Attachment 6-Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724 — Murrieta City Council, May 20, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Addendum to the
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
The Triangle Specific Plan (SP0-007-
2452)
SCH Number: 2008061104

Prepared to Evaluate:

The Shops at the Triangle
Planning Applications:

Specific Plan Amendment (SP) 2023-00003
Development Plan (DP)2022-2705
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 2022-2706
Development Agreement 2023-00003

Prepared for Tres Estrellas, LLC
618 West Baseline Road
Claremont, California 91711

Prepared by Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
July 2024

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page
Section 1.0 Purpose and Background ................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Background............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2.1 Certified Final Environmental Impact Report .............................. 1-1 Section 2.0 Project Setting .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 2-1 Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................... 3-1 Section 4.0 Evaluation Pursuant to Section 21166 ........................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...................................................... 4-5

4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-6

4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 4-13

4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 4-19

4.6 Energy .................................................................................................. 4-20

4.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................. 4-21

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 4-25

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................... 4-27

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ 4-31

4.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 4-34

4.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 4-36

4.13 Noise .................................................................................................... 4-37

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................ 4-39

4.15 Public Services ..................................................................................... 4-40

4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................ 4-43

4.17 Transportation....................................................................................... 4-44

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4-48

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 4-50

4.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................. 4-53 Section 5.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 5-1 Section 6.0 References ........................................................................................................ 6-1

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx ii Table of Contents TABLES
Table Page

1 Statistical Land Use Summary for the Triangle Specific Plan ........................................ 1-2

APPENDICES
Appendix
A Site Plan
B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
C Biological Site Reconnaissance Memorandum – Hernandez Environmental Services (January 2023)
D Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
E Focused Traffic Analysis – Rick Engineering Company (June 2023) F Updated Trip Generation Evaluation – Claremont Law Group, Inc. (July 2024) G Transportation Demand Management Memorandum – RK Engineering Group, Inc. (July 2024)

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 1-1 Purpose and Background SECTION 1.0 PURPOS E AND BACKGROUND

1.1 PURPOSE
The overall Triangle Specific Plan was analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2008061104). The Draft EIR was circulated in February 2013 and the Final EIR was certified by the City of Murrieta in October 2013 (City of Murrieta 2013a and 2013b).

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess, in light of the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166, the consistency of The Shops at the Triangle Project (the Project or the current Project) with the Final EIR prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.2 BACKGROUND
This Addendum incorporates information from the Final EIR to demonstrate that none of the events specified in PRC Section 21166 requiring subsequent environmental documentation have occurred. The following information provides context to the current Project.

1.2.1 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Project Location and Setting
The Triangle Specific Plan Project site is an approximate 64-acre, triangular-shaped property located in the City of Murrieta. The Project site is bordered by Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north, Interstate (I) 15 to the southwest, and I-215 to the east. Regional access to the Project site is provided by I-15 and I-215.

The topography on the Project site slopes from north to the south. Elevations on the Project site range from approximately 1,112 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the northeastern corner to approximately 1,152 feet above AMSL near the northwestern corner. The Project site consists of vacant lands that have been previously graded. The Project site is regularly disturbed by weed abatement activities. A cleared dirt and gravel lot is located in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Gravel trails cross the Project site and several lined basins with lined spillways are scattered throughout. There are no permanent structures on the Project site; however, there are some temporary structures including for a seasonal strawberry stand and a Christmas tree lot/pumpkin patch, and two billboards that are located along the Project site’s perimeter.

Vegetation within the Project site includes disturbed/developed areas, ruderal areas, and disturbed buckwheat scrub habitat (Hernandez Environmental Services 2023).

