyon Rd Signal AM 26.8 C 20.0 C
PM 29.4 C 20.0 C
2 Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd / Scott Rd Signal AM >80 F >80 F
PM >80 F >80 F
3 I‐215 Southbound Ramps / Scott Rd Signal AM 14.3 B 14.3 B
PM 19.0 B 19.0 B
4 I‐215 Northbound Ramps / Scott Rd 1 Signal AM 24.2 C 24.2 C
PM 42.4 D 42.4 D
5 Antelope Rd / Scott Rd Signal AM 41.2 D 41.2 D
PM 38.6 D 38.6 D
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold
1 – With project condition was reported in HCM 2000 as HCM 6th Edition does not support Non‐NEMA phasing.
As shown in Table 6‐7, the study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours for both the without and with the project except for Haun Road‐
Zeiders Road / Scott Road intersection, which operates at LOS F for both the without and with the project
during both AM and PM peak hour.
Table 6‐8 below summarizes the roadway segment level of service for the Horizon Year 2040 without and
with the proposed project.
Table 6‐8: Horizon Year 2040 Without and With Project Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Year 2040 Conditions Year 2040 + Project Conditions
Classification
& Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS
1 Bundy Canyon Rd between Sunset
Ave and Murrieta Rd 22,510 2U 13,000 1.732 F 4D 34,100 0.660 B
2 Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd and
Haun Rd – Zeiders Rd 26,581 2U 13,000 2.045 F 4D 34,100 0.779 C
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd – Zeiders
Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 53,922 4D 34,100 1.581 F 4D 34,100 1.581 F
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 51,090 4D 34,100 1.498 F 4D 34,100 1.498 F
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps
and Antelope Rd 55,985 4D 34,100 1.642 F 4D 34,100 1.642 F
U – Undivided, D – Divided, Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 29
As shown in Table 6‐8, all the study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS F
for the horizon year 2040 without project condition. For the horizon year 2040 with the project condition,
all the study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better except for the
roadway segments as stated below:
3. Scott Road between Haun Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS F)
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Although Scott Road between I‐215 southbound ramps and Antelope Road operate at an unacceptable
LOS, the intersections on either side of the roadway segment operate at acceptable LOS. The flow of traffic
along a roadway segment is generally governed by the operating condition of the intersection on either
side of the roadway segment. If the intersections operate at an acceptable condition, then the roadway
segment is anticipated to operate at an acceptable condition.
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study intersections and
roadway segments in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient
background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. It is anticipated
that the project will not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence, the project will not
cause a significance impact on any of the study intersections and roadway segments.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 30
7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes the findings of the intersection and roadway segment analysis, project impacts
and recommendations.
7.1 Summary of Intersection Analysis
The study intersection conditions for all the study scenarios for both AM and PM peak hours are
summarized in Table 7‐1 below.
Table 7‐1: Intersection Conditions Summary
Study Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Year 2025
Conditions
Year 2040
Conditions
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Murrieta Rd / Scott Rd
‐ Bundy Canyon Rd
AM F B C B C C
PM F B B B C C
2 Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /
Scott Rd
AM D D F F F F
PM C C F F F F
3 I‐215 Southbound
Ramps / Scott Rd
AM D A B B B B
PM D B B B B B
4 I‐215 Northbound
Ramps / Scott Rd
AM C B C C C C
PM C B D D D D
5 Antelope Rd / Scott Rd AM D D D D D D
PM D C D D D D
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
The following intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS in the following analysis
scenarios:
Existing Conditions
1. Murrieta Rd/Scott Rd ‐ Bundy Canyon Road (LOS F – AM and PM peak hour)
Opening Year 2025 Without and With Project Conditions
2. Haun Road‐Zeiders Road/Scott Road (LOS F – AM and PM peak hour)
Horizon Year 2040 Without and With Project Conditions
2. Haun Road‐Zeiders Road/Scott Road (LOS F – AM and PM peak hour)
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating condition at Haun Road‐Zeiders Road/Scott Road
intersection in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient
background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. It is anticipated
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 31
that the project will not attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence the project will not
cause a significance impact on any of the study intersections.
7.2 Summary of Roadway Segment Analysis
The study roadway segment conditions for all the study scenarios are summarized in Table 7‐2 below.
Table 7‐2: Roadway Segment Conditions Summary
Segment
Existing
Conditions
Year 2025
Conditions
Year 2040
Conditions
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Bundy Canyon Rd between Sunset Ave
and Murrieta Rd F A F B F B
2 Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd and Haun
Rd – Zeiders Rd F A F C F C
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd – Zeiders Rd
and I‐215 SB Ramps D B F F F F
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps E C F F F F
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps and
Antelope Rd F F F F F F
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
The following roadway segments are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS in the following analysis
scenarios:
Existing Conditions
1. Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Murrieta Road (LOS F)
2. Scott Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road‐Zeiders Road (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS E)
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Existing With Project Conditions
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Opening Year 2025 Without Project Conditions
1. Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Murrieta Road (LOS F)
2. Scott Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road (LOS F)
3. Scott Road between Haun Road and I‐215 SB Ramps (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS F)
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Opening Year 2025 With Project Conditions
3. Scott Road between Haun Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS F)
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 223
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 32
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Horizon Year 2040 Without Project Conditions
1. Bundy Canyon Road between Sunset Avenue and Murrieta Road (LOS F)
2. Scott Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road (LOS F)
3. Scott Road between Haun Road and I‐215 SB Ramps (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS F)
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Horizon Year 2040 With Project Conditions
3. Scott Road between Haun Road and I‐215 SB Ramps (LOS F)
4. Scott Road between I‐215 SB Ramps and I‐215 NB Ramps (LOS F)
5. Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road (LOS F)
Although, the roadway segments operate at an unacceptable LOS, the intersections on either side of the
roadway segment, except for Haun Road‐Zeiders Road / Scott Road intersection, operate at an acceptable
LOS. The flow of traffic along a roadway segment is generally governed by the operating condition of the
intersection on either side of the roadway segment. If the intersections operate at an acceptable
condition, then the roadway segment is anticipated to operate at an acceptable condition.
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study roadway segments in
the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient background growth and
due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. It is anticipated that the project will not
attract more traffic due to the roadway widening and hence the project will not cause a significance
impact on any of the study roadway segments.
7.3 Intersection Improvement Recommendations
This section provides recommendation to improve the intersection condition at Haun Road‐Zeiders Road
/ Scott Road for the future year. As described in the previous sections, the unacceptable operating
conditions of Haun Road‐Zeiders Road / Scott Road intersection in the future scenarios are due to the
growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the
future development projects. As the future development projects are build, it is anticipated that those
projects will contribute towards the cost of the roadway improvements.
Following are the recommended improvements in the opening year 2025:
Northbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane and 1‐Through lane. Change
the right turn phasing to an overlap phasing.
Southbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane, 1‐Through lane and 1‐Right
Turn lane with overlap phasing.
Eastbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane and 1‐Through lane.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 33
Westbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Right Turn lane. Change the right turn phasing
to an overlap phasing.
Recommendation and intersection condition for the opening year 2025 are summarized in Table 7‐3. The
HCM analysis worksheets with the improvements are provided in Appendix G.
Table 7‐3: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary
Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /
Scott Rd
Intersection Approach Lanes
AM PM Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS
Without Improvements 1 1 1 1 <1> ‐ 1 1+1> 1 2 1 >80 F >80 F
With Improvements 2 2 1‐o 2 2 1‐o 2 2+1> 1 2 2‐o 50.7 D 54.3 D
<1> ‐ Left/Through/Right shared lane; 1> ‐ Through/Right shared lane; o – Right Turn Overlap; Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 7‐3, with the recommended improvements at the intersection of Haun Road‐Zeiders
Road/Scott Road in the opening year 2025, the intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D
during both the AM and PM peak hour.
In the horizon year 2040, following are the recommended improvements in addition to the
recommendations made for the year 2025:
Eastbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Right Turn lane. Change the right turn phasing
to an overlap phasing.
Westbound Approach: Widen the roadway to add 1‐Left Turn lane and 1‐Through lane.
Recommendation and intersection condition for the horizon year 2040 are summarized in Table 7‐4. The
HCM analysis worksheets with the improvements are provided in Appendix G.
Table 7‐4: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Intersection LOS Summary
Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /
Scott Rd
Intersection Approach Lanes
AM PM Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay LOS Delay LOS
Without Improvements 1 1 1 1 <1> ‐ 1 1+1> 1 2 1 >80 F >80 F
With Improvements 2 2 1‐o 2 2 1‐o 2 3 1‐o 2 3 2‐o 34.9 C 49.8 D
<1> ‐ Left/Through/Right shared lane; 1> ‐ Through/Right shared lane; o – Right Turn Overlap; Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 7‐4, with the recommended improvements at the intersection of Haun Road‐Zeiders
Road/Scott Road in the horizon year 2040, the intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D
or better during both the AM and PM peak hour.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 34
7.4 Roadway Segment Improvement Recommendations
This section provides recommendations for improvements of the roadway segments that are operating
at unacceptable conditions. It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the
study roadway segments in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the
ambient background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. As the
future development projects are build, it is anticipated that those projects will contribute towards the
cost of the roadway improvements.
It is recommended that Scott Road between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Road be widened to its
ultimate General Plan classification as a 6‐lane Urban Arterial in the current condition. Following Table 7‐
5 summarizes the results of the roadway condition without and with the recommended roadway
improvements. As shown in Table 7‐5, the roadway segment is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS with
the recommended improvement.
Table 7‐5: Existing With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Existing Conditions
Without
Project
With
Project With Improvements
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB
Ramps and Antelope Rd 34,461 1.011 F 1.011 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.612 B
Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
For the opening year 2025 and horizon year 2040, it is recommended that Scott Road between Haun Road
– Zeiders Road and Antelope Road be widened to its ultimate general plan classification as a 6‐lane Urban
Arterial. The results of the roadway condition without and with the recommended roadway
improvements are summarized in Table 7‐6 for the opening year 2025 and in Table 7‐7 for the horizon
year 2040.
Table 7‐6: Opening Year 2025 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Year 2025 Conditions
Without
Project With Project With Improvements
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS 1
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd –
Zeiders Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 50,630 1.485 F 1.485 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.899 D
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 47,605 1.396 F 1.396 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.846 D
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB
Ramps and Antelope Rd 52,679 1.545 F 1.545 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.936 E
1 Per the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, LOS E is acceptable on roadway segments in close proximity to I‐215. Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 35
As shown in Table 7‐6, the roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS with the
recommended improvements in the opening year 2025.
Table 7‐7: Horizon Year 2040 With Improvements Roadway Segment LOS Summary
Segment ADT
Year 2040 Conditions
Without
Project With Project With Improvements
V/C
Ratio LOS V/C
Ratio LOS Classification &
Capacity
V/C
Ratio LOS 1
3 Scott Rd between Haun Rd –
Zeiders Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps 53,922 1.581 F 1.581 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.958 E
4 Scott Rd between I‐215 SB Ramps
and I‐215 NB Ramps 51,090 1.498 F 1.498 F 6‐Lane Urban
Arterial 56,300 0.907 E
5 Scott Rd between I‐215 NB Ramps and Antelope Rd 55,985 1.642 F 1.642 F 6‐Lane Urban Arterial 56,300 0.994 E
1 Per the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, LOS E is acceptable on roadway segments in close proximity to I‐215. Unacceptable LOS indicated in Bold.
As shown in Table 7‐7, the roadway segments, that are in close proximity to the I‐215 freeway, are forecast
to operate at acceptable LOS with the recommended improvements in the horizon year 2040. Scott Road
between the I‐215 southbound and northbound ramps continue to operate at unacceptable LOS with the
recommended improvements. Although Scott Road between the I‐215 southbound and northbound
ramps operate at unacceptable LOS, the intersections on either side of the roadway segment are forecast
to operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hour condition. The flow of traffic along a roadway segment
is generally governed by the operating condition of the intersection on either side of the roadway
segment. If the intersections operate at an acceptable condition, then the roadway segment is anticipated
to operate at an acceptable condition. The worst roadway condition, within a day, occurs during the peak
period and, analysis of the roadway condition for the peak hour is more representative of the worst
roadway condition than as indicated by the daily roadway condition. Hence, the roadway segment analysis
may not reflect the worst condition within a typical weekday, although it may show an unacceptable LOS.
The City of Murrieta is proposing to construct a new I‐215 interchange at Keller Road, which is
approximately one mile south of Scott Road. The City of Menifee is proposing to construct an overpass on
Holland Road across the I‐215 freeway, which is anticipated to be completed by year 2023. With the Keller
Road interchange and Holland Road overpass constructed, it is anticipated that some traffic using Scott
Road would divert to Keller Road and Holland Road, resulting in improving the roadway condition along
Scott Road.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 227
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020 36
8 CONCLUSION
The widening of Scott Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road‐Zeiders Road from 2‐lane roadway
to a 5 – lane roadway (2 travel lanes in either direction and a center two‐way‐left‐turn lane) would
improve the roadway condition. It is anticipated that the project will not attract more traffic with the
roadway widening and hence the project will not cause significance impact on any of the study area
intersections and roadway segments.
It should be noted that the unacceptable operating conditions of some of the study intersections and
roadway segments in the future scenarios are due to the growth in traffic, resulting from the ambient
background growth and due to the cumulative effect of the future development projects. As the future
development projects are build, it is anticipated that those projects will contribute towards the cost of
the roadway improvements.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020
Appendix A: Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
This letter acknowledges the City Menifee Engineering Department requirements for the
traffic impact analysis of the following project. The analysis must follow the latest City Traffic Impact
Analysis Guidelines dated January 2019
Case No.
Related Cases -
SP No.
EIR No.
GPA No.
CZ No.
Project Name:
Project Location:
Project Description:
Name:
Address:
Consultant Developer
Telephone:
A.Trip Generation Source:ITE Trip Generation Manual, most recent edition
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Total Daily Trips
AM
Trips
In Out Total
PM
Trips
Internal Trip
Allowance
Yes No ( % Trip Discount)
Pass-By Trip Allowance Yes No ( % Trip Discount)
(Attach additional sheet if this is a multi-use site with a breakdown of trips generated)
B.Trip Geographic Distribution:N % S % E % W %
(See attached exhibit for detailed assignment)
C.Background Traffic
Project Completion Year:
Other area projects to be included:
Annual Ambient Growth Rate: %
12
Scott Road Widening Project
Menifee, CA
The project proposes to widen Scott Road between Sunset Avenue and Haun Road to
5 lanes (two lanes in either direction and one two-way left turn lane)
STC Traffic5865 Avenida Encinas 142 B, Carlsbad, CA 92008760-602-4290
City of Menifee
NA NA
2025 2
City to provide approved and pending projects
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Please contact the Engineering Department or use the most recently provided data
Model/Forecast methodology if required
D.Horizon Year Analysis: Does this project require a Horizon
Year Analysis?Yes No
E.Study intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution
are determined, or comments from other agencies.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
F.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Yes No
I.Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in
the Guideline) (To be filled out by Engineering Department)
Recommended by:
Consultant’s Representative Date
Scoping Agreement Submitted on Date
Scoping Agreement Resubmitted on Date
Approved Scoping Agreement:
City of Menifee Date
Engineering Department
cc: Community Services Department 13
x
Murrieta Rd/Scott Rd
Haun Rd‐Zeiders Rd /Scott Rd
I‐215 SB Ramps/Scott Rd
I‐215 NB Ramps/Scott Rd
Antelope Rd/Scott Rd
Study Roadway Segments:
Scott Rd between Sunset Ave and Murrieta Rd Scott Rd between Murrieta Rd and Haun Rd
Scott Rd between Haun Rd and I‐215 SB Ramps
Scott Rd between I-215 SB and I‐215 NB Ramps
Scott Rd between I-215 NB Ramp and Antelope Rd
G.Other Jurisdictional Impacts
Is this project within any other Agency’s Sphere of Influence or one-mile radius of boundaries?
If so, name of Jurisdiction:
H.Site Plan (please attach a legible 11’X17’ copy)
Rob Blough, City Traffic Engineer 1-22-20
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
STUDY SCENARIOS
1. Existing Conditions
2. Existing + Project Conditions
3. Opening Year (2025) Cumulative Without Project Conditions
4. Opening Year (2025) Cumulative With Project Conditions
5. Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions
EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
Currently the I–215 interchange at Scott Road is under construction and geometries have changed from
what was before the construction. For the Existing Conditions, the current interim geometries will be used
for the analysis.
HORIZON YEAR (2040) VOLUME FORECAST
To derive the Horizon Year (2040) forecast volumes, an annual growth rate of 1% will be applied to the
year 2025 volumes. A total of 15% will be applied to the year 2025 volumes to derive the Horizon year
2040 volumes. Peak hour intersection and daily roadway segment volumes will be derived using the same
methodology.
