City's Response
• B
ased on the proposed Project site plan circulation layout and existing adjacent development circulation layout, it is very unlikely that a measurable volume of customers would back track and circulate through the proposed site to make the same right turn movement that could be completed more conveniently from the Archibald’s site.
• While a specific Coffee Shop user has not yet been identified, the proposed Project site plan shows a drive-through lane storage of 18 vehicles, which is greater than the minimum standard required by Starbucks (12 – 14 vehicle storage), Dutch Bros (15 vehicle storage), or Better Buzz (12 vehicle storage) which would generate the greatest queue. Furthermore, there is significant storage within the drive aisles that could be utilized during the 15 to 30 minutes in the AM peak hour that vehicles could potentially queue beyond the drive- through lanes, such that the public ROW would never be impacted.
• The explanation provided with the Alternate Trip Generation Table sufficiently addresses this issue as the trip generation difference would not change the results of the traffic analysis. Furthermore, both trip generation estimates are likely conservative in our experience and does not take into account the internal capture that would occur between the proposed uses therefore reducing the trip generation. Lastly, as shown in the TIA, the 2027 Project completion year traffic volumes reflect future traffic volumes from 15 cumulative projects totaling 3,281 AM peak hour trips and 4,643 PM peak hour trips, such that the traffic volumes analyzed in the TIA are very likely significantly overstated regardless of the potential slight difference between two Project trip generation forecasts.
• The AQ/GHG modeling and analyses are based on the trip generation rates. Because no changes to the trip generation rates within the TIA are occurring, no revisions to the AQ or GHG analyses are warranted or required. Additionally, because no changes to the maximum net daily vehicles generated by the project or to the cumulative plus project peak hour conditions, no changes to the CO hotspot would be required either.
Furthermore, the total cumulative traffic volume forecast is very likely significantly overstated. Emissions modeled on these traffic volumes would have correspondingly overstated results.
• Contrary to the comment, traffic simulation would take into account gaps created by the adjacent traffic signals and platooning, such that the driveway level of service (LOS) would show a better LOS. Therefore, the HCM calculation utilized in the TIA represents a more conservative result.
• As indicated in the TIA on Page 38, it is not uncommon for private unsignalized driveways, such as that of the Project, to experience a longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major streets, like Newport Road and likely occurs at all existing driveways along Newport Road. Furthermore, due to the unsignalized driveway being in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Menifee Lakes Drive/Calle Pompeii at Newport Road as well as Menifee Road at Newport Road, it is expected that gaps in traffic would occur and actual vehicular delay experienced would be lower than what is being reported within the HCM methodology. As indicated above in the first response, bas ed on the proposed site plan circulation layout and the fact that the existing Archibald driveway on Newport Road is forecast to operate at a worse LOS F, (we conducted an estimated 2027 LOS calculation for the PM peak hour) than the Project driveway, but in reality probably does not experience significant delays, it is unlikely a measurable volume of traffic would use the Archibald driveway on Newport Road. Also, the Archibald’s driveway along Menifee Road is analyzed in the TIA. • Comment noted. The driveway LOS calculation has been updated to reflect only one northbound right turn lane at the Project driveway on Newport Road. While the delay increase measurably, the findings remain the same.