The Project site contains a small, unnamed tributary to Murrieta Creek that conveys runoff from I-215 across the southern corner of the Projec t site. The drainage enters the Project site along the southeastern boundary and meanders through the southern portion of the Project site for approximately 524 feet until it exits at the southern boundary of the Project site. The drainage continues off-site for approximately 70 feet befor e it flows into a culvert and continues under the I-15 Freeway and outlets 0.12 mile north of Monroe Avenue and continues for approximately 1 mile via storm drains until it connects to Murrieta Creek, which ultimately drains into the Santa Margarita River.

Land uses surrounding the Project site are primarily commercial, but also include office, light industrial, institutional, and residential. The Rancho Springs Medical Center is located north of Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 1-2 Purpose and Background the Project site along with several medical office buildings. Larger, big box retail stores are located east and west of the Project site along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and limited residential development exists beyond that. West of I-15 and south of the WalMart center along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, development consists of a mix of rural residential and light industrial uses.

The Project site drains to Murrieta Creek and ultimately to the Santa Margarita River. Storm water from an approximate 38-acre off-site area enter the Project site from the east via three culverts that cross under I-215 and discharge via one culvert inlet onto the northeast corner of the Project site.

Project Description for the Overall Triangle Specific Plan The overall Triangle Specific Plan consists of approximately 64.3 acres of mixed-use development that feature an open-air retail commercial district. Approved uses include retail uses in one or more shopping areas that blend restaurants, a mix of small and large retail stores, entertainment uses, and possibly offices located above retail uses; mid- and high-rise professional office space, served by parking structures; and hospitality uses that may include hotel rooms, conference and meeting space, dining, and its own recreational amenities. The intensity of development approved for The Triangle Specific Plan is regulated by the maximum gross building area for the site, building heights, property setbacks and parking requirements. Table 1 provides a summary of the maximum gross building area for approved land uses.

TABLE 1

STATISTICAL LAND USE SUMMARY FOR THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN Land Use
Phase 1A
(gsf)
Phase 1B
(gsf)
Phase 1C
(gsf)
Phase 2
(gsf)
Phase 3
(gsf)
Buildout
(gsf)
Restaurant 49,392 25,730 – – 50,136 125,258
Commercial/
Retail – 184,486 155,228 99,060 202,140 640,914
Theater – 74,660 – – – 74,660
Hotel (220 rooms) – – – 148,000 – 148,000
Officea – 48,000 – 482,000 249,082 779,082
Total Maximum Gross
Building Areab 49,392 322,876 155,228 729, 060 501,358 1,767,914 gsf: gross square feet
a The office building use may include approximately 80,000 gsf of office space that may be located above retail. b The individual building use gross build ing areas are approximate only and subject to change. In no case will the total maximum gross building area for the Project exceed 1,767,914 gsf.

Source: City of Murrieta 2013a and 2013b.

The Triangle Specific Plan was anticipated to be developed in phases based on market demand.

Utility infrastructure for the overall Triangle Specific Plan was planned to be developed during Phase 1a. The Draft EIR and Final EIR assumed that the Specific Plan land uses would be built out over approximately 7 years. Phase 1a was anticipated to be completed in 2014, Phases 1b and 1c were expected to be completed by 2015, Phase 2 by 2019, and Phase 3 by 2021. This Addendum includes discussion where applicable regarding the Project’s delayed implementation and how this might affect the environmental analysis and conclusions previously made by the City in the Final EIR.

The Property Owner/Developer is concurrently processing an amendment to the Specific Plan (Planning Case No. SP-2023-00003) to update the Specific Plan and to modify the Conditions of Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 1-3 Purpose and Background Approval applicable to the Project site to (a) authorize drive through food uses, (b) to modify setbacks, landscape requirements, and similar site related conditions and standards to improve site conditions, enhance public spaces and allow greater flexibility in development to facilitate the synergy of best in class regional tenants, and (c) to update, clarify, modernize, enhance and increase the availability of signage and to add electronic signage to increase the visibility of the Project.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 2-1 Project Setting SECTION 2.0 PROJECT SETTING

2.1 REGULATORY SETTING
The consistency evaluation in this Addendum is prepared in accordance with the requirements contained in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. This Addendum contains an evaluation compares the current Project with the analysis and conclusions contained within the Draft EIR and Final EIR for the Triangle Specific Plan.

Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code states:
“When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs”:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.

3. New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.

If any of these three conditions apply, then subsequent environmental documentation would be required. The State CEQA Guidelines, specifically, Section 15162, provides more detail on how to assess the applicability of these standards. These parameters, summarized as follows, have been applied in the consistency evaluation that is provided in Section 4 of this Addendum. (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR.

The following four conditions must be found to exist for a finding that the first part of the test applies:
 The change in the project is substantial;
 The change involves new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts;
 The change will require major revisions to the previous EIR based on the new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and
 The new or more severe impacts were not considered in the previous EIR (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR.

Four conditions must be found to exist for a finding that the second part of the test applies:
 The change in circumstances is substantial;
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 2-2 Project Setting  The change involves new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts;
 The change will require major revisions to the previous EIR based on the new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and
 The new or more severe impacts were not considered in the previous EIR (c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified, becomes available.

New information must show one of the following for the third part of the test to apply:
 The project will have significant effects not evaluated in the prior EIR;  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior EIR;
 Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible are in fact feasible and would substantially reduce significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 3-1 Project Description SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Summary
The Property Owner/Developer is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) be approved by the City, which is necessary to better reflect the current site plan proposal, current market trends, and to provide more flexibility in implementing the Specific Plan without requiring the overhaul of the entire Specific Plan document.

The current Project, The Shops at the Triangle, consists of approximately 279,500 square feet of retail development. The development would be built on the northern portion of the triangular Project site on approximately 36.46 acres that generally front Murrieta Hot Springs Road.

Changes to the Specific Plan
Changes to the allowed uses in “Use Table 2-1”
 Allow drive through restaurant/fast food uses with limitations. o Planning Area 3 – Must be 200 feet back from Murrieta Hot Springs Road  Adds “Vehicle Rental” as an allowed use, as an office only.  Adds “Golf Driving Ranges (with or without restaurants) subject to a Minor CUP  Changes “Outdoor Recreation, Commercial” from a CUP to a Minor CUP.  Adds Hospitals, subject to a CUP
 Adds Extended Care Facilities (less than 30 day stay), subject to a Minor CUP.  Modifies criteria for “Warehouse Retail Stores” to state “greater than 70,000 sf” and subject to a Minor CUP
 Amend “Veterinary Clinics, Animal Hospitals, Kennels and Boarding Facilities” from a permitted use to a Minor CUP and to remove the restriction that the facility be within a retail business and cannot exceed 40% of the business floor space.

Changes to Development Standards
 Change the 60-foot landscape setback along Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 15 feet for parking areas and 25 feet for buildings, with allowances for certain exceptions (For reference, See Exhibit 2-28 through 2-31 and Section 2.5.3-Office, Section 2.5.4-Retail & Restaurant, and Section 2.5.5-Hotel) (Section 2).
 Reduce various building and landscape setback requirements within the interior of the specific plan area (Section 2).
 Modify various setback standards as a result of changing the setbacks from the landscape setback to a more conventional method of applying setbacks from property lines (Section 2).
 Reduce parking garage setbacks from Murrieta Hot Springs Road from 100 feet to 25 feet when less than two stories (Section 2).
 Include provisions for the replacement of t he two existing billboards for two electronic billboards (Section 4).

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 3-2 Project Description  Increasing the allowances for additional freeway and pylon signs, increased heights, larger sign area, and larger area for on-site digital signage (Section 4).  Authorize the Development Services Director to consider reductions to various setbacks within the specific plan, either through a set 25% reduction, or through specified changes identified as Minor Exceptions (Section 4).