VMT ANALYSIS
STC will consult with the City of Menifee to determine the method to conduct VMT analysis. The method
will be compliant with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) guidelines. A comparison
of the project VMT will be made with the established VMT threshold. Project impacts will be identified,
and mitigation measure will be recommended.
Note: WRCOG is still in the process of developing a VMT analysis methodology. The City of Menifee have
not adopted or specify any VMT analysis method.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020
Appendix B: Intersection Turning Movement and Roadway Segment
Daily Traffic Count Data
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Day:City:Menifee
Date:Project #:CA20_6010_001
NB SB EB WB
00 7,454 7,544
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
0:00 12 13 25 109 119 228
0:15 11 11 22 99 109 208
0:30 8 11 19 89 99 188
0:45 8 39 2 37 10 76 100 397 112 439 212 836
1:00 6 7 13 84 99 183
1:15 3 9 12 131 110 241
1:30 4 9 13 109 91 200
1:45 3 16 5 30 8 46 132 456 139 439 271 895
2:00 4 7 11 147 108 255
2:15 4 4 8 150 130 280
2:30 3 8 11 151 147 298
2:45 4 15 9 28 13 43 176 624 131 516 307 1140
3:00 7 15 22 156 171 327
3:15 10 9 19 148 142 290
3:30 11 15 26 160 142 302
3:45 8 36 20 59 28 95 169 633 166 621 335 1254
4:00 17 38 55 162 160 322
4:15 13 35 48 153 137 290
4:30 25 27 52 157 149 306
4:45 27 82 33 133 60 215 149 621 131 577 280 1198
5:00 25 39 64 156 145 301
5:15 33 34 67 155 131 286
5:30 51 58 109 154 134 288
5:45 53 162 63 194 116 356 146 611 109 519 255 1130
6:00 57 60 117 114 135 249
6:15 95 78 173 134 111 245
6:30 105 69 174 133 113 246
6:45 127 384 107 314 234 698 91 472 98 457 189 929
7:00 147 129 276 92 88 180
7:15 133 145 278 80 77 157
7:30 153 163 316 64 86 150
7:45 129 562 147 584 276 1146 60 296 58 309 118 605
8:00 123 163 286 81 61 142
8:15 142 159 301 62 68 130
8:30 100 131 231 51 70 121
8:45 113 478 122 575 235 1053 54 248 50 249 104 497
9:00 111 73 184 27 49 76
9:15 98 76 174 40 54 94
9:30 83 87 170 27 44 71
9:45 90 382 75 311 165 693 39 133 38 185 77 318
10:00 97 90 187 32 36 68
10:15 64 97 161 20 35 55
10:30 80 83 163 30 23 53
10:45 83 324 97 367 180 691 35 117 26 120 61 237
11:00 78 95 173 13 26 39
11:15 80 106 186 11 13 24
11:30 70 93 163 10 21 31
11:45 88 316 105 399 193 715 16 50 22 82 38 132
TOTALS 2796 3031 5827 4658 4513 9171
SPLIT %48.0% 52.0%38.9%50.8% 49.2%61.1%
NB SB EB WB
00 7,454 7,544
AM Peak Hour 7:00 7:30 7:30 15:30 15:00 15:00
AM Pk Volume 562 632 1179 644 621 1254
Pk Hr Factor 0.918 0.969 0.933 0.953 0.908 0.936
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001040 1159 2199 001232 1096 2328
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 7:00 7:30 7:30 16:00 16:00 16:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 562 632 1179 0 0 621 577 1198
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.918 0.969 0.933 0.000 0.000 0.958 0.902 0.930
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
14,998
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
Scott Rd/Bundy Canyon Rd Bet. Sunset Ave & Murrieta Rd
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
14,998
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
1/23/2020
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Day:City:Menifee
Date:Project #:CA20_6010_002
NB SB EB WB
00 7,534 7,258
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
0:00 6 13 19 121 114 235
0:15 10 12 22 105 120 225
0:30 9 10 19 108 100 208
0:45 7 32 3 38 10 70 87 421 108 442 195 863
1:00 4 7 11 81 101 182
1:15 6 9 15 111 111 222
1:30 4 8 12 112 92 204
1:45 2 16 5 29 7 45 122 426 134 438 256 864
2:00 4 6 10 135 103 238
2:15 10 5 15 125 134 259
2:30 2 8 10 130 143 273
2:45 4 20 8 27 12 47 139 529 135 515 274 1044
3:00 6 13 19 143 161 304
3:15 16 11 27 155 141 296
3:30 17 15 32 133 145 278
3:45 22 61 21 60 43 121 136 567 166 613 302 1180
4:00 23 34 57 112 157 269
4:15 25 39 64 119 129 248
4:30 44 26 70 135 147 282
4:45 37 129 33 132 70 261 128 494 137 570 265 1064
5:00 40 36 76 118 160 278
5:15 49 37 86 139 134 273
5:30 61 53 114 124 165 289
5:45 63 213 63 189 126 402 119 500 115 574 234 1074
6:00 73 64 137 129 133 262
6:15 129 75 204 138 113 251
6:30 118 72 190 118 101 219
6:45 143 463 105 316 248 779 91 476 107 454 198 930
7:00 162 100 262 90 84 174
7:15 150 99 249 61 83 144
7:30 162 121 283 77 83 160
7:45 181 655 104 424 285 1079 50 278 61 311 111 589
8:00 135 127 262 72 55 127
8:15 135 103 238 55 73 128
8:30 149 100 249 49 69 118
8:45 129 548 93 423 222 971 49 225 52 249 101 474
9:00 117 73 190 24 49 73
9:15 128 80 208 33 53 86
9:30 107 83 190 27 45 72
9:45 107 459 78 314 185 773 31 115 38 185 69 300
10:00 112 90 202 30 36 66
10:15 70 94 164 21 34 55
10:30 100 87 187 26 23 49
10:45 99 381 95 366 194 747 31 108 25 118 56 226
11:00 81 94 175 15 26 41
11:15 101 105 206 10 14 24
11:30 95 89 184 13 19 32
11:45 93 370 101 389 194 759 10 48 23 82 33 130
TOTALS 3347 2707 6054 4187 4551 8738
SPLIT %55.3% 44.7%40.9%47.9% 52.1%59.1%
NB SB EB WB
00 7,534 7,258
AM Peak Hour 7:00 7:30 7:00 14:45 15:00 15:00
AM Pk Volume 655 455 1079 570 613 1180
Pk Hr Factor 0.905 0.896 0.946 0.919 0.923 0.970
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001203 847 2050 00994 1144 2138
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 7:00 7:30 7:00 16:30 16:45 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 655 455 1079 0 0 520 596 1105
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.905 0.896 0.946 0.000 0.000 0.935 0.903 0.956
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
14,792
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
Scott Rd Bet. Murrieta Rd & Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
14,792
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
1/23/2020
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Day:City:Menifee
Date:Project #:CA20_6010_003
NB SB EB WB
00 11,449 11,370
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
0:00 9 23 32 142 168 310
0:15 10 13 23 150 165 315
0:30 4 18 22 174 155 329
0:45 9 32 9 63 18 95 146 612 164 652 310 1264
1:00 10 11 21 170 167 337
1:15 6 6 12 172 183 355
1:30 9 8 17 149 173 322
1:45 11 36 4 29 15 65 208 699 198 721 406 1420
2:00 3 4 7 200 204 404
2:15 15 6 21 204 168 372
2:30 15 4 19 236 246 482
2:45 6 39 14 28 20 67 206 846 224 842 430 1688
3:00 11 9 20 180 257 437
3:15 17 12 29 241 229 470
3:30 15 24 39 249 223 472
3:45 16 59 30 75 46 134 216 886 231 940 447 1826
4:00 37 26 63 181 259 440
4:15 47 30 77 202 233 435
4:30 67 34 101 248 231 479
4:45 83 234 39 129 122 363 209 840 239 962 448 1802
5:00 64 51 115 193 222 415
5:15 87 47 134 200 234 434
5:30 83 54 137 202 218 420
5:45 80 314 56 208 136 522 176 771 223 897 399 1668
6:00 91 62 153 193 226 419
6:15 137 104 241 147 160 307
6:30 173 124 297 122 171 293
6:45 244 645 170 460 414 1105 100 562 176 733 276 1295
7:00 237 228 465 83 153 236
7:15 272 254 526 108 158 266
7:30 283 197 480 79 115 194
7:45 267 1059 146 825 413 1884 77 347 120 546 197 893
8:00 251 155 406 37 111 148
8:15 207 145 352 54 111 165
8:30 231 144 375 54 86 140
8:45 187 876 152 596 339 1472 63 208 96 404 159 612
9:00 179 113 292 43 93 136
9:15 207 126 333 42 68 110
9:30 181 128 309 28 72 100
9:45 185 752 126 493 311 1245 21 134 64 297 85 431
10:00 178 131 309 24 52 76
10:15 140 124 264 23 37 60
10:30 157 149 306 32 47 79
10:45 184 659 146 550 330 1209 11 90 27 163 38 253
11:00 178 156 334 8 27 35
11:15 188 158 346 10 35 45
11:30 149 153 302 15 20 35
11:45 185 700 185 652 370 1352 16 49 23 105 39 154
TOTALS 5405 4108 9513 6044 7262 13306
SPLIT %56.8% 43.2%41.7%45.4% 54.6%58.3%
NB SB EB WB
00 11,449 11,370
AM Peak Hour 7:15 6:45 6:45 15:15 16:00 15:15
AM Pk Volume 1073 849 1885 887 962 1829
Pk Hr Factor 0.948 0.836 0.896 0.891 0.929 0.969
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001935 1421 3356 001611 1859 3470
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 7:15 7:00 7:00 16:15 16:00 16:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 1073 825 1884 0 0 852 962 1802
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.948 0.812 0.895 0.000 0.000 0.859 0.929 0.941
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
22,819
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
Scott Rd Bet. Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd & I‐215 SB Ramps
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
22,819
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
1/23/2020
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Day:City:Menifee
Date:Project #:CA20_6012_005
NB SB EB WB
00 11,973 13,297
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
0:00 22 16 38 201 207 408
0:15 15 20 35 187 169 356
0:30 18 11 29 152 191 343
0:45 9 64 13 60 22 124 190 730 162 729 352 1459
1:00 8 4 12 165 172 337
1:15 16 7 23 180 172 352
1:30 6 3 9 192 191 383
1:45 11 41 6 20 17 61 215 752 183 718 398 1470
2:00 7 5 12 210 226 436
2:15 7 7 14 218 256 474
2:30 10 4 14 236 261 497
2:45 9 33 8 24 17 57 255 919 230 973 485 1892
3:00 13 10 23 257 252 509
3:15 13 19 32 236 292 528
3:30 16 22 38 248 292 540
3:45 22 64 29 80 51 144 252 993 282 1118 534 2111
4:00 37 41 78 248 285 533
4:15 35 38 73 226 252 478
4:30 23 73 96 229 288 517
4:45 39 134 69 221 108 355 235 938 260 1085 495 2023
5:00 40 75 115 229 284 513
5:15 41 74 115 236 261 497
5:30 68 89 157 226 279 505
5:45 64 213 89 327 153 540 214 905 227 1051 441 1956
6:00 79 98 177 232 227 459
6:15 101 191 292 185 211 396
6:30 112 179 291 174 175 349
6:45 165 457 215 683 380 1140 177 768 154 767 331 1535
7:00 206 288 494 131 125 256
7:15 203 326 529 144 104 248
7:30 150 291 441 144 104 248
7:45 198 757 245 1150 443 1907 134 553 95 428 229 981
8:00 202 225 427 130 92 222
8:15 187 194 381 137 89 226
8:30 195 229 424 114 79 193
8:45 167 751 221 869 388 1620 92 473 74 334 166 807
9:00 122 216 338 86 46 132
9:15 121 208 329 73 55 128
9:30 116 197 313 74 44 118
9:45 123 482 182 803 305 1285 60 293 47 192 107 485
10:00 189 172 361 56 37 93
10:15 132 204 336 46 36 82
10:30 163 169 332 42 42 84
10:45 173 657 164 709 337 1366 41 185 37 152 78 337
11:00 156 183 339 39 26 65
11:15 154 176 330 21 22 43
11:30 180 172 352 40 17 57
11:45 189 679 176 707 365 1386 32 132 32 97 64 229
TOTALS 4332 5653 9985 7641 7644 15285
SPLIT %43.4% 56.6%39.5%50.0% 50.0%60.5%
NB SB EB WB
00 11,973 13,297
AM Peak Hour 7:45 7:00 7:00 14:45 15:15 15:15
AM Pk Volume 782 1150 1907 996 1151 2135
Pk Hr Factor 0.968 0.882 0.901 0.969 0.985 0.988
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001508 2019 3527 001843 2136 3979
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 7:45 7:00 7:00 16:00 16:30 16:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 782 1150 1907 0 0 938 1093 2023
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.968 0.882 0.901 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.949 0.949
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
1/23/2020
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Scott Rd Bet. I‐215 NB Ramps & SB Ramps
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
25,270
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
25,270
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Day:City:Menifee
Date:Project #:CA20_6012_004
NB SB EB WB
00 17,227 17,234
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
0:00 33 28 61 297 271 568
0:15 35 19 54 253 298 551
0:30 30 18 48 280 253 533
0:45 21 119 9 74 30 193 240 1070 299 1121 539 2191
1:00 16 11 27 235 206 441
1:15 25 8 33 248 238 486
1:30 21 20 41 229 250 479
1:45 19 81 18 57 37 138 265 977 254 948 519 1925
2:00 12 17 29 284 245 529
2:15 14 9 23 331 292 623
2:30 10 17 27 307 290 597
2:45 10 46 27 70 37 116 288 1210 301 1128 589 2338
3:00 14 25 39 321 320 641
3:15 20 40 60 295 289 584
3:30 10 37 47 324 316 640
3:45 27 71 59 161 86 232 309 1249 284 1209 593 2458
4:00 18 89 107 325 319 644
4:15 22 103 125 285 318 603
4:30 35 114 149 277 278 555
4:45 46 121 162 468 208 589 300 1187 293 1208 593 2395
5:00 59 152 211 327 291 618
5:15 84 142 226 268 320 588
5:30 92 201 293 294 279 573
5:45 122 357 190 685 312 1042 297 1186 238 1128 535 2314
6:00 140 180 320 356 240 596
6:15 159 229 388 325 192 517
6:30 206 259 465 275 187 462
6:45 216 721 311 979 527 1700 277 1233 190 809 467 2042
7:00 222 327 549 240 165 405
7:15 250 347 597 222 148 370
7:30 221 311 532 198 130 328
7:45 260 953 252 1237 512 2190 225 885 118 561 343 1446
8:00 246 271 517 213 116 329
8:15 231 257 488 165 119 284
8:30 254 287 541 154 124 278
8:45 237 968 246 1061 483 2029 173 705 114 473 287 1178
9:00 265 238 503 159 96 255
9:15 241 255 496 144 100 244
9:30 262 236 498 118 78 196
9:45 236 1004 259 988 495 1992 120 541 59 333 179 874
10:00 246 301 547 97 54 151
10:15 275 244 519 77 64 141
10:30 249 268 517 98 53 151
10:45 264 1034 257 1070 521 2104 52 324 45 216 97 540
11:00 249 293 542 64 47 111
11:15 244 254 498 54 21 75
11:30 234 283 517 49 34 83
11:45 237 964 286 1116 523 2080 54 221 32 134 86 355
TOTALS 6439 7966 14405 10788 9268 20056
SPLIT %44.7% 55.3%41.8%53.8% 46.2%58.2%
NB SB EB WB
00 17,227 17,234
AM Peak Hour 11:45 6:45 6:45 17:30 15:30 15:30
AM Pk Volume 1067 1296 2205 1272 1237 2480
Pk Hr Factor 0.898 0.934 0.923 0.893 0.969 0.963
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001921 2298 4219 002373 2336 4709
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 7:45 7:00 7:00 16:15 16:00 16:00
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 991 1237 2190 0 0 1189 1208 2395
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.953 0.891 0.917 0.000 0.000 0.909 0.947 0.930
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
34,461
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
Scott Rd Bet. Antelope Rd & I‐215 NB Ramps
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
34,461
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
1/23/2020
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location:Murrieta Rd & Scott RdCity:Menifee Project ID:20-06011-001Control:3-Way Stop(SB/EB/WB)Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0000010001000100NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM 00006204604694000882603627:15 AM 00005206605681000743503647:30 AM 000054078041100000873203927:45 AM 000056078037103000782703798:00 AM 00004608403882000872603638:15 AM 00003906403995000852203448:30 AM 00004906403078000772603248:45 AM 0000320340327900072220271
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :00003900514031971200064821602799
APPROACH %'s :43.14% 0.00% 56.86% 0.00% 30.94% 69.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR :07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:30 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :00002080306017236600032612001498
PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.929 0.000 0.911 0.000 0.768 0.888 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.937 0.857 0.000
Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0000010001000100NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 000024049067850001182603694:15 PM 0000300310561010001133903704:30 PM 0000330450451030001084103754:45 PM 0000350320609300094360350
5:00 PM 000030036060920001063503595:15 PM 000025039055104000905803715:30 PM 00002802305495000954703425:45 PM 0000380290628700073320321
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :00002430284045976000079731402857APPROACH %'s :46.11% 0.00% 53.89% 0.00% 37.65% 62.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 71.74% 28.26% 0.00%
PEAK HR :04:00 PM 289 289 296 04:30 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :00001220157022838200043314201464PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.871 0.000 0.801 0.000 0.851 0.927 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.866 0.000
0.955
Total
0.9760.971
WESTBOUND
0.946
SOUTHBOUND
0.894
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
SOUTHBOUNDPM
AM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND
1/23/2020
Scott Rd
NORTHBOUND
Scott Rd
0.937
WESTBOUND
Murrieta Rd Murrieta Rd
0.959 0.954
EASTBOUND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:20-06011-001 Day:
City:Menifee Date:
AM 306 0 208 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 157 0 122 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0100 0 142 0 120
1 433 0 326
000 00000
172 0 228 0 TEV 1498 0 1464 0 000
366 0 382 1 PHF 0.96 0.98
000 0 0000
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0000AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
0
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Murrieta Rd & Scott Rd
Thursday
01/23/2020
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
574
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
292
370
0
3-Way Stop(SB/EB/WB)
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Murrieta Rd
0
0
Murrieta Rd
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
504
0
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
632 0 590
NOONAM PM
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
326
120
0
366
172
30
6
0 20
8
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
433
142
0
382
228
15
7
0 12
2
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM PM
NO
O
N
AM PMNO
O
N
PM AM