Tentative Tract Map 38622
A second component of the project is Tentativ e Tract Map 38622 which covers the entire 64.3- acre specific plan area. The map proposes to create 23 lots/parcels. There are five (5) lettered lots shown on the map which are required in order to dedicate specified areas along Murrieta Hot Springs Road to provide appropriate road right-of-way to meet city standard 102A, which is a 150 foot wide road width. Additional width is also necessary in areas where a deceleration lane is designed. The map includes a request for a vacation of a previously dedicated road, Rogers Dale Avenue. An access easement is shown providing appropriate legal and emergency/public access to all lots within the subdivision.

Development Plan 2022-2075
The project proposes approximately 279,500 square feet of retail development on 36.46 acres to begin development in this initial phase, accounting for approximately 25 buildings with twelve (12) of the buildings being pad buildings (a building or two buildings typically located in a separated area away from the primary shopping center buildings (in-line) surrounded by parking, drive aisles, landscaping) and the remaining consider ed to be in-line buildings (buildings typically aligned directly adjacent to each other, in many cases appearing as a single building). Eight of the twelve (12) pad buildings are located along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the most easterly building proposed as a fast-food drive through. The development is focused on the northerly portion of the site in this initial phase as future phases would occur on the southerly portion.

Specifically, there is 197,191 square feet of retail uses and 82,347 square feet of food/restaurant uses with 11,100 square feet of outdoor dining area. There are two primary access points into the center, one across from future Monroe Avenue (current Sparkman Court) and the other is across from existing Hancock Avenue, both of which will be signalized. Additional access will be provided in between the two primary access drives and will be limited to right-in and right-out vehicle turning movements. A total of 1,675 parking spaces are provided, which is more than would be required for this amount of retail development utilizing City standards in the Development Code.

Infrastructure improvements would consist of widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road primarily to accommodate deceleration lanes into the project site and the installation of traffic signals at Hancock and Monroe Avenue. A sewer line will be extended from the north side of Monroe through the project site, under I-15 and connect to an existing line on the west side of I-15. Monroe Avenue on the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road will also be realigned and widened to be more perpendicular to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and to accommodate proper lane configuration from the south side.

The proposed Development Plan anticipates being constructed in phases. All infrastructure (roads, signals, water/sewer, utilities) would be constructed prior to occupancy of any buildings within the first phase.

Development Agreement
The current Project includes the approval of a Development Agreement for the Project that includes specific details on the payment of development impact fees, payment for off-site Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 3-3 Project Description improvements, and on the removal and replacement of billboards in the Project Site. The Project Site currently includes two double sided static billboards. The Development Agreement would allow the Property Owner/Developer to apply for a billboard relocation agreement pursuant to Title 16 of the Murrieta Municipal Code which, if approved, would memorialize the terms and conditions upon which Developer would have the right to relocate and reconstruct certain legally existing billboards within the Property (“Relocation Agreement”). At a maximum, two (2) new digital billboards would be relocated/reconstructed on the Project Sit and the existing non-conforming double-sided static billboards would be removed from the Project Site. No other aspects of the Development Agreement would have the potential to result in an environmental impact.

Phasing
The current Project consists of a portion of the development allowed for in the Triangle Specific Plan and that is generally proportional to the allotments shown above in Table 1 for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C of the overall Triangle Specific Plan. There are a few minor differences between the phasing that was anticipated in the Final EIR for the overall Triangle Specific Plan and the current Project, which are noted below. The Triangle Specific Plan and the Final EIR assumed and allowed for minor deviations from the phasing based on market demand. Primary differences between the approved Triangle Specific Plan and current Project include the following:
• Overall, the Project would develop 279,500 gsf, which is approximately 247,996 gsf less of development than the 527,496 gsf of development that is approved for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C of the Project, as shown in the Final EIR.
• The Project would develop approximately 82,347 gsf of food/restaurant uses earlier than was expected for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C in the Final EIR; however, overall the Project would still be well below the 125,258 gsf of restaurant uses assumed for buildout. • The Project would develop approximately 197,19 1 of retail uses, which is approximately 142,523 gsf fewer of commercial/retail uses than the 339,714 gsf that was expected of commercial/retail uses for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C in the Final EIR. • No theater uses are currently proposed by the Project, whereas the Final EIR assumed that all 74,660 sf of a theater would be built in Phase 1B.