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd & Scott RdCity:Menifee Project ID:20-06011-002
Control:Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
11101.30.30.3011001110NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM 10 46 7 0 102 24 8 0 20 145 15 0 13 79 140 2 6117:15 AM 17 76 8 0 136 39 10 0 17 114 25 0 9 72 180 0 7037:30 AM 20 54 5 0 134 35 17 0 13 139 18 0 9 83 93 1 6217:45 AM 13 25 8 0 128 51 7 0 6 137 32 0 12 86 62 1 5688:00 AM 9 10 4 0 115 38 13 0 11 114 18 0 8 105 48 0 4938:15 AM 15 19 8 0 81 14 11 0 16 103 16 0 13 59 55 0 4108:30 AM 7 14 6 0 123 15 11 0 11 107 12 0 12 81 65 0 4648:45 AM 10 14 12 0 79 16 1 0 15 95 21 0 10 77 72 0 422
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES :101 258 58 0 898 232 78 0 109 954 157 0 86 642 715 4 4292
APPROACH %'s :24.22% 61.87% 13.91% 0.00% 74.34% 19.21% 6.46% 0.00% 8.93% 78.20% 12.87% 0.00% 5.94% 44.37% 49.41% 0.28%
PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 37 44 07:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :60 201 28 0 500 149 42 0 56 535 90 0 43 320 475 4 2503
PEAK HR FACTOR :0.750 0.661 0.875 0.000 0.919 0.730 0.618 0.000 0.700 0.922 0.703 0.000 0.827 0.930 0.660 0.500
Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
11101.30.30.3011001110NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 31 49 16 0 88 17 9 0 8 91 13 0 8 120 127 1 5784:15 PM 21 54 11 0 86 33 15 0 8 98 4 0 10 99 108 0 5474:30 PM 31 53 10 0 94 26 14 0 7 117 15 0 6 113 121 0 607
4:45 PM 33 70 8 0 85 18 7 0 13 114 10 0 13 100 126 0 5975:00 PM 27 61 11 0 106 19 18 0 14 87 11 0 8 109 118 3 5925:15 PM 13 47 6 0 104 20 8 0 13 124 14 0 10 128 113 0 6005:30 PM 22 44 3 0 67 20 17 0 7 96 12 0 7 117 124 2 5385:45 PM 10 36 5 0 102 15 11 0 11 90 12 0 10 98 95 1 496
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :188 414 70 0 732 168 99 0 81 817 91 0 72 884 932 7 4555APPROACH %'s :27.98% 61.61% 10.42% 0.00% 73.27% 16.82% 9.91% 0.00%8.19% 82.61% 9.20% 0.00%3.80% 46.65% 49.18% 0.37%
PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 04:30 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :104 231 35 0 389 83 47 0 47 442 50 0 37 450 478 3 2396PEAK HR FACTOR :0.788 0.825 0.795 0.000 0.917 0.798 0.653 0.000 0.839 0.891 0.833 0.000 0.712 0.879 0.948 0.250
0.890
Total
0.9870.892
WESTBOUND
0.964
SOUTHBOUND
0.833 0.907
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
SOUTHBOUNDPM
AM
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
NORTHBOUND
0.715
EASTBOUND
1/23/2020
Scott Rd
NORTHBOUND
Scott Rd
0.807
WESTBOUND
Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd
0.929 0.946
EASTBOUND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:20-06011-002 Day:
City:Menifee Date:
AM 42 149 500 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 47 83 389 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0.3 0.3 1.3 0 1 478 0 475
1 450 0 320
000 0137043
56047 1 TEV 2503 0 2396 0 304
535 0 442 1 PHF 0.89 0.99
90050 0 0111
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 104 231 35 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 60 201 28 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
170
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd & Scott Rd
Thursday
01/23/2020
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
1067
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
732
756
0
Signalized
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd
282
0
Haun Rd/Zeiders Rd
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
869
0
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
422 0 601
NOONAM PM
0
0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
43
320
475
90
535
56
42 14
9
50
0
60 20
1
28
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
37
450
478
50
442
47
47 83 38
9
10
4
23
1
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM PM
NO
O
N
AM PMNO
O
N
PM AM
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:I-215 SB Ramps & Scott RdCity:Menifee Project ID:20-06013-003
Control:Signlized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
00000.50.51001101100NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM 000070041001301280105193006677:15 AM 000068027001261430113228107067:30 AM 000040026011211470121152006087:45 AM 000065127001401220117138006108:00 AM 00007212701115117097134005648:15 AM 00008312700111105076108005118:30 AM 000079123011121130101126005568:45 AM 00008922500969608713100526
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES :000056662230395197108171210 1 0 4748
APPROACH %'s :71.19% 0.75% 28.05% 0.00% 0.16% 49.40% 50.44% 0.00% 40.29% 59.66% 0.05% 0.00%
PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 37 44 07:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :00002431121015175400456711102591
PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.868 0.250 0.738 0.000 0.250 0.923 0.918 0.000 0.942 0.780 0.250 0.000
Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
00000.50.51001101100NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 0000940340015076073215006424:15 PM 0000990400012770060194005904:30 PM 000089235001359007920500635
4:45 PM 0000882280014181049206005955:00 PM 00001083530013575090194006585:15 PM 0000921460013683077187006225:30 PM 0000980470012563078204006155:45 PM 000090136001307105616500549
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :00007589319001079 609 0 562 1570 0 0 4906APPROACH %'s :69.80% 0.83% 29.37% 0.00% 0.00% 63.92% 36.08% 0.00% 26.36% 73.64% 0.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 05:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :00003778162005473290295792002510PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.873 0.667 0.764 0.000 0.000 0.970 0.914 0.000 0.819 0.961 0.000 0.000
0.917
Total
0.9540.973
WESTBOUND
0.957
SOUTHBOUND
0.834
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
SOUTHBOUNDPM
AM
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND
1/23/2020
Scott Rd
NORTHBOUND
Scott Rd
0.854
WESTBOUND
I-215 SB Ramps I-215 SB Ramps
0.822 0.983
EASTBOUND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:20-06013-003 Day:
City:Menifee Date:
AM 121 1 243 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 162 8 377 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0.5 0.5 0 0 001
1 792 0 711
000 01295 0 456
100 0 TEV 2591 0 2510 0 000
517 0 547 1 PHF 0.92 0.95
540 0 329 1 0000
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0000AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
632
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
I-215 SB Ramps & Scott Rd
Thursday
01/23/2020
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
760
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
2
0
0
Signlized
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
I-215 SB Ramps
997
0
I-215 SB Ramps
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
924
0
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
832 0 954
NOONAM PM
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
456
711
1
540
517
1
12
1
1 24
3
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
295
792
0
329
547
0
16
2
8 37
7
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM PM
NO
O
N
AM PMNO
O
N
PM AM
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:I-215 NB Ramps & Scott RdCity:Menifee Project ID:20-06013-004
Control:Signlized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.50.510000012000110NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM 64063010003616200022610306557:15 AM 87173000102317400024310307057:30 AM 65010501000231300002247506237:45 AM 4328100000301740001958106068:00 AM 4607800000281720001848605948:15 AM 44174000004015000014110405548:30 AM 4709002000271650001888906088:45 AM 530840000016151000165830552
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES :4494648040102231278 0 0 0 1566 724 0 4897
APPROACH %'s :40.78% 0.36% 58.86% 0.00% 80.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 14.86% 85.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 68.38% 31.62% 0.00%
PEAK HR :07:00 AM 37 37 44 07:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :25933220201011264000088836202589
PEAK HR FACTOR :0.744 0.375 0.767 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.778 0.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.914 0.879 0.000
Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.50.510000012000110NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 98194000002622100019413707714:15 PM 79090000002820900017113107084:30 PM 10809100000251890001771180708
4:45 PM 93172000002322300017312207075:00 PM 98097000002921100018710407265:15 PM 75086000002920200017912006915:30 PM 8709500000231890001989506875:45 PM 7931060000020205000146970656
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :7175731000002031649 0 0 0 1425 924 0 5654APPROACH %'s :49.35% 0.34% 50.31% 0.00%10.96% 89.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.66% 39.34% 0.00%
PEAK HR :04:00 PM 289 289 296 04:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :37823470000010284200071550802894PEAK HR FACTOR :0.875 0.500 0.923 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.911 0.944 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.921 0.927 0.000
0.918
Total
0.9380.955
WESTBOUND
0.924
SOUTHBOUND
0.913
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
SOUTHBOUNDPM
AM
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
NORTHBOUND
0.859
EASTBOUND
1/23/2020
Scott Rd
NORTHBOUND
Scott Rd
0.903
WESTBOUND
I-215 NB Ramps I-215 NB Ramps
0.750 0.922
EASTBOUND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:20-06013-004 Day:
City:Menifee Date:
AM 1020 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 1 508 0 362
1 715 0 888
000 00000
112 0 102 1 TEV 2589 0 2894 0 000
640 0 842 2 PHF 0.92 0.94
000 0 0 0.5 0.5 1
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 378 2 347 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 259 3 322 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
0
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
I-215 NB Ramps & Scott Rd
Thursday
01/23/2020
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
964
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
477
612
0
Signlized
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
I-215 NB Ramps
0
0
I-215 NB Ramps
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
1189
0
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
1148 0 1093
NOONAM PM
0
0
0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
888
362
0
640
112
1 0 2
25
9
3 32
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
0
715
508
0
842
102
0 0 0
37
8
2 34
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM PM
NO
O
N
AM PMNO
O
N
PM AM
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Antelope Rd & Scott RdCity:Menifee Project ID:20-06013-005
Control:Signlized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
1.50.510111012001200NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM 50 13 12 0 8 22 102 0 41 118 50 0 10 184 7 0 6177:15 AM 75 26 24 0 17 37 131 0 57 116 54 0 10 144 4 0 6957:30 AM 64 39 12 0 14 31 121 0 81 111 42 0 11 122 7 0 6557:45 AM 38 44 21 0 11 51 72 0 100 121 50 0 12 132 14 0 6668:00 AM 59 28 7 0 18 43 79 0 58 124 71 0 14 130 9 0 6408:15 AM 42 38 12 0 7 44 64 0 39 122 62 0 18 161 12 0 6218:30 AM 54 23 14 0 21 44 87 0 62 114 74 0 15 129 5 0 6428:45 AM 49 18 9 0 15 30 65 0 56 120 71 0 15 142 7 0 597
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES :431 229 111 0 111 302 721 0 494 946 474 0 105 1144 65 0 5133
APPROACH %'s :55.90% 29.70% 14.40% 0.00% 9.79% 26.63% 63.58% 0.00% 25.81% 49.43% 24.76% 0.00%7.99% 87.06% 4.95% 0.00%
PEAK HR :07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :236 137 64 0 60 162 403 0 296 472 217 0 47 528 34 0 2656
PEAK HR FACTOR :0.787 0.778 0.667 0.000 0.833 0.794 0.769 0.000 0.740 0.952 0.764 0.000 0.839 0.917 0.607 0.000
Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
1.50.510111012001200NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM 61 40 16 0 15 47 90 0 69 174 68 0 21 163 9 0 7734:15 PM 73 59 35 0 16 31 49 0 67 154 60 0 30 184 6 0 7644:30 PM 77 40 44 0 14 41 54 0 72 173 45 0 16 156 7 0 739
4:45 PM 72 57 53 0 12 40 55 0 62 151 77 0 21 164 16 0 7805:00 PM 78 50 44 0 16 29 65 0 76 202 66 0 12 161 13 0 8125:15 PM 96 41 32 0 16 33 61 0 72 141 55 0 21 149 11 0 7285:30 PM 79 40 31 0 6 29 62 0 79 143 78 0 25 152 12 0 7365:45 PM 80 52 41 0 14 37 51 0 64 146 68 0 23 104 12 0 692
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :616 379 296 0 109 287 487 0 561 1284 517 0 169 1233 86 0 6024APPROACH %'s :47.71% 29.36% 22.93% 0.00% 12.34% 32.50% 55.15% 0.00% 23.75% 54.36% 21.89% 0.00% 11.36% 82.86% 5.78% 0.00%
PEAK HR :04:15 PM 290 289 296 05:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL :300 206 176 0 58 141 223 0 277 680 248 0 79 665 42 0 3095PEAK HR FACTOR :0.962 0.873 0.830 0.000 0.906 0.860 0.858 0.000 0.911 0.842 0.805 0.000 0.658 0.904 0.656 0.000
EASTBOUND
1/23/2020
Scott Rd
NORTHBOUND
Scott Rd
0.964
WESTBOUND
Antelope Rd Antelope Rd
0.845 0.909
EASTBOUND
PM
AM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
NORTHBOUND
0.874 0.955
Total
0.9530.876
WESTBOUND
0.893
SOUTHBOUND
0.937 0.959
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
SOUTHBOUND
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 247
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:20-06013-005 Day:
City:Menifee Date:
AM 403 162 60 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 223 141 58 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1110 0 42034
2 665 0 528
000 0179047
296 0 277 1 TEV 2656 0 3095 0 000
472 0 680 2 PHF 0.96 0.95
217 0 248 0 0 1.5 0.5 1
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 300 206 176 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 236 137 64 AM
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
1167 0 1188
Antelope Rd
426
0
Antelope Rd
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
914
0
PE
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
467
525
0
Signlized
Sc
o
t
t
R
d
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
468
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Antelope Rd & Scott Rd
Thursday
01/23/2020
CONTROL WE
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
596
CO
U
N
T
P
E
R
I
O
D
S
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM
0
0
1
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
47
528
34
217
472
296
40
3
16
2
60
23
6
13
7
64
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
79
665
42
248
680
277
22
3
14
1
58
30
0
20
6
17
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NO
O
N
PM AM NO
O
N
AM PM
NO
O
N
AM PMNO
O
N
PM AM
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 248
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020
Appendix C: Approved and Pending Project Information
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 249
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Year 2025 Cumulative Project Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
8 Menifee CUP 2019‐013 Bailey Park Blvd. 19,603 sq ft Office/Warehouse / Storage 150 20 TSF 16 2 18 2 17 19 34
53 + 154 Menifee PP 2009‐006 Commerce Pointe I & II 130 702 TSF 228 53 281 59 222 281 2,366
M3 Murrieta TTM 35853 Murrieta Hills Phase 1. Residential 57 168 225 189 111 300 2,856
47 Menifee TTM 33732 Single Family Homes 210 296 DU 55 164 219 185 108 293 2,794
42 Menifee TTM 31194 Golden Meadows (Richland Comm.)210 474 DU 88 263 351 296 174 469 4,475
48 Menifee TR 33511 Single Family Homes 210 71 DU 19 55 74 62 36 98 670
Walmart 813 205 TSF 193 151 344 513 513 1,026 11,734
fast food restaurant with drive‐thru 934 6 TSF 156 150 306 109 101 210 3,076
ence store with 16‐pump fueling station and a drive‐through 853 16 Pumps 97 94 191 114 109 223 2,445high turnover sit‐down restaurant 932 7 TSF 39 36 75 43 30 72 826
retail shops 820 14 TSF 20 13 33 16 21 37 612
auto service and repair 943 7 TSF 13 7 20 11 11 22 134
‐45 ‐45 ‐90 ‐129 ‐126 ‐255 ‐3,125
107 Menifee 2019‐246 Milk Creek / Ranch Bonito ‐ Mixed Use 215 271 486 483 424 907 9,881
134 Menifee 2017‐202 GPA Hitching Post Plaza 820 27 TSF 47 40 87 57 56 113 2,543C1CountyTR 25930 / 29098 DVD 80.4 AC/39 SFR LOTS/4 O‐S/1 DETN BSN/1 MSHCP 210 39 DU 7 22 29 24 14 39 368
C2 County TR29228 DIV 54.70 AC INTO 135 RES,2 DET BASINS& 1 LIFT STA 210 135 DU 25 75 100 84 49 134 1,274
M1 Murrieta DP‐2014‐348 er Hospital and support building. Phase II. 80,000 sf Medica 259 82 341 133 314 447 4,365
M2 Murrieta CUP‐007‐2499 Loma Linda Hospital Phase 2 remaining 124 beds, 241,300 s.f.610 241 TSF 146 69 215 75 159 234 2,587
C3 County Canterwood (TTM 37439) 106 319 425 358 210 568 5,425
210 523 DU 99 293 387 324 194 518 4,937
411 16 Acres 00011212
Lindenberger 179 DU 33 99 132 112 66 177 1,690
Total Cumulative Project Traffic 2,086 2,555 4,636 3,736 3,351 7,085 74,797
PM
213 174 387 615 537 1,152
Daily
CUP 2017‐287 &
CUP 2017‐288
City ID No. /
TIA
Appendix
Jurisdictio
n
Project Name/
Case Number Land Use
ITE
Trip
Code
Quant
ity Units
Retail anchor building with gas stn, 135 room hotel, 390
bed senior assisted living facilityMenifee55
Peak Hour
AM
12,816
Internal Capture and Pass‐By Trips
Menifee PP 2009‐12156
TTM 36785 sched."a" division of 170.8 ac. into 523 res.
lots , a 15‐acre community park & a 1 ac. neighborhood C4 County TTM36785
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 250
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Year 2040 Cumulative Project Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
8 Menifee CUP 2019‐013 Bailey Park Blvd. 19,603 sq ft Office/Warehouse / Storage 150 20 TSF 16 2 18 2 17 19 34
53 + 154 Menifee PP 2009‐006 Commerce Pointe I & II 130 702 TSF 228 53 281 59 222 281 2,366
M3 Murrieta TTM 35853 Murrieta Hills Phase 1. Residential 57 168 225 189 111 300 2,856
47 Menifee TTM 33732 Single Family Homes 210 296 DU 55 164 219 185 108 293 2,794
42 Menifee TTM 31194 Golden Meadows (Richland Comm.)210 474 DU 88 263 351 296 174 469 4,47548 Menifee TR 33511 Single Family Homes 210 71 DU 19 55 74 62 36 98 670
Walmart 813 205 TSF 193 151 344 513 513 1,026 11,734
fast food restaurant with drive‐thru 934 6 TSF 156 150 306 109 101 210 3,076nience store with 16‐pump fueling station and a drive‐through ca 853 16 Pumps 97 94 191 114 109 223 2,445high turnover sit‐down restaurant 932 7 TSF 39 36 75 43 30 72 826
retail shops 820 14 TSF 20 13 33 16 21 37 612
auto service and repair 943 7 TSF 13 7 20 11 11 22 134
‐45 ‐45 ‐90 ‐129 ‐126 ‐255 ‐3,125
107 Menifee 2019‐246 Milk Creek / Ranch Bonito ‐ Mixed Use 215 271 486 483 424 907 9,881
134 Menifee 2017‐202 GPA Hitching Post Plaza 820 27 TSF 47 40 87 57 56 113 2,543
C1 County TR 25930 / 29098 DVD 80.4 AC/39 SFR LOTS/4 O‐S/1 DETN BSN/1 MSHCP 210 39 DU 7 2229241439368
M1 Murrieta DP‐2014‐348 aiser Hospital and support building. Phase II. 80,000 sf Medical U 921 274 1195 479 1167 1646 16,293
C2 County TR29228 DIV 54.70 AC INTO 135 RES,2 DET BASINS& 1 LIFT STA 210 135 DU 25 75 100 84 49 134 1,274
M2 Murrieta CUP‐007‐2499 Loma Linda Hospital Phase 2 remaining 124 beds, 241,300 s.f. 610 241 TSF 146 69 215 75 159 234 2,587
C3 County Canterwood (TTM 37439) 106 319 425 358 210 568 5,425210 523 DU 99 293 387 324 194 518 4,937
411 16 Acres 00011212
Lindenberger 179 DU 33 99 132 112 66 177 1,690
Total Cumulative Project Traffic 2,748 2,747 5,490 4,082 4,204 8,284 86,725
PM
213 174 387 615 537 1,152
Daily
CUP 2017‐287 &
CUP 2017‐288
City ID No. /
TIA Appendix
Ref
Jurisdictio
n
Project Name/
Case Number Land Use ITE Trip
Code Quantity Units
Retail anchor building with gas stn, 135 room hotel, 390 bed
senior assisted living facilityMenifee55
Peak Hour
AM
12,816
Internal Capture and Pass‐By Trips
Menifee PP 2009‐12156
TTM 36785 sched."a" division of 170.8 ac. into 523 res. lots , a
15‐acre community park & a 1 ac. neighborhood parkC4County TTM36785
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
Ɵve
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Le
g
e
n
d
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
##
21
5
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
79
53
42
10
7
48
55
56
15
4
8
47
C2
C1
134
C4
Lin
d
e
n
b
e
r
g
e
r
C3
M1
M3
M2
Sc
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
R
o
a
d
Menifee Road
Antelope Road
Haun Road
Murrieta Road
Briggs Road Briggs Road
Lindenberger Road
Leon Road
Ga
r
b
a
n
i
R
o
a
d
Ho
l
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Bu
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020
Appendix D: Existing Intersection LOS Worksheets
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th AWSC Existing AM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 67.5
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 172 366 326 120 208 306
Future Vol, veh/h 172 366 326 120 208 306
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow 179 381 340 125 217 319
Number of Lanes 011010
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1
HCM Control Delay 94.4 42.2 61.4
HCM LOS F E F
Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, %32% 0% 40%
Vol Thru, %68% 73% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 27% 60%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 538 446 514
LT Vol 172 0 208
Through Vol 366 326 0
RT Vol 0 120 306
Lane Flow Rate 560 465 535
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X)1.096 0.878 0.984
Departure Headway (Hd)7.041 7.082 6.848
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 521 516 535
Service Time 5.041 5.082 4.848
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.075 0.901 1
HCM Control Delay 94.4 42.2 61.4
HCM Lane LOS F E F
HCM 95th-tile Q 17.9 9.6 13.4
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 535 90 47 320 475 60 201 28 500 149 42
Future Volume (veh/h) 56 535 90 47 320 475 60 201 28 500 149 42
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 601 101 53 360 534 67 226 31 388 411 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 81 1004 168 68 603 511 264 278 235 515 476 54
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3045 511 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1648 188
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 350 352 53 360 534 67 226 31 388 0 458
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1836
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 17.9 17.9 3.2 17.5 35.0 3.6 12.7 1.8 21.5 0.0 25.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 17.9 17.9 3.2 17.5 35.0 3.6 12.7 1.8 21.5 0.0 25.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 586 586 68 603 511 264 278 235 515 0 531
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.60 1.04 0.25 0.81 0.13 0.75 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 197 586 586 197 603 511 476 500 424 657 0 677
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 30.4 30.4 51.7 30.8 36.8 40.9 44.8 40.1 35.1 0.0 36.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 2.2 2.3 6.9 2.1 51.9 0.6 6.8 0.3 4.1 0.0 9.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 7.4 7.5 1.5 7.7 19.8 1.6 6.2 0.7 9.3 0.0 12.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.1 32.6 32.6 58.6 33.0 88.7 41.5 51.6 40.4 39.1 0.0 46.2
LnGrp LOS E C C E C F DDDDAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 765 947 324 846
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.6 65.8 48.4 42.9
Approach LOS C E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 42.0 37.6 9.0 41.2 20.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 35.0 40.0 12.0 35.0 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 19.9 27.6 5.8 37.0 14.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 517 540 456 711 00002431121
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 517 540 456 711 00002431121
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 562 587 496 773 0 264 1 132
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222
Cap, veh/h 0 709 633 523 1374 0 300 1 268
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.29 0.73 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1585 1781 1870 0 1775 7 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 562 587 496 773 0 265 0 132
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 0 1782 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 30.6 38.9 30.0 20.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 8.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 30.6 38.9 30.0 20.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 8.3
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 709 633 523 1374 0 301 0 268
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.79 0.93 0.95 0.56 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.49
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 709 633 567 1374 0 389 0 346
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 29.0 31.5 38.1 6.6 0.0 44.6 0.0 41.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 5.3 14.6 24.1 1.7 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 12.8 16.0 15.6 6.1 0.0 8.0 0.0 3.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 34.3 46.1 62.1 8.3 0.0 58.9 0.0 41.9
LnGrp LOS A C D E A A E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1149 1269 397
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.4 29.3 53.2
Approach LOS D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.9 49.2 23.9 86.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 35.8 24.0 75.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.0 40.9 18.0 22.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.6 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2
HCM 6th LOS D
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 256
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 112 640 0 0 888 362 259 3 322 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 112 640 0 0 888 362 259 3 322 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 122 696 0 0 965 393 282 3 350
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222
Cap, veh/h 149 2436 0 0 1990 887 385 4 346
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.22 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1763 19 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 122 696 0 0 965 393 285 0 350
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1782 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 8.4 0.0 0.0 18.0 16.0 16.4 0.0 24.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 8.4 0.0 0.0 18.0 16.0 16.4 0.0 24.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 2436 0 0 1990 887 389 0 346
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.44 0.73 0.00 1.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 2436 0 0 1990 887 389 0 346
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.6 6.8 0.0 0.0 14.6 14.2 40.0 0.0 43.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 6.1 0.0 51.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 5.1 7.6 0.0 14.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 14.9 14.8 46.2 0.0 94.5
LnGrp LOS EAAABBDAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 818 1358 635
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 14.9 72.8
Approach LOS B B E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 80.7 13.8 66.9 29.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 75.4 12.0 58.8 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4 9.4 20.0 26.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 0.0 4.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.2
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 296 472 217 47 528 34 236 137 64 60 162 403
Future Volume (veh/h) 296 472 217 47 528 34 236 137 64 60 162 403
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 308 492 226 49 550 35 194 215 67 62 169 420
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 334 812 371 63 647 41 243 255 216 504 529 448
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2370 1083 1781 3393 216 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 308 368 350 49 288 297 194 215 67 62 169 420
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1675 1781 1777 1832 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 19.9 20.1 20.3 3.2 18.3 18.4 12.4 13.2 4.5 3.0 8.4 30.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.9 20.1 20.3 3.2 18.3 18.4 12.4 13.2 4.5 3.0 8.4 30.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 609 574 63 339 349 243 255 216 504 529 448
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.60 0.61 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.84 0.31 0.12 0.32 0.94
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 683 644 146 439 453 425 447 379 589 619 525
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.8 32.0 32.0 56.1 45.8 45.8 49.1 49.4 45.7 31.2 33.1 41.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.0 1.2 1.4 7.4 11.7 11.6 2.3 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 21.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.6 8.3 7.9 1.5 8.8 9.1 5.4 6.1 1.7 1.2 3.6 13.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.8 33.2 33.4 63.5 57.5 57.5 51.4 52.4 46.0 31.3 33.3 62.5
LnGrp LOS E C C E E E DDDCCE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1026 634 476 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.5 57.9 51.1 52.0
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 46.7 39.4 26.6 28.9 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.6 * 45 38.8 25.4 29.0 28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 22.3 32.3 21.9 20.4 15.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 0.8 0.0 2.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th AWSC Existing PM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 53.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 228 382 433 142 122 157
Future Vol, veh/h 228 382 433 142 122 157
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow 233 390 442 145 124 160
Number of Lanes 011010
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 1
HCM Control Delay 74.7 49 17.5
HCM LOS F E C
Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, %37% 0% 44%
Vol Thru, %63% 75% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 25% 56%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 610 575 279
LT Vol 228 0 122
Through Vol 382 433 0
RT Vol 0 142 157
Lane Flow Rate 622 587 285
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X)1.049 0.948 0.534
Departure Headway (Hd)6.069 5.949 6.897
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 604 616 527
Service Time 4.069 3.949 4.897
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.03 0.953 0.541
HCM Control Delay 74.7 49 17.5
HCM Lane LOS F E C
HCM 95th-tile Q 17.2 12.8 3.1
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 442 50 40 450 478 104 231 35 389 83 47
Future Volume (veh/h) 47 442 50 40 450 478 104 231 35 389 83 47
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 446 51 40 455 483 105 233 35 262 267 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 60 1147 131 50 657 557 286 300 255 390 339 60
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3215 366 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1549 273
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 246 251 40 455 483 105 233 35 262 0 314
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1804 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1821
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 9.2 9.3 2.0 18.7 25.4 4.7 10.7 1.7 12.1 0.0 14.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 9.2 9.3 2.0 18.7 25.4 4.7 10.7 1.7 12.1 0.0 14.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 634 644 50 657 557 286 300 255 390 0 398
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.39 0.39 0.80 0.69 0.87 0.37 0.78 0.14 0.67 0.00 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 239 695 706 239 732 620 577 606 514 797 0 814
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 21.5 21.5 43.2 24.9 27.1 33.5 36.0 32.2 32.0 0.0 33.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.7 0.7 10.1 3.2 12.6 0.9 5.1 0.3 2.4 0.0 4.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 3.5 3.6 1.0 7.9 10.4 2.0 5.0 0.6 5.1 0.0 6.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.1 22.1 22.2 53.3 28.0 39.7 34.4 41.1 32.5 34.4 0.0 37.2
LnGrp LOS DCCDCDCDCCAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 544 978 373 576
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.7 34.8 38.4 35.9
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 38.1 25.8 7.1 37.6 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 35.0 40.0 12.0 35.0 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 11.3 16.6 4.3 27.4 12.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 547 329 295 792 00003778162
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 547 329 295 792 00003778162
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 576 346 311 834 0 397 8 171
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222
Cap, veh/h 0 656 394 572 1265 0 397 8 360
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.68 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 2228 1282 1781 1870 0 1748 35 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 479 443 311 834 0 405 0 171
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1640 1781 1870 0 1783 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 28.2 28.2 15.8 28.6 0.0 25.0 0.0 10.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 28.2 28.2 15.8 28.6 0.0 25.0 0.0 10.3
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.78 1.00 0.00 0.98 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 546 504 572 1265 0 405 0 360
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.88 0.88 0.54 0.66 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 546 504 583 1265 0 405 0 360
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 36.1 36.2 30.7 10.4 0.0 42.5 0.0 36.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 15.8 16.9 0.5 2.7 0.0 44.6 0.0 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 13.7 12.8 6.4 9.8 0.0 15.6 0.0 3.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 52.0 53.1 31.3 13.1 0.0 87.0 0.0 37.2
LnGrp LOS A D D C B A F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 922 1145 576
Approach Delay, s/veh 52.5 18.0 72.2
Approach LOS D B E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.6 39.1 30.3 79.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 * 34 25.0 74.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.8 30.2 27.0 30.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.3 0.0 3.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 842 0 0 715 508 378 2 347 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 102 842 0 0 715 508 378 2 347 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 896 0 0 761 540 402 2 369
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222
Cap, veh/h 136 2404 0 0 1984 885 403 2 360
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.23 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1773 9 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 896 0 0 761 540 404 0 369
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1782 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 12.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 25.1 24.9 0.0 25.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 12.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 25.1 24.9 0.0 25.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 136 2404 0 0 1984 885 405 0 360
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.61 1.00 0.00 1.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 259 2404 0 0 1984 885 405 0 360
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 13.6 16.3 42.5 0.0 42.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 44.1 0.0 53.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 4.7 8.1 15.5 0.0 14.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 13.9 17.5 86.5 0.0 96.3
LnGrp LOS D AAABBFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1005 1301 773
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 15.4 91.2
Approach LOS B B F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 79.7 13.0 66.7 30.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 74.4 16.0 53.8 25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 8.6 27.1 27.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.7 0.1 4.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.7
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 277 680 248 79 665 42 300 206 176 58 141 223
Future Volume (veh/h) 277 680 248 79 665 42 300 206 176 58 141 223
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 292 716 261 83 700 44 266 286 185 61 148 235
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 321 915 334 106 808 51 320 336 284 305 320 272
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2550 930 1781 3396 213 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 292 499 478 83 366 378 266 286 185 61 148 235
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1703 1781 1777 1832 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 16.6 25.8 25.8 4.7 20.4 20.4 14.8 15.3 11.2 3.0 7.3 14.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.6 25.8 25.8 4.7 20.4 20.4 14.8 15.3 11.2 3.0 7.3 14.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 321 638 611 106 423 436 320 336 284 305 320 272
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.85 0.65 0.20 0.46 0.87
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 335 705 676 131 497 512 484 508 431 605 635 538
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.4 29.4 29.4 47.8 37.7 37.7 40.8 40.9 39.3 36.6 38.4 41.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.1 5.2 5.4 17.1 13.2 13.0 4.5 5.6 0.9 0.1 0.4 3.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.1 10.9 10.4 2.5 9.8 10.0 6.5 7.1 4.2 1.3 3.2 5.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.5 34.6 34.9 64.9 50.9 50.7 45.3 46.5 40.2 36.7 38.8 44.8
LnGrp LOS E C C E DDDDDDDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1269 827 737 444
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.3 52.2 44.5 41.7
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.7 43.5 23.9 23.2 31.0 25.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.6 * 41 35.0 19.4 28.8 28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 27.8 16.9 18.6 22.4 17.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.8 0.0 2.1 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P AM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Exi + P AM.syn Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 172 366 326 120 208 306
Future Volume (veh/h) 172 366 326 120 208 306
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 381 340 125 217 319
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 240 1670 574 207 482 429
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.47 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2650 924 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 381 235 230 217 319
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1704 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 2.6 4.9 5.0 4.2 7.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 2.6 4.9 5.0 4.2 7.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 1670 399 383 482 429
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.23 0.59 0.60 0.45 0.74
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1002 4853 1230 1180 1387 1235
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.3 6.5 14.4 14.5 12.6 13.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.1 1.4 1.5 0.7 2.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 6.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.9 6.6 15.8 16.0 13.3 16.4
LnGrp LOS C ABBBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 560 465 536
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.5 15.9 15.1
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.7 15.9 10.2 15.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 56.8 32.4 23.4 28.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 9.6 6.0 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 1.6 0.4 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.1
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P AM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Exi + P AM.syn Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 535 90 47 320 475 60 201 28 500 149 42
Future Volume (veh/h) 56 535 90 47 320 475 60 201 28 500 149 42
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 601 101 53 360 534 67 226 31 388 411 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 81 1004 168 68 1146 511 264 278 235 515 476 54
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3045 511 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1648 188
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 350 352 53 360 534 67 226 31 388 0 458
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1836
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 17.9 17.9 3.2 8.3 35.0 3.6 12.7 1.8 21.5 0.0 25.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 17.9 17.9 3.2 8.3 35.0 3.6 12.7 1.8 21.5 0.0 25.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 586 586 68 1146 511 264 278 235 515 0 531
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.60 0.60 0.78 0.31 1.04 0.25 0.81 0.13 0.75 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 197 586 586 197 1146 511 476 500 424 657 0 677