Infrastructure
As anticipated in the Final EIR, as the first phase of development within the Project site, the current Project will install the basic infrastructure that would be needed for the overall development. This includes the installation of the electrical, potable water, sewer, and stormwater drainage mainline systems for the overall development. Similarly, a portion of the internal connector road would be fully built out as part of the current Project, as anticipated in the Final EIR. The current Project will also include roadway improvements, as discussed in PDF 10-1, including the installation of a signal on Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Monroe Avenue (i.e., Sparkman Court) and signal modifications at the existing intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue.

Configuration of Development
The Project maintains the four separate planning areas, and general alignment of the internal connector road that were identified in the Final EIR, although the Final EIR allowed for the boundaries of the planning areas and alignment of the internal connector road may be reconfigured through review of the future Development Plans if desired by the Property Owner/Developer.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 3-4 Project Description New Discretionary Approvals
The Project would require discretionary actions including: a Development Plan; a Tentative Tract Map; a Specific Plan Amendment; and a Development Agreement.

New land uses are proposed as part of the current Project that would be compatible with the uses allowed within the Specific Plan, and which are typical of a modern retail center.

Climate Action Plan Requirements
The following requirements apply to the current Project in accordance with the City’s Climate Action Plan. For more details, see Appendix D, Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist. • Consistent with City requirements, the Project would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24.
• A transportation demand management plan has been prepared for the Project that meets requirements of Section 16.40 “Transportation Demand Management” of the City’s Municipal Code and has been reviewed and approved by the City of Murrieta Public Works Department ( RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2024) . This Transportation Demand Management Memorandum is provided as Appendix G. The Transportation Demand Management Memorandum was prepared to develop strategies to reduce single- occupancy employee vehicle trips to and from the Project Site. The Transportation Demand Management Memorandum provides an evaluation of the number of employees that would work within the Project Site, and it describes the alternative transportation options that are available to employees that will travel to the Project Site. The memorandum provides Transportation Demand Management recommendations for the Project, including: providing flexible schedules to allow for use of public transit and carpooling; providing preferential parking for employees that carpool; providing a transit information center for employees; and providing secure bicycle parking. • Twenty percent of the total parking spaces required include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the occupant(s). • The Project would include the planting of new trees where required by Section 16.28 “Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient Landscaping” of the City’s Municipal Code.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-1 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 SECTION 4.0 EVALUATION PURS UANT TO SECTION 21166
The discussion and analysis in this consistency document evaluates if the Project would result in any of the conditions identified in the three-part test in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code (see Section 2.1 of this evaluation for the discussion of Section 21166 standards). To ensure this analysis is comprehensive, the topical areas identified in the most recent updates to the State CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Checklist) are used as guidance for this evaluation.

This comparative analysis provides the City of Murrieta with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the Final EIR was certified, rise to the level that would require substantial revisions to the Draft EIR and Final EIR.

The analysis in this document includes a brief discussion of the environmental topics provided in the Final EIR and how and if major revisions of the Final EIR are required in light of modifications to the Project description, changed circumstances, and availability of information that was not known before. In addition to this discussion, the Project is evaluated in light of the criteria outlined in Section 21166 of Public Resources Code. Findings will be made as to the significance of changes to the Project and if those changes would require significant revisions of the Final EIR; if there have been significant changes in circumstance under which the Project is implemented that would require major revisions in the Final EIR; and if there is new information that was not known before that would become available.

The site plan for the current Project that was utilized in this analysis is provided as Appendix A.

Applicable mitigation measures for the current Project that were specified in the certified Final EIR are provided within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provided as Appendix B.