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 30.4 30.4 51.7 27.7 36.8 40.9 44.8 40.1 35.1 0.0 36.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 2.2 2.3 6.9 0.3 51.9 0.6 6.8 0.3 4.1 0.0 9.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 7.4 7.5 1.5 3.3 19.8 1.6 6.2 0.7 9.3 0.0 12.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.1 32.6 32.6 58.6 28.0 88.7 41.5 51.6 40.4 39.1 0.0 46.2
LnGrp LOS E C C E C F DDDDAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 765 947 324 846
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.6 63.9 48.4 42.9
Approach LOS C E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 42.0 37.6 9.0 41.2 20.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 35.0 40.0 12.0 35.0 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 19.9 27.6 5.8 37.0 14.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 265
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P AM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Exi + P AM.syn Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 517 540 0 711 456 0 0 0 243 0 121
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 517 540 0 711 456 0 0 0 243 0 121
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 562 587 0 773 496 264 0 132
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2923 1304 0 2923 1456 331 0 267
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 562 587 0 773 496 264 0 132
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.3 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 5.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.3 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 5.8
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2923 1304 0 2923 1456 331 0 267
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.19 0.45 0.00 0.26 0.34 0.80 0.00 0.49
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2923 1304 0 2923 1456 976 0 788
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 2.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.5 0.0 55.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.8 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 4.3 0.0 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 2.5 3.9 0.0 0.2 0.6 59.2 0.0 56.3
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1149 1269 396
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.2 0.4 58.2
Approach LOS A A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 112.2 17.8 112.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.7 36.7 82.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 11.7 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.7 4.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 266
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exi + P AM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Exi + P AM.syn Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 112 640 0 0 888 362 0 0 325 0 0 259
Future Volume (vph) 112 640 0 0 888 362 0 0 325 0 0 259
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 122 696 0 0 965 393 0 0 353 0 0 282
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001170033600121
Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 696 0 0 965 276 0 0 17 0 0 161
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.4 113.0 85.0 91.4 6.4 34.4
Effective Green, g (s) 23.4 113.0 85.0 91.4 6.4 34.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.87 0.65 0.70 0.05 0.26
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 318 3076 2313 1177 137 737
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.20 c0.27 c0.01 0.01 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.23 0.42 0.23 0.13 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 46.9 1.4 10.7 6.9 59.1 37.3
Progression Factor 0.78 0.63 0.77 0.67 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.1
Delay (s)37.0 1.0 8.8 4.6 59.3 37.4
Level of Service D A A A E D
Approach Delay (s)6.4 7.6 59.3 37.4
Approach LOS A A E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 267
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P AM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Exi + P AM.syn Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 296 472 217 47 528 34 236 137 64 60 162 403
Future Volume (veh/h) 296 472 217 47 528 34 236 137 64 60 162 403
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 308 492 226 49 550 35 246 143 67 62 169 420
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 1320 2101 1076 88 1080 68 304 605 310 79 210 783
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 4909 310 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 308 492 226 49 380 205 246 143 67 62 169 420
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1815 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 15.2 12.3 1.8 12.7 12.9 9.1 4.5 4.6 4.5 11.5 6.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 15.2 12.3 1.8 12.7 12.9 9.1 4.5 4.6 4.5 11.5 6.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1320 2101 1076 88 749 399 304 605 310 79 210 783
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.81 0.24 0.22 0.78 0.80 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1320 2101 1076 141 749 399 744 1487 704 140 504 1032
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.7 27.5 17.1 62.6 44.5 44.6 58.2 46.6 43.9 61.5 56.3 8.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.4 2.0 2.5 4.7 2.0 0.1 0.1 6.1 2.8 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 7.2 4.8 0.8 5.4 6.1 3.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 5.4 3.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 27.8 17.5 64.6 47.0 49.2 60.2 46.7 44.0 67.6 59.1 8.3
LnGrp LOS D C B E D D E D D E E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1026 634 456 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 49.1 53.6 27.2
Approach LOS CDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 83.0 17.9 21.1 55.9 35.1 10.4 28.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 6.5 * 6.5 6.2 * 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.3 38.2 28.0 * 35 14.6 * 29 10.2 54.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 17.2 11.1 13.5 12.4 14.9 6.5 6.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.4 1.1 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 268
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P PM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 228 382 433 142 122 157
Future Volume (veh/h) 228 382 433 142 122 157
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 233 390 442 145 124 160
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 310 2011 724 235 283 251
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.57 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2729 857 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 233 390 297 290 124 160
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1716 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 2.1 5.7 5.8 2.5 3.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 2.1 5.7 5.8 2.5 3.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 2011 488 471 283 251
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.19 0.61 0.62 0.44 0.64
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1063 5149 1305 1261 1472 1310
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.4 4.1 12.4 12.4 14.9 15.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.2 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.1 4.2 13.6 13.7 16.0 18.1
LnGrp LOS BABBBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 623 587 284
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.8 13.7 17.2
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.4 10.8 11.4 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 56.8 32.4 23.4 28.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 5.7 6.9 7.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.8 0.5 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 269
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P PM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 442 50 40 450 478 104 231 35 389 83 47
Future Volume (veh/h) 47 442 50 40 450 478 104 231 35 389 83 47
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 446 51 40 455 483 105 233 35 262 267 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 60 1147 131 50 1249 557 286 300 255 389 339 60
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3215 366 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1549 273
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 246 251 40 455 483 105 233 35 262 0 314
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1804 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1821
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 9.2 9.3 2.0 8.5 25.4 4.7 10.7 1.7 12.1 0.0 14.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 9.2 9.3 2.0 8.5 25.4 4.7 10.7 1.7 12.1 0.0 14.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 634 644 50 1249 557 286 300 255 389 0 398
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.39 0.39 0.80 0.36 0.87 0.37 0.78 0.14 0.67 0.00 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 239 695 706 239 1390 620 577 606 514 796 0 814
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 21.5 21.5 43.2 21.6 27.1 33.5 36.0 32.2 32.0 0.0 33.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.7 0.7 10.1 0.3 12.6 0.9 5.1 0.3 2.4 0.0 4.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 3.5 3.6 1.0 3.2 10.4 2.0 5.0 0.6 5.1 0.0 6.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.1 22.1 22.2 53.3 21.9 39.6 34.4 41.2 32.5 34.5 0.0 37.2
LnGrp LOS DCCDCDCDCCAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 544 978 373 576
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.7 31.9 38.5 36.0
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 38.1 25.8 7.1 37.7 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 35.0 40.0 12.0 35.0 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 11.3 16.6 4.3 27.4 12.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 270
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P PM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 547 329 0 792 295 0 0 0 377 0 170
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 547 329 0 792 295 0 0 0 377 0 170
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 576 346 0 834 311 397 0 179
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2781 1240 0 2781 1456 470 0 379
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.00 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 576 346 0 834 311 397 0 179
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 7.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 7.7
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2781 1240 0 2781 1456 470 0 379
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.21 0.28 0.00 0.30 0.21 0.85 0.00 0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2781 1240 0 2781 1456 1029 0 830
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 3.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.8 0.0 51.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.4 0.0 2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 3.8 4.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 56.5 0.0 52.2
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA EAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 922 1145 576
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.0 0.3 55.1
Approach LOS A A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 107.0 23.0 107.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.7 38.7 80.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 16.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 1.1 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 271
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Exi + P PM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 102 842 0 0 715 508 0 0 347 0 0 378
Future Volume (vph) 102 842 0 0 715 508 0 0 347 0 0 378
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 109 896 0 0 761 540 0 0 369 0 0 402
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001310026500126
Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 896 0 0 761 409 0 0 104 0 0 276
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 109.2 83.2 93.4 10.2 36.2
Effective Green, g (s) 21.4 109.2 83.2 93.4 10.2 36.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.84 0.64 0.72 0.08 0.28
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 291 2972 2264 1201 218 776
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.25 0.22 c0.03 c0.04 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.48 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 48.3 2.2 10.7 6.8 57.3 37.6
Progression Factor 1.28 1.27 0.71 2.12 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1
Delay (s)62.0 3.1 8.0 14.5 57.9 37.7
Level of Service E A A B E D
Approach Delay (s)9.5 10.7 57.9 37.7
Approach LOS A B E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 272
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exi + P PM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 277 680 248 79 665 42 300 206 176 58 141 223
Future Volume (veh/h) 277 680 248 79 665 42 300 206 176 58 141 223
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 292 716 261 83 700 44 316 217 185 61 148 235
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 1291 2035 1080 128 1088 68 375 632 341 78 184 748
Arrive On Green 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 4912 307 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 292 716 261 83 484 260 316 217 185 61 148 235
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1815 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 16.8 16.9 11.7 7.0 13.5 4.4 10.1 3.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 16.8 16.9 11.7 7.0 13.5 4.4 10.1 3.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1291 2035 1080 128 754 402 375 632 341 78 184 748
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.35 0.24 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.84 0.34 0.54 0.78 0.80 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1291 2035 1080 194 754 402 744 1493 725 137 504 1019
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.7 0.0 0.0 61.7 45.9 46.0 56.8 46.8 45.3 61.5 57.4 7.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.5 2.0 4.2 7.8 2.0 0.1 0.5 6.2 3.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 7.2 8.2 5.0 3.0 5.1 2.1 4.7 1.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.7 0.4 0.5 63.8 50.1 53.8 58.8 46.9 45.8 67.7 60.4 7.6
LnGrp LOS BAAEDDEDDEEA
Approach Vol, veh/h 1269 827 718 444
Approach Delay, s/veh 2.8 52.6 51.9 33.5
Approach LOS A D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 80.6 20.6 19.3 54.8 35.3 10.3 29.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 6.5 * 6.5 6.2 * 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.3 36.2 28.0 * 35 14.4 * 29 10.0 54.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 2.0 13.7 12.1 5.3 18.9 6.4 15.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.6 0.5 0.7 0.1 2.9 0.0 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 273
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020
Appendix E: Opening Year 2025 Intersection LOS Worksheets
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 274
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 189 491 509 169 289 337
Future Volume (veh/h) 189 491 509 169 289 337
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 511 530 176 301 351
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 244 1029 629 533 481 428
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.55 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 511 530 176 301 351
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 10.2 15.8 5.0 8.9 12.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 10.2 15.8 5.0 8.9 12.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1029 629 533 481 428
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.50 0.84 0.33 0.63 0.82
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 309 1315 848 718 801 713
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 8.4 18.4 14.9 19.2 20.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.8 0.4 5.8 0.4 1.3 3.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 2.6 6.2 1.4 3.2 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 8.7 24.3 15.2 20.6 24.5
LnGrp LOS D A C B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 708 706 652
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.6 22.0 22.7
Approach LOS B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.2 20.8 12.8 26.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.2 27.0 10.4 27.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.2 14.5 8.4 17.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 1.8 0.1 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 275
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 834 144 234 571 968 92 303 79 962 245 108
Future Volume (veh/h) 141 834 144 234 571 968 92 303 79 962 245 108
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 937 162 263 642 1088 103 340 89 738 754 121
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 110 761 131 172 1016 453 348 365 310 554 489 78
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3029 524 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1573 252
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 549 550 263 642 1088 103 340 89 738 0 875
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1776 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1825
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 36.2 36.2 13.9 22.7 41.2 7.1 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 36.2 36.2 13.9 22.7 41.2 7.1 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 110 446 446 172 1016 453 348 365 310 554 0 567
V/C Ratio(X) 1.44 1.23 1.23 1.53 0.63 2.40 0.30 0.93 0.29 1.33 0.00 1.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 446 446 172 1016 453 358 376 319 554 0 567
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.6 54.0 54.0 65.1 44.9 51.5 49.5 57.0 49.4 49.7 0.0 49.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 240.5 122.3 122.8 266.2 1.6 637.5 0.6 29.3 0.6 162.0 0.0 253.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.3 30.6 30.7 18.8 9.9 95.8 3.2 14.8 2.7 44.0 0.0 59.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 308.1 176.3 176.7 331.3 46.5 689.0 50.1 86.3 50.1 211.6 0.0 302.7
LnGrp LOS FFFFDFDFDFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1257 1993 532 1613
Approach Delay, s/veh 193.1 434.8 73.2 261.0
Approach LOS F F E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 42.4 51.0 13.0 47.4 32.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.9 36.2 44.8 8.9 41.2 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 38.2 46.8 10.9 43.2 27.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 290.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 276
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 996 862 0 1396 717 0 0 0 413 0 366
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 996 862 0 1396 717 0 0 0 413 0 366
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1083 937 0 1517 779 449 0 398
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2698 1203 0 2698 1465 571 0 461
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1083 937 0 1517 779 449 0 398
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.8 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.8 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.4
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2698 1203 0 2698 1465 571 0 461
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.40 0.78 0.00 0.56 0.53 0.79 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2698 1203 0 2698 1465 980 0 791
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1 0.0 56.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.0 2.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 12.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 7.6 0.0 6.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.9 10.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 57.0 0.0 59.0
LnGrp LOS AABAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2020 2296 847
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 0.5 57.9
Approach LOS A A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.6 28.4 111.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 89.7 39.7 89.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 50.8 21.4 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 1.7 11.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 277
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 AM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 322 1077 0 0 1509 633 0 0 433 0 0 583
Future Volume (vph) 322 1077 0 0 1509 633 0 0 433 0 0 583
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 350 1171 0 0 1640 688 0 0 471 0 0 634
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000042002250016
Lane Group Flow (vph) 350 1171 0 0 1640 646 0 0 246 0 0 618
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.4 108.8 73.8 94.4 20.6 55.6
Effective Green, g (s) 30.4 108.8 73.8 94.4 20.6 55.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.78 0.53 0.67 0.15 0.40
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 2750 1865 1127 410 1106
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.33 c0.46 c0.08 0.09 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.43 0.88 0.57 0.60 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 5.2 29.2 12.1 55.8 32.7
Progression Factor 0.90 0.61 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 23.5 0.4 4.6 0.3 1.6 0.3
Delay (s)71.5 3.6 24.3 8.5 57.4 33.0
Level of Service E A C A E C
Approach Delay (s)19.3 19.6 57.4 33.0
Approach LOS B B E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 278
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 349 827 358 118 1232 37 358 164 97 66 201 481
Future Volume (veh/h) 349 827 358 118 1232 37 358 164 97 66 201 481
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 364 861 373 123 1283 39 373 171 101 69 209 501
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 403 1570 897 169 1905 58 428 1072 556 87 403 526
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.88 0.88 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5092 155 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 861 373 123 858 464 373 171 101 69 209 501
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1843 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 7.7 1.1 4.9 29.5 29.5 14.8 4.9 6.2 5.4 13.8 27.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.3 7.7 1.1 4.9 29.5 29.5 14.8 4.9 6.2 5.4 13.8 27.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 1570 897 169 1274 689 428 1072 556 87 403 526
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.55 0.42 0.73 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.16 0.18 0.79 0.52 0.95
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 1570 897 207 1274 689 691 1312 663 164 468 581
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 5.0 1.1 65.6 36.7 36.7 60.2 35.9 31.5 65.9 48.5 21.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.8 1.2 1.2 6.7 2.9 5.2 4.1 0.0 0.1 5.8 0.4 24.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 1.9 0.8 2.3 12.2 13.6 6.5 2.1 2.3 2.5 6.3 12.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.7 6.2 2.4 72.3 39.5 41.9 64.3 35.9 31.6 71.7 48.9 45.1
LnGrp LOS EAAEDDEDCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1598 1445 645 779
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.4 43.1 51.6 48.5
Approach LOS CDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 68.3 23.9 36.3 20.9 58.9 11.5 48.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.4 * 45 28.0 35.0 16.4 36.8 12.9 51.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 9.7 16.8 29.2 16.3 31.5 7.4 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.5 0.5 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 279
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 251 602 664 242 209 173
Future Volume (veh/h) 251 602 664 242 209 173
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 256 614 678 247 213 177
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 306 1245 787 667 289 257
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.67 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 256 614 678 247 213 177
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 10.3 20.7 6.7 7.1 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 10.3 20.7 6.7 7.1 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 1245 787 667 289 257
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.49 0.86 0.37 0.74 0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 380 1555 1019 863 766 682
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 5.2 16.5 12.5 25.0 24.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.5 0.3 6.2 0.3 3.7 3.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 1.8 7.8 1.8 2.9 5.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 5.5 22.7 12.8 28.7 28.1
LnGrp LOS D A C B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 870 925 390
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 20.1 28.4
Approach LOS B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.0 14.8 15.4 32.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.2 27.0 13.4 34.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 9.1 10.7 22.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 1.1 0.2 3.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 280
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 187 891 70 95 962 1230 192 426 243 1125 174 152
Future Volume (veh/h) 187 891 70 95 962 1230 192 426 243 1125 174 152
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 900 71 96 972 1242 194 430 245 733 740 154
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 109 1008 80 109 1073 479 361 379 321 514 433 90
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3337 263 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1502 312
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 479 492 96 972 1242 194 430 245 733 0 894
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1823 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1814
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 37.4 37.4 7.8 38.1 43.8 14.1 29.4 21.1 41.8 0.0 41.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 37.4 37.4 7.8 38.1 43.8 14.1 29.4 21.1 41.8 0.0 41.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 537 551 109 1073 479 361 379 321 514 0 523
V/C Ratio(X) 1.73 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.91 2.59 0.54 1.13 0.76 1.43 0.00 1.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 537 551 109 1073 479 361 379 321 514 0 523
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.1 48.4 48.4 67.5 48.6 50.6 51.7 57.8 54.5 51.6 0.0 51.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 363.2 17.7 17.3 48.7 11.2 723.4 1.8 87.8 10.6 203.4 0.0 327.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.0 18.5 18.9 4.9 17.8 112.7 6.3 22.7 9.2 46.9 0.0 65.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 431.2 66.1 65.7 116.2 59.8 774.0 53.5 145.6 65.1 255.0 0.0 379.0
LnGrp LOS F E E F E F D F E F A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1160 2310 869 1627
Approach Delay, s/veh 125.4 446.1 102.4 323.1
Approach LOS FFFF
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 50.0 48.0 13.0 50.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 43.8 41.8 8.9 43.8 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 39.4 43.8 10.9 45.8 31.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 300.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 281
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1434 817 0 1745 473 0 0 0 685 0 530
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1434 817 0 1745 473 0 0 0 685 0 530
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1509 860 0 1837 498 721 0 558
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2432 1085 0 2432 1456 809 0 653
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1509 860 0 1837 498 721 0 558
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 30.3 48.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 24.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 30.3 48.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 24.9
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2432 1085 0 2432 1456 809 0 653
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.62 0.79 0.00 0.76 0.34 0.89 0.00 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2432 1085 0 2432 1456 981 0 792
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.37 0.37 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.3 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.2 0.0 47.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 8.0 0.0 6.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 9.7 14.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 12.0 0.0 9.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 11.4 14.7 0.0 0.8 0.2 56.2 0.0 54.4
LnGrp LOS ABBAAA EAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 2369 2335 1279
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.6 0.7 55.4
Approach LOS B A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 94.3 35.7 94.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.5 36.9 82.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 50.7 28.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.7 2.2 14.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 282
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 PM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 467 1675 0 0 1347 784 0 0 624 0 0 875
Future Volume (vph) 467 1675 0 0 1347 784 0 0 624 0 0 875
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 497 1782 0 0 1433 834 0 0 664 0 0 931
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000370050009
Lane Group Flow (vph) 497 1782 0 0 1433 797 0 0 614 0 0 922
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 35.4 91.1 51.1 79.4 28.3 68.3
Effective Green, g (s) 35.4 91.1 51.1 79.4 28.3 68.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.70 0.39 0.61 0.22 0.53
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 481 2480 1391 1031 606 1464
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.50 c0.40 0.17 c0.22 0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.34
v/c Ratio 1.03 0.72 1.03 0.77 1.01 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 47.3 11.7 39.5 18.6 50.9 21.9
Progression Factor 1.03 1.21 0.76 0.69 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 44.3 1.4 28.9 2.5 39.9 0.6
Delay (s)92.8 15.6 58.9 15.3 90.7 22.5
Level of Service F B E B F C
Approach Delay (s)32.4 42.8 90.7 22.5
Approach LOS C D F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 283
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 1555 400 131 1306 46 504 254 270 64 172 295
Future Volume (veh/h) 362 1555 400 131 1306 46 504 254 270 64 172 295
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 381 1637 421 138 1375 48 531 267 284 67 181 311
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 807 1767 1059 117 1434 50 590 897 454 85 219 556
Arrive On Green 0.47 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5066 177 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 381 1637 421 138 924 499 531 267 284 67 181 311
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1839 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 4.1 0.1 4.4 34.7 34.7 19.6 7.9 20.3 4.8 12.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 4.1 0.1 4.4 34.7 34.7 19.6 7.9 20.3 4.8 12.3 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 807 1767 1059 117 964 520 590 897 454 85 219 556
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.93 0.40 1.18 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.30 0.63 0.78 0.82 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 807 1767 1059 117 964 520 744 1479 713 144 504 797
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 0.2 0.0 62.8 45.9 45.9 52.8 39.3 40.3 61.2 56.1 34.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 5.5 0.6 139.5 20.6 30.5 10.5 0.1 0.5 5.8 3.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 1.5 0.2 4.1 16.6 19.4 9.0 3.3 7.6 2.2 5.8 7.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 5.7 0.6 202.3 66.5 76.3 63.3 39.3 40.9 67.0 59.1 34.4
LnGrp LOS C A A F E E E D D E E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2439 1561 1082 559
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 81.6 51.5 46.3
Approach LOS A F D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 70.9 28.7 21.5 36.6 43.3 10.8 39.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 6.5 6.2 6.2 * 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.4 39.1 28.0 35.0 6.4 * 37 10.5 54.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 6.1 21.6 14.3 11.8 36.7 6.8 22.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 284
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P AM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 189 491 509 169 289 337
Future Volume (veh/h) 189 491 509 169 289 337
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 511 530 176 301 351
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 256 1834 749 248 499 444
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2717 868 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 511 358 348 301 351
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1714 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 4.3 9.6 9.6 7.8 10.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 4.3 9.6 9.6 7.8 10.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 256 1834 507 489 499 444
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.28 0.71 0.71 0.60 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 3812 966 932 1090 970
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.8 7.2 16.9 17.0 16.5 17.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 0.1 1.8 1.9 1.2 3.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.9 3.2 3.1 2.6 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 7.3 18.8 18.9 17.7 20.8
LnGrp LOS C ABBBC
Approach Vol, veh/h 708 706 652
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.7 18.8 19.4
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.5 19.4 12.2 21.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 56.8 32.4 23.4 28.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 12.8 7.6 11.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 2.0 0.4 3.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.9
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 285
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P AM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 834 144 234 571 968 92 303 79 962 245 108
Future Volume (veh/h) 141 834 144 234 571 968 92 303 79 962 245 108
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 937 162 263 642 1088 103 340 89 738 754 121
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 110 761 131 172 1016 453 348 365 310 554 489 78
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3029 524 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1573 252
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 549 550 263 642 1088 103 340 89 738 0 875
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1776 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1825
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 36.2 36.2 13.9 22.7 41.2 7.1 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 36.2 36.2 13.9 22.7 41.2 7.1 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 110 446 446 172 1016 453 348 365 310 554 0 567
V/C Ratio(X) 1.44 1.23 1.23 1.53 0.63 2.40 0.30 0.93 0.29 1.33 0.00 1.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 446 446 172 1016 453 358 376 319 554 0 567
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.6 54.0 54.0 65.1 44.9 51.5 49.5 57.0 49.4 49.7 0.0 49.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 240.5 122.3 122.8 266.2 1.6 637.5 0.6 29.3 0.6 162.0 0.0 253.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.3 30.6 30.7 18.8 9.9 95.8 3.2 14.8 2.7 44.0 0.0 59.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 308.1 176.3 176.7 331.3 46.5 689.0 50.1 86.3 50.1 211.6 0.0 302.7
LnGrp LOS FFFFDFDFDFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1257 1993 532 1613
Approach Delay, s/veh 193.1 434.8 73.2 261.0
Approach LOS F F E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 42.4 51.0 13.0 47.4 32.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.9 36.2 44.8 8.9 41.2 29.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 38.2 46.8 10.9 43.2 27.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 290.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 286
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P AM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 996 862 0 1396 717 0 0 0 413 0 366
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 996 862 0 1396 717 0 0 0 413 0 366
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1083 937 0 1517 779 449 0 398
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2698 1203 0 2698 1465 571 0 461
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1083 937 0 1517 779 449 0 398
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.8 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.8 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.4
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2698 1203 0 2698 1465 571 0 461
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.40 0.78 0.00 0.56 0.53 0.79 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2698 1203 0 2698 1465 980 0 791
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1 0.0 56.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.0 2.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 12.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 7.6 0.0 6.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.9 10.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 57.0 0.0 59.0
LnGrp LOS AABAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2020 2296 847
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 0.5 57.9
Approach LOS A A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.6 28.4 111.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 89.7 39.7 89.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 50.8 21.4 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 1.7 11.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 287
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 +P AM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 322 1077 0 0 1509 633 0 0 433 0 0 583
Future Volume (vph) 322 1077 0 0 1509 633 0 0 433 0 0 583
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 350 1171 0 0 1640 688 0 0 471 0 0 634
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000042002250016
Lane Group Flow (vph) 350 1171 0 0 1640 646 0 0 246 0 0 618
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.4 108.8 73.8 94.4 20.6 55.6
Effective Green, g (s) 30.4 108.8 73.8 94.4 20.6 55.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.78 0.53 0.67 0.15 0.40
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 2750 1865 1127 410 1106
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.33 c0.46 c0.08 0.09 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.43 0.88 0.57 0.60 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 5.2 29.2 12.1 55.8 32.7
Progression Factor 0.90 0.61 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 23.5 0.4 4.6 0.3 1.6 0.3
Delay (s)71.5 3.6 24.3 8.5 57.4 33.0
Level of Service E A C A E C
Approach Delay (s)19.3 19.6 57.4 33.0
Approach LOS B B E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 288
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P AM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 349 827 358 118 1232 37 358 164 97 66 201 481
Future Volume (veh/h) 349 827 358 118 1232 37 358 164 97 66 201 481
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 364 861 373 123 1283 39 373 171 101 69 209 501
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 403 1570 897 169 1905 58 428 1072 556 87 403 526
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.88 0.88 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5092 155 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 861 373 123 858 464 373 171 101 69 209 501
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1843 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 7.7 1.1 4.9 29.5 29.5 14.8 4.9 6.2 5.4 13.8 27.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.3 7.7 1.1 4.9 29.5 29.5 14.8 4.9 6.2 5.4 13.8 27.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 1570 897 169 1274 689 428 1072 556 87 403 526
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.55 0.42 0.73 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.16 0.18 0.79 0.52 0.95
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 1570 897 207 1274 689 691 1312 663 164 468 581
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 5.0 1.1 65.6 36.7 36.7 60.2 35.9 31.5 65.9 48.5 21.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.8 1.2 1.2 6.7 2.9 5.2 4.1 0.0 0.1 5.8 0.4 24.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 1.9 0.8 2.3 12.2 13.6 6.5 2.1 2.3 2.5 6.3 12.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.7 6.2 2.4 72.3 39.5 41.9 64.3 35.9 31.6 71.7 48.9 45.1
LnGrp LOS EAAEDDEDCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 1598 1445 645 779
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.4 43.1 51.6 48.5
Approach LOS CDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 68.3 23.9 36.3 20.9 58.9 11.5 48.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.4 * 45 28.0 35.0 16.4 36.8 12.9 51.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 9.7 16.8 29.2 16.3 31.5 7.4 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.5 0.5 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 289
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P PM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 251 602 664 242 209 173
Future Volume (veh/h) 251 602 664 242 209 173
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 256 614 678 247 213 177
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 324 2219 908 331 305 271
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.62 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2644 929 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 256 614 472 453 213 177
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1703 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 4.1 12.3 12.3 5.9 5.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 4.1 12.3 12.3 5.9 5.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 324 2219 632 606 305 271
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.28 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 789 3820 968 928 1092 972
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 4.5 14.9 14.9 20.6 20.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.1 1.8 1.9 2.9 2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.6 3.8 3.7 2.3 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.0 4.6 16.7 16.8 23.5 23.1
LnGrp LOS C A B B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 870 925 390
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 16.8 23.3
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.2 13.6 14.2 25.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 56.8 32.4 23.4 28.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 7.9 9.3 14.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.9 1.1 0.6 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.5
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 290
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P PM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 187 891 70 95 962 1230 192 426 243 1125 174 152
Future Volume (veh/h) 187 891 70 95 962 1230 192 426 243 1125 174 152
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 900 71 96 972 1242 194 430 245 733 740 154
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 109 1008 80 109 1073 479 361 379 321 514 433 90
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3337 263 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1502 312
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 479 492 96 972 1242 194 430 245 733 0 894
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1823 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1814
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 37.4 37.4 7.8 38.1 43.8 14.1 29.4 21.1 41.8 0.0 41.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 37.4 37.4 7.8 38.1 43.8 14.1 29.4 21.1 41.8 0.0 41.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 537 551 109 1073 479 361 379 321 514 0 523
V/C Ratio(X) 1.73 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.91 2.59 0.54 1.13 0.76 1.43 0.00 1.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 537 551 109 1073 479 361 379 321 514 0 523
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.1 48.4 48.4 67.5 48.6 50.6 51.7 57.8 54.5 51.6 0.0 51.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 363.2 17.7 17.3 48.7 11.2 723.4 1.8 87.8 10.6 203.4 0.0 327.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.0 18.5 18.9 4.9 17.8 112.7 6.3 22.7 9.2 46.9 0.0 65.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 431.2 66.1 65.7 116.2 59.8 774.0 53.5 145.6 65.1 255.0 0.0 379.0
LnGrp LOS F E E F E F D F E F A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1160 2310 869 1627
Approach Delay, s/veh 125.4 446.1 102.4 323.1
Approach LOS FFFF
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 50.0 48.0 13.0 50.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 43.8 41.8 8.9 43.8 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 39.4 43.8 10.9 45.8 31.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 300.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 291
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P PM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1434 817 0 1745 473 0 0 0 685 0 530
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1434 817 0 1745 473 0 0 0 685 0 530
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1509 860 0 1837 498 721 0 558
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2432 1085 0 2432 1456 809 0 653
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1509 860 0 1837 498 721 0 558
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 30.3 48.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 24.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 30.3 48.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 24.9
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2432 1085 0 2432 1456 809 0 653
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.62 0.79 0.00 0.76 0.34 0.89 0.00 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2432 1085 0 2432 1456 981 0 792
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.37 0.37 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.3 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.2 0.0 47.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 8.0 0.0 6.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 9.7 14.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 12.0 0.0 9.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 11.4 14.7 0.0 0.8 0.2 56.2 0.0 54.4
LnGrp LOS ABBAAA EAD
Approach Vol, veh/h 2369 2335 1279
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.6 0.7 55.4
Approach LOS B A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 94.3 35.7 94.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.5 36.9 82.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 50.7 28.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.7 2.2 14.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 292
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 +P PM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 467 1675 0 0 1347 784 0 0 624 0 0 875
Future Volume (vph) 467 1675 0 0 1347 784 0 0 624 0 0 875
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 497 1782 0 0 1433 834 0 0 664 0 0 931
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000370050009
Lane Group Flow (vph) 497 1782 0 0 1433 797 0 0 614 0 0 922
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 35.4 91.1 51.1 79.4 28.3 68.3
Effective Green, g (s) 35.4 91.1 51.1 79.4 28.3 68.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.70 0.39 0.61 0.22 0.53