To summarize the analysis in this Section 4.0, there are no changes to the Project that would require significant revisions to the Final EIR, no changes in circumstances that would require major revisions to the Final EIR, and no new information that would require major revisions to the EIR.

4.1 AESTHETICS
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project would not exceed the height allowances for buildings that are defined within the Final EIR. The topography and layout of the planning areas and the internal road that are proposed as part of the Project are generally the same as what was described for the Triangle Specific Plan in the Final EIR. The Project would include the removal of two existing static billboards and the construction of two replacement electronic/digita l billboards that were not evaluated within the Final EIR. Given the number of billboards would not increase with the Project from existing conditions, the Project would not result in substantial damage to scenic vistas. The two Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-2 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 replacement electronic/digital billboards would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with applicable City requirements including the Mt. Palomar lighting standards contained in Murrieta Municipal Code Section 16.18.110. Also, a highway advertising permit would need to be acquired from Caltrans. During the permitting process, Caltrans will review the billboards to ensure compliance with other applicable requirements including the State’s Outdoor Advertising Act requirements and the Federal Highway Beautification Requirements. There are no other aspects of the Project that have changed substantially that could increase impacts to scenic vistas.

Similar to as identified in the Final EIR, the Project would alter the existing visual condition of the Project site through introduction of development on a previously disturbed, undeveloped site. With implementation of PDFs 1-1 through 1-5, 1-9, and 1-10 the visual appearance of the Project would represent a unified, cohesive development. Adherence to the Development Standards identified in The Triangle Specific Plan, and implementation of The Triangle Design Guidelines which incorporate provisions of City’s Commercial Districts Design Standards would ensure that proposed development would not degrade the visual character or quality of the Project site or surrounding areas.

No deviation from the standards mentioned above are proposed as part of the Project.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR, including disturbed topography and vegetation. The Project site is disturbed/previously graded with no scenic resources and there are no scenic vistas within the Project site.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project would include the removal of two existing billboards and the construction of two replacement electronic billboards that were not evaluated within the Final EIR. Given the number of billboards would not increase with the Project from existing conditions, the Project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resource s. Also, the two replacement electronic/digital billboards would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with applicable City requirements including the Mt. Palomar lighting standards contained in Murrieta Municipal Code Section

16.18.110. Also, a highway advertising permit would need to be acquired from Caltrans. During the permitting process, Caltrans will review the billboards to ensure compliance with other applicable requirements including the State’s Outdoor Advertising Act requirements and the Federal Highway Beautification Requirements. No other aspects of the Project would result in increased impacts to scenic resources.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-3 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that existed at the time the Final EIR was certified, including land use, topography, vegetation coverage, etc. not contain any scenic resources.

Consistent with the Final EIR, the Project site is not visible from a State scenic highway. There are presently no officially designated State Scenic Highways that traverse Murrieta. I-15, which traverses the southwestern portion of Murrieta, is still an “Eligible State Scenic Highway” as it was at the time the Final EIR was certified (Caltrans 2023).

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? This threshold has been modified in the current State CEQA Guidelines since certification of the Final EIR. Previously, the threshold solely fo cused on whether a Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As written above, the current State CEQA threshold has been written to eliminate the requirement to evaluate whether a Project would degrade the existing visual character and quality of the Project site and its surroundings. For Projects within urbanized areas, such as the Project site, significance related to this threshold is determined solely based on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project is consistent with the current zoning for the Project site and would therefore be presumed to have a less than significant impact related to the updated threshold.

Related to the former threshold, consistent with the findings in the Final EIR, the Project would alter the existing visual condition of the Project site through introduction of development on a previously disturbed, undeveloped site. Project Design Features (PDFs) 1-1 through 1-5, 1-9, and 1-10 would be implemented as part of the Project so that the overall Project site represents a unified, cohesive development. Adherence to the Development Standards identified in The Triangle Specific