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 481 2480 1391 1031 606 1464
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.50 c0.40 0.17 c0.22 0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.34
v/c Ratio 1.03 0.72 1.03 0.77 1.01 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 47.3 11.7 39.5 18.6 50.9 21.9
Progression Factor 1.03 1.21 0.76 0.69 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 44.3 1.4 28.9 2.5 39.9 0.6
Delay (s)92.8 15.6 58.9 15.3 90.7 22.5
Level of Service F B E B F C
Approach Delay (s)32.4 42.8 90.7 22.5
Approach LOS C D F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 293
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P PM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 1555 400 131 1306 46 504 254 270 64 172 295
Future Volume (veh/h) 362 1555 400 131 1306 46 504 254 270 64 172 295
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 381 1637 421 138 1375 48 531 267 284 67 181 311
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 807 1767 1059 117 1434 50 590 897 454 85 219 556
Arrive On Green 0.47 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5066 177 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 381 1637 421 138 924 499 531 267 284 67 181 311
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1839 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 4.1 0.1 4.4 34.7 34.7 19.6 7.9 20.3 4.8 12.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 4.1 0.1 4.4 34.7 34.7 19.6 7.9 20.3 4.8 12.3 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 807 1767 1059 117 964 520 590 897 454 85 219 556
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.93 0.40 1.18 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.30 0.63 0.78 0.82 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 807 1767 1059 117 964 520 744 1479 713 144 504 797
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 0.2 0.0 62.8 45.9 45.9 52.8 39.3 40.3 61.2 56.1 34.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 5.5 0.6 139.5 20.6 30.5 10.5 0.1 0.5 5.8 3.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 1.5 0.2 4.1 16.6 19.4 9.0 3.3 7.6 2.2 5.8 7.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 5.7 0.6 202.3 66.5 76.3 63.3 39.3 40.9 67.0 59.1 34.4
LnGrp LOS C A A F E E E D D E E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2439 1561 1082 559
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 81.6 51.5 46.3
Approach LOS A F D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 70.9 28.7 21.5 36.6 43.3 10.8 39.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.2 6.5 6.2 6.2 * 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.4 39.1 28.0 35.0 6.4 * 37 10.5 54.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 6.1 21.6 14.3 11.8 36.7 6.8 22.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 294
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Scott Road – Bundy Canyon Road Widening – Traffic Study Report
March 2020
Appendix F: Horizon Year 2040 Intersection LOS Worksheets
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 295
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 AM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 669 632 188 320 383
Future Volume (veh/h) 215 669 632 188 320 383
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 669 632 188 320 383
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 256 1089 707 600 492 438
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.58 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 669 632 188 320 383
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 17.8 24.3 6.4 12.1 17.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 17.8 24.3 6.4 12.1 17.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 256 1089 707 600 492 438
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.61 0.89 0.31 0.65 0.87
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 312 1277 837 709 629 560
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.9 10.4 22.3 16.8 24.4 26.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.4 0.7 10.7 0.3 1.5 11.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 5.3 10.9 2.0 4.7 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.3 11.0 33.0 17.1 25.9 38.3
LnGrp LOS D B C B C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 884 820 703
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 29.4 32.7
Approach LOS B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.7 25.7 15.6 35.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.2 27.0 13.4 34.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.8 19.6 11.0 26.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 1.5 0.1 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.8
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 296
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 AM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 718 727 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 110 667 193 172 995 444 354 372 315 556 492 78
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2719 786 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1576 249
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 601 587 245 605 1033 189 343 90 718 0 842
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1729 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1825
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 35.2 35.2 13.9 21.2 40.2 13.7 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 35.2 35.2 13.9 21.2 40.2 13.7 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 110 436 424 172 995 444 354 372 315 556 0 570
V/C Ratio(X) 1.36 1.38 1.38 1.42 0.61 2.33 0.53 0.92 0.29 1.29 0.00 1.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 436 424 172 995 444 372 391 331 556 0 570
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.3 54.2 54.2 64.8 44.8 51.7 51.5 56.4 48.8 49.4 0.0 49.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 209.0 184.7 187.3 219.7 1.4 604.4 1.6 26.6 0.6 144.3 0.0 224.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.3 37.4 36.7 16.6 9.2 89.7 6.1 14.6 2.7 41.4 0.0 55.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 276.3 238.9 241.5 284.5 46.3 656.1 53.1 83.0 49.4 193.7 0.0 273.9
LnGrp LOS FFFFDFDFDFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1338 1883 622 1560
Approach Delay, s/veh 244.2 411.8 69.0 237.0
Approach LOS F F E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 41.4 51.0 13.0 46.4 33.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.9 35.2 44.8 8.9 40.2 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 37.2 46.8 10.9 42.2 27.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 280.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 297
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 AM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 0 0 0 403 0 384
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 0 0 0 403 0 384
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 403 0 384
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2718 1212 0 2718 1465 551 0 445
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.00 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 403 0 384
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.6 47.4 0.0 23.7 10.4 15.5 0.0 18.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.6 47.4 0.0 23.7 10.4 15.5 0.0 18.8
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2718 1212 0 2718 1465 551 0 445
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.40 0.77 0.00 0.55 0.54 0.73 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2718 1212 0 2718 1465 980 0 791
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.6 9.4 0.0 6.7 0.8 56.0 0.0 57.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.1 11.9 0.0 6.7 8.3 6.7 0.0 6.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.6 9.9 0.0 7.1 1.5 56.7 0.0 59.3
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2027 2270 787
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 5.2 58.0
Approach LOS A A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 112.4 27.6 112.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 89.7 39.7 89.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.4 20.8 25.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 1.6 11.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.3
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 298
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 673 0 0 479 0 0 598
Future Volume (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 673 0 0 479 0 0 598
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 673 0 0 479 0 0 598
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000045002360016
Lane Group Flow (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 628 0 0 243 0 0 582
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.4 109.0 74.0 94.4 20.4 55.4
Effective Green, g (s) 30.4 109.0 74.0 94.4 20.4 55.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.78 0.53 0.67 0.15 0.40
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 2755 1870 1127 406 1102
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.32 c0.47 c0.08 0.09 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.42 0.88 0.56 0.60 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 5.1 29.1 11.9 56.0 32.3
Progression Factor 1.01 0.64 0.64 0.67 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 18.9 0.4 3.9 0.2 1.6 0.2
Delay (s)72.6 3.7 22.5 8.1 57.6 32.5
Level of Service E A C A E C
Approach Delay (s)19.4 18.3 57.6 32.5
Approach LOS B B E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 299
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 AM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 394 911 339 140 1342 43 365 183 110 75 229 542
Future Volume (veh/h) 394 911 339 140 1342 43 365 183 110 75 229 542
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 394 911 339 140 1342 43 365 183 110 75 229 542
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 405 1505 864 187 1832 59 420 1105 579 94 432 552
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.85 0.85 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5082 163 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 394 911 339 140 899 486 365 183 110 75 229 542
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1841 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 11.3 1.2 5.6 32.1 32.1 14.5 5.2 6.6 5.8 15.0 29.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 11.3 1.2 5.6 32.1 32.1 14.5 5.2 6.6 5.8 15.0 29.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 405 1505 864 187 1227 663 420 1105 579 94 432 552
V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.61 0.39 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.87 0.17 0.19 0.80 0.53 0.98
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 1505 864 207 1227 663 691 1312 671 164 468 582
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.4 7.0 1.6 65.3 38.9 38.9 60.4 35.0 30.3 65.5 47.2 20.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.1 1.5 1.1 10.6 3.9 7.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 5.6 0.4 31.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 2.7 0.9 2.7 13.4 15.1 6.4 2.2 2.5 2.7 6.8 14.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87.5 8.6 2.8 75.9 42.8 45.9 63.9 35.1 30.4 71.1 47.6 52.4
LnGrp LOS F A A E D D E D C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1644 1525 658 846
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 46.8 50.3 52.8
Approach LOS CDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 65.8 23.5 38.5 21.0 57.0 12.0 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.4 * 45 28.0 35.0 16.4 36.8 12.9 51.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 13.3 16.5 31.6 17.8 34.1 7.8 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.7 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 300
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 PM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 285 815 910 263 227 196
Future Volume (veh/h) 285 815 910 263 227 196
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 285 815 910 263 227 196
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 317 1403 991 840 270 240
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.75 0.53 0.53 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 285 815 910 263 227 196
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 21.1 48.8 10.2 13.6 13.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 21.1 48.8 10.2 13.6 13.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 317 1403 991 840 270 240
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.58 0.92 0.31 0.84 0.82
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 397 1747 1251 1060 440 391
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.0 6.1 23.6 14.5 45.2 45.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.5 0.4 9.3 0.2 7.7 6.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.8 5.3 20.8 3.3 6.3 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.5 6.4 32.9 14.7 52.9 51.7
LnGrp LOS E A C B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1100 1173 423
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 28.8 52.3
Approach LOS C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 88.3 21.2 24.1 64.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 102.2 27.0 24.4 73.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.1 15.6 19.1 50.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.0 1.0 0.4 7.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.4
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 301
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 PM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 796 791 159
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 97 869 218 60 1024 457 423 444 376 489 415 83
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2813 707 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1512 304
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 596 587 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 796 0 950
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1743 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1816
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 44.8 44.8 4.9 41.8 41.8 30.1 34.4 21.7 39.8 0.0 39.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 44.8 44.8 4.9 41.8 41.8 30.1 34.4 21.7 39.8 0.0 39.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 549 539 60 1024 457 423 444 376 489 0 498
V/C Ratio(X) 2.01 1.09 1.09 1.89 1.01 2.84 0.90 1.27 0.69 1.63 0.00 1.91
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 97 549 539 60 1024 457 423 444 376 489 0 498
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.6 50.1 50.1 70.1 51.6 51.6 53.7 55.3 50.5 52.6 0.0 52.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 488.5 63.8 65.4 457.9 30.9 834.3 22.2 138.7 5.6 291.9 0.0 415.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.7 28.6 28.3 9.8 22.1 121.7 15.6 32.7 9.0 56.8 0.0 74.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 557.1 113.9 115.5 527.9 82.5 885.9 75.9 194.0 56.1 344.5 0.0 467.9
LnGrp LOS FFFFFFEFEFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1378 2448 1205 1746
Approach Delay, s/veh 177.3 529.3 126.9 411.6
Approach LOS FFFF
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 46.0 12.0 48.0 39.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.9 44.8 39.8 7.9 41.8 34.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 46.8 41.8 9.9 43.8 36.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 355.8
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 302
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 PM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 0 0 0 718 0 554
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 0 0 0 718 0 554
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 718 0 554
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2485 1108 0 2485 1473 795 0 642
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 718 0 554
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 34.4 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 28.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 34.4 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 28.6
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2485 1108 0 2485 1473 795 0 642
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.62 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.35 0.90 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2485 1108 0 2485 1473 961 0 776
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 12.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1 0.0 55.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.3 9.3 0.0 7.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 11.6 15.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 14.0 0.0 10.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.1 14.9 0.0 0.9 0.3 65.4 0.0 62.9
LnGrp LOS ABBAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2376 2391 1272
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 0.7 64.3
Approach LOS B A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 110.2 39.8 110.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 97.7 41.7 97.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 52.9 32.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.6 2.2 15.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 303
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 803 0 0 675 0 0 916
Future Volume (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 803 0 0 675 0 0 916
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 803 0 0 675 0 0 916
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000320047008
Lane Group Flow (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 771 0 0 628 0 0 908
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.4 105.7 62.7 96.4 33.7 76.7
Effective Green, g (s) 38.4 105.7 62.7 96.4 33.7 76.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.70 0.42 0.64 0.22 0.51
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 453 2493 1479 1073 626 1425
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.51 c0.42 0.16 c0.23 0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.33
v/c Ratio 1.06 0.72 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.64
Uniform Delay, d1 55.8 13.3 43.6 17.8 58.1 26.6
Progression Factor 1.04 1.26 0.68 0.84 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 54.6 1.4 19.4 1.3 36.6 0.7
Delay (s)112.4 18.1 49.0 16.2 94.8 27.3
Level of Service F B D B F C
Approach Delay (s)38.0 37.5 94.8 27.3
Approach LOS D D F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 304
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 PM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 408 1664 421 150 1414 53 503 326 316 73 208 330
Future Volume (veh/h) 408 1664 421 150 1414 53 503 326 316 73 208 330
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 408 1664 421 150 1414 53 503 326 316 73 208 330
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 429 1793 1053 124 2105 79 552 924 469 91 264 420
Arrive On Green 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5051 189 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 408 1664 421 150 953 514 503 326 316 73 208 330
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1836 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 34.0 34.0 21.5 11.2 26.3 6.1 16.1 18.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 34.0 34.0 21.5 11.2 26.3 6.1 16.1 18.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 429 1793 1053 124 1418 765 552 924 469 91 264 420
V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.93 0.40 1.21 0.67 0.67 0.91 0.35 0.67 0.80 0.79 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 429 1793 1053 124 1418 765 645 1220 601 156 436 566
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 0.0 0.0 72.3 35.4 35.4 62.0 45.2 46.4 70.4 62.3 23.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.8 5.5 0.6 146.3 2.6 4.7 14.7 0.1 1.0 5.8 2.0 3.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 1.4 0.2 4.9 13.9 15.5 10.2 4.8 10.1 2.8 7.6 6.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.8 5.5 0.6 218.6 38.0 40.1 76.7 45.3 47.4 76.2 64.3 27.5
LnGrp LOS E A A F D D E D D E E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2493 1617 1145 611
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 55.4 59.7 45.8
Approach LOS B E E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 82.2 30.4 27.4 23.2 69.0 12.3 45.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 * 58 28.0 35.0 18.6 44.6 13.1 51.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 2.0 23.5 20.1 19.4 36.0 8.1 28.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 21.6 0.5 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 305
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P AM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 669 632 188 320 383
Future Volume (veh/h) 215 669 632 188 320 383
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 669 632 188 320 383
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 264 1858 799 238 520 463
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.52 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2794 802 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 669 416 404 320 383
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1726 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 6.5 12.5 12.6 9.0 13.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 6.5 12.5 12.6 9.0 13.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 264 1858 526 511 520 463
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.36 0.79 0.79 0.62 0.83
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 317 2265 676 656 824 733
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.1 8.2 18.9 18.9 17.8 19.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.9 0.1 4.9 5.1 1.2 4.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 1.6 4.7 4.6 3.2 11.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 8.3 23.7 23.9 19.0 23.7
LnGrp LOS D A C C B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 884 820 703
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.3 23.8 21.6
Approach LOS B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.7 21.6 13.2 23.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.2 27.0 10.4 22.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 15.2 8.8 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 1.9 0.1 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 306
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P AM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 718 727 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 110 667 193 172 995 444 354 372 315 556 492 78
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2719 786 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1576 249
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 601 587 245 605 1033 189 343 90 718 0 842
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1729 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1825
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 35.2 35.2 13.9 21.2 40.2 13.7 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 35.2 35.2 13.9 21.2 40.2 13.7 25.8 6.9 44.8 0.0 44.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 110 436 424 172 995 444 354 372 315 556 0 570
V/C Ratio(X) 1.36 1.38 1.38 1.42 0.61 2.33 0.53 0.92 0.29 1.29 0.00 1.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 436 424 172 995 444 372 391 331 556 0 570
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.3 54.2 54.2 64.8 44.8 51.7 51.5 56.4 48.8 49.4 0.0 49.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 209.0 184.7 187.3 219.7 1.4 604.4 1.6 26.6 0.6 144.3 0.0 224.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.3 37.4 36.7 16.6 9.2 89.7 6.1 14.6 2.7 41.4 0.0 55.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 276.3 238.9 241.5 284.5 46.3 656.1 53.1 83.0 49.4 193.7 0.0 273.9
LnGrp LOS FFFFDFDFDFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1338 1883 622 1560
Approach Delay, s/veh 244.2 411.8 69.0 237.0
Approach LOS F F E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 41.4 51.0 13.0 46.4 33.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.9 35.2 44.8 8.9 40.2 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 37.2 46.8 10.9 42.2 27.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 280.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 307
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P AM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 0 0 0 403 0 384
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 0 0 0 403 0 384
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 403 0 384
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2718 1212 0 2718 1465 551 0 445
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.00 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1092 935 0 1486 784 403 0 384
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 14.6 47.4 0.0 23.7 10.4 15.5 0.0 18.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 14.6 47.4 0.0 23.7 10.4 15.5 0.0 18.8
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2718 1212 0 2718 1465 551 0 445
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.40 0.77 0.00 0.55 0.54 0.73 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2718 1212 0 2718 1465 980 0 791
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.6 9.4 0.0 6.7 0.8 56.0 0.0 57.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.1 11.9 0.0 6.7 8.3 6.7 0.0 6.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.6 9.9 0.0 7.1 1.5 56.7 0.0 59.3
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2027 2270 787
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 5.2 58.0
Approach LOS A A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 112.4 27.6 112.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 89.7 39.7 89.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.4 20.8 25.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 1.6 11.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.3
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 308
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 +P AM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 673 0 0 479 0 0 598
Future Volume (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 673 0 0 479 0 0 598
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 673 0 0 479 0 0 598
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000045002360016
Lane Group Flow (vph) 339 1146 0 0 1648 628 0 0 243 0 0 582
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.4 109.0 74.0 94.4 20.4 55.4
Effective Green, g (s) 30.4 109.0 74.0 94.4 20.4 55.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.78 0.53 0.67 0.15 0.40
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 2755 1870 1127 406 1102
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.32 c0.47 c0.08 0.09 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.42 0.88 0.56 0.60 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 5.1 29.1 11.9 56.0 32.3
Progression Factor 1.01 0.64 0.64 0.67 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 18.9 0.4 3.9 0.2 1.6 0.2
Delay (s)72.6 3.7 22.5 8.1 57.6 32.5
Level of Service E A C A E C
Approach Delay (s)19.4 18.3 57.6 32.5
Approach LOS B B E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 309
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P AM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 394 911 339 140 1342 43 365 183 110 75 229 542
Future Volume (veh/h) 394 911 339 140 1342 43 365 183 110 75 229 542
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 394 911 339 140 1342 43 365 183 110 75 229 542
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 405 1505 864 187 1832 59 420 1105 579 94 432 552
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.85 0.85 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5082 163 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 394 911 339 140 899 486 365 183 110 75 229 542
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1841 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 11.3 1.2 5.6 32.1 32.1 14.5 5.2 6.6 5.8 15.0 29.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 11.3 1.2 5.6 32.1 32.1 14.5 5.2 6.6 5.8 15.0 29.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 405 1505 864 187 1227 663 420 1105 579 94 432 552
V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.61 0.39 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.87 0.17 0.19 0.80 0.53 0.98
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 405 1505 864 207 1227 663 691 1312 671 164 468 582
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.4 7.0 1.6 65.3 38.9 38.9 60.4 35.0 30.3 65.5 47.2 20.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.1 1.5 1.1 10.6 3.9 7.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 5.6 0.4 31.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 2.7 0.9 2.7 13.4 15.1 6.4 2.2 2.5 2.7 6.8 14.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87.5 8.6 2.8 75.9 42.8 45.9 63.9 35.1 30.4 71.1 47.6 52.4
LnGrp LOS F A A E D D E D C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1644 1525 658 846
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 46.8 50.3 52.8
Approach LOS CDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 65.8 23.5 38.5 21.0 57.0 12.0 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.4 * 45 28.0 35.0 16.4 36.8 12.9 51.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 13.3 16.5 31.6 17.8 34.1 7.8 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.7 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 310
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P PM.syn
1: Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 285 815 910 263 227 196
Future Volume (veh/h) 285 815 910 263 227 196
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 285 815 910 263 227 196
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 336 2360 1101 317 302 269
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.66 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2815 785 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 285 815 594 579 227 196
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1729 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 6.5 19.4 19.5 7.9 7.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 6.5 19.4 19.5 7.9 7.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 2360 719 699 302 269
V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.35 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.73
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 439 2855 864 841 740 659
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4 4.8 17.3 17.3 25.7 25.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.5 0.1 5.6 5.9 3.8 3.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 1.1 7.1 7.0 3.2 6.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 4.8 22.9 23.2 29.4 29.3
LnGrp LOS D A CCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1100 1173 423
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 23.1 29.4
Approach LOS B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.3 15.6 16.9 32.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 4.6 4.6 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.2 27.0 16.0 31.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 9.9 12.0 21.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.5 1.1 0.3 4.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS C
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 311
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P PM.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 796 791 159
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 97 869 218 60 1024 457 423 444 376 489 415 83
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2813 707 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1512 304
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 596 587 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 796 0 950
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1743 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1816
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 44.8 44.8 4.9 41.8 41.8 30.1 34.4 21.7 39.8 0.0 39.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 44.8 44.8 4.9 41.8 41.8 30.1 34.4 21.7 39.8 0.0 39.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 549 539 60 1024 457 423 444 376 489 0 498
V/C Ratio(X) 2.01 1.09 1.09 1.89 1.01 2.84 0.90 1.27 0.69 1.63 0.00 1.91
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 97 549 539 60 1024 457 423 444 376 489 0 498
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.6 50.1 50.1 70.1 51.6 51.6 53.7 55.3 50.5 52.6 0.0 52.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 488.5 63.8 65.4 457.9 30.9 834.3 22.2 138.7 5.6 291.9 0.0 415.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.7 28.6 28.3 9.8 22.1 121.7 15.6 32.7 9.0 56.8 0.0 74.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 557.1 113.9 115.5 527.9 82.5 885.9 75.9 194.0 56.1 344.5 0.0 467.9
LnGrp LOS FFFFFFEFEFAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1378 2448 1205 1746
Approach Delay, s/veh 177.3 529.3 126.9 411.6
Approach LOS FFFF
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 46.0 12.0 48.0 39.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.9 44.8 39.8 7.9 41.8 34.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 46.8 41.8 9.9 43.8 36.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 355.8
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 312
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P PM.syn
3: I-215 SB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 0 0 0 718 0 554
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 0 0 0 718 0 554
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 0 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 718 0 554
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %022022 202
Cap, veh/h 0 2485 1108 0 2485 1473 795 0 642
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1585 0 3647 1585 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1536 840 0 1877 514 718 0 554
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1585 0 1777 1585 1728 0 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 34.4 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 28.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 34.4 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 28.6
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2485 1108 0 2485 1473 795 0 642
V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.62 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.35 0.90 0.00 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2485 1108 0 2485 1473 961 0 776
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 12.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1 0.0 55.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.3 9.3 0.0 7.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 11.6 15.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 14.0 0.0 10.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.1 14.9 0.0 0.9 0.3 65.4 0.0 62.9
LnGrp LOS ABBAAA EAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2376 2391 1272
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 0.7 64.3
Approach LOS B A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 110.2 39.8 110.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 97.7 41.7 97.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 52.9 32.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.6 2.2 15.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 313
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 +P PM.syn
4: I-215 NB Ramp & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 803 0 0 675 0 0 916
Future Volume (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 803 0 0 675 0 0 916
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 3539 1583 2787 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 803 0 0 675 0 0 916
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000320047008
Lane Group Flow (vph) 482 1797 0 0 1482 771 0 0 628 0 0 908
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8 5 8
Permitted Phases 6 8 5 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.4 105.7 62.7 96.4 33.7 76.7
Effective Green, g (s) 38.4 105.7 62.7 96.4 33.7 76.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.70 0.42 0.64 0.22 0.51
Clearance Time (s)4.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 453 2493 1479 1073 626 1425
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.51 c0.42 0.16 c0.23 0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.33
v/c Ratio 1.06 0.72 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.64
Uniform Delay, d1 55.8 13.3 43.6 17.8 58.1 26.6
Progression Factor 1.04 1.26 0.68 0.84 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 54.6 1.4 19.4 1.3 36.6 0.7
Delay (s)112.4 18.1 49.0 16.2 94.8 27.3
Level of Service F B D B F C
Approach Delay (s)38.0 37.5 94.8 27.3
Approach LOS D D F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 314
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P PM.syn
5: Antelope Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 408 1664 421 150 1414 53 503 326 316 73 208 330
Future Volume (veh/h) 408 1664 421 150 1414 53 503 326 316 73 208 330
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 408 1664 421 150 1414 53 503 326 316 73 208 330
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 429 1793 1053 124 2105 79 552 924 469 91 264 420
Arrive On Green 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5051 189 3456 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 408 1664 421 150 953 514 503 326 316 73 208 330
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1836 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 34.0 34.0 21.5 11.2 26.3 6.1 16.1 18.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 34.0 34.0 21.5 11.2 26.3 6.1 16.1 18.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 429 1793 1053 124 1418 765 552 924 469 91 264 420
V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.93 0.40 1.21 0.67 0.67 0.91 0.35 0.67 0.80 0.79 0.79
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 429 1793 1053 124 1418 765 645 1220 601 156 436 566
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 0.0 0.0 72.3 35.4 35.4 62.0 45.2 46.4 70.4 62.3 23.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.8 5.5 0.6 146.3 2.6 4.7 14.7 0.1 1.0 5.8 2.0 3.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 1.4 0.2 4.9 13.9 15.5 10.2 4.8 10.1 2.8 7.6 6.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.8 5.5 0.6 218.6 38.0 40.1 76.7 45.3 47.4 76.2 64.3 27.5
LnGrp LOS E A A F D D E D D E E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2493 1617 1145 611
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 55.4 59.7 45.8
Approach LOS B E E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 82.2 30.4 27.4 23.2 69.0 12.3 45.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 6.5 6.5 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 * 58 28.0 35.0 18.6 44.6 13.1 51.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 2.0 23.5 20.1 19.4 36.0 8.1 28.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 21.6 0.5 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 315
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Appendix G: With Improvements Intersection LOS Worksheets
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 316
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P AM - Improv.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 834 144 234 571 968 92 303 79 962 245 108
Future Volume (veh/h) 141 834 144 234 571 968 92 303 79 962 245 108
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 937 162 263 642 1088 103 340 89 1081 275 121
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 208 1012 174 278 1161 1803 158 442 444 1104 1456 745
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.32 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 4383 755 1781 3554 2790 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 727 372 263 642 1088 103 340 89 1081 275 121
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1734 1781 1777 1395 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 28.0 28.1 19.6 19.9 30.3 3.9 12.4 5.7 41.5 6.6 5.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 28.0 28.1 19.6 19.9 30.3 3.9 12.4 5.7 41.5 6.6 5.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 786 401 278 1161 1803 158 442 444 1104 1456 745
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.77 0.20 0.98 0.19 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 297 793 404 278 1161 1803 748 769 590 1104 1456 745
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.0 50.4 50.4 56.0 37.1 13.8 62.9 56.8 36.8 45.2 25.3 20.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 16.8 28.1 39.3 0.8 0.8 5.3 3.4 0.3 22.2 0.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 13.2 14.8 11.5 8.4 8.6 1.8 5.6 2.2 20.3 2.7 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.7 67.2 78.6 95.3 37.9 14.5 68.2 60.3 37.0 67.3 25.4 20.5
LnGrp LOS E E E F D B E E D E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1257 1993 532 1477
Approach Delay, s/veh 70.4 32.7 57.9 55.7
Approach LOS E C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 37.2 10.7 61.1 12.2 50.0 49.0 22.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.1 6.2 6.2 * 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.9 31.2 29.0 42.8 11.5 40.6 42.8 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.6 30.1 5.9 8.6 8.0 32.3 43.5 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.3 2.5 0.1 6.7 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 317
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 +P PM - Improv.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 187 891 70 95 962 1230 192 426 243 1125 174 152
Future Volume (veh/h) 187 891 70 95 962 1230 192 426 243 1125 174 152
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 900 71 96 972 1242 194 430 245 1136 176 154
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 201 1316 104 118 998 1682 259 612 378 1113 1532 775
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.32 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 4826 380 1781 3554 2790 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 634 337 96 972 1242 194 430 245 1136 176 154
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1802 1781 1777 1395 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 22.6 22.8 7.2 36.8 38.2 7.5 15.5 18.9 43.8 4.0 7.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 22.6 22.8 7.2 36.8 38.2 7.5 15.5 18.9 43.8 4.0 7.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 928 491 118 998 1682 259 612 378 1113 1532 775
V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.68 0.69 0.81 0.97 0.74 0.75 0.70 0.65 1.02 0.11 0.20
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 201 928 491 151 998 1682 737 758 443 1113 1532 775
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.8 44.2 44.3 62.7 48.4 19.3 61.7 53.0 46.7 46.1 23.2 19.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 46.6 2.5 4.7 18.3 22.4 2.0 5.2 2.5 2.9 32.4 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 9.5 10.4 3.8 18.6 13.0 3.4 6.9 7.5 22.9 1.6 2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 110.4 46.7 48.9 81.0 70.8 21.3 66.9 55.5 49.6 78.5 23.2 19.8
LnGrp LOS F D D F E C E E D F C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1160 2310 869 1466
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.7 44.6 56.4 65.7
Approach LOS E D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 43.3 14.8 64.9 12.0 44.4 50.0 29.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.1 6.2 6.2 * 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 34.6 29.0 43.8 7.9 38.2 43.8 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 24.8 9.5 9.5 9.4 40.2 45.8 20.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 318
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P AM - Improv.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 201 1138 480 309 1296 1610 276 487 359 1117 1408 720
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.40 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 2790 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 921 267 245 605 1033 189 343 90 1029 291 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1395 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 17.0 14.1 6.9 10.0 24.8 5.3 9.2 4.6 28.6 5.4 4.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 17.0 14.1 6.9 10.0 24.8 5.3 9.2 4.6 28.6 5.4 4.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 1138 480 309 1296 1610 276 487 359 1117 1408 720
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.81 0.56 0.79 0.47 0.64 0.68 0.70 0.25 0.92 0.21 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 201 1138 480 309 1296 1610 1006 1034 603 1172 1408 720
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.2 36.7 29.1 44.5 31.5 14.2 44.6 41.1 31.6 32.5 19.8 16.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.6 4.8 2.1 12.3 0.4 1.1 3.6 2.3 0.4 11.7 0.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 7.1 5.3 3.3 3.9 6.7 2.3 4.0 1.7 12.8 2.1 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.8 41.6 31.2 56.8 31.9 15.2 48.2 43.3 32.1 44.2 19.9 16.1
LnGrp LOS E D C E C B DDCDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1338 1883 622 1435
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.4 26.0 43.2 37.0
Approach LOS DCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 28.4 12.6 45.7 9.9 31.5 38.4 19.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.1 6.2 6.2 * 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 22.2 29.0 33.8 5.8 25.3 33.8 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 19.0 7.3 7.4 6.3 26.8 30.6 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 319
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 +P PM - Improv.syn
2: Zeiders Rd/Haun Rd & Scott Rd 03/13/2020
Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 219 1149 571 166 1070 1546 467 693 385 1191 1485 763
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 2790 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 945 238 114 1036 1298 381 564 260 1181 253 159
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1395 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 21.3 13.7 3.9 24.4 25.4 13.0 18.4 18.0 41.3 5.4 7.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 21.3 13.7 3.9 24.4 25.4 13.0 18.4 18.0 41.3 5.4 7.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 1149 571 166 1070 1546 467 693 385 1191 1485 763
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.82 0.42 0.69 0.97 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.67 0.99 0.17 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 219 1149 571 174 1070 1546 826 850 455 1191 1485 763
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.4 44.7 29.2 56.8 47.5 22.5 51.0 46.7 41.6 39.6 22.1 18.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.8 5.3 0.8 8.3 20.4 4.6 4.3 5.3 3.5 23.9 0.1 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 9.1 5.1 1.8 11.8 14.6 5.7 8.3 7.1 20.4 2.2 2.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.2 50.0 30.1 65.1 68.0 27.1 55.2 52.0 45.0 63.5 22.2 18.3
LnGrp LOS F D C E E C E D D E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1378 2448 1205 1593
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.9 46.2 51.5 52.4
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 33.5 21.0 56.9 11.8 31.6 48.0 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.1 6.2 6.2 * 6.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 27.0 29.0 41.8 7.7 25.4 41.8 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 23.3 15.0 9.0 8.8 27.4 43.3 20.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 1.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 320
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
9
-
0
7
8
8
3
_
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
_
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
_
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
(
2
7
5
9
:
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
t
h
e
B
u
n
d
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
/
S
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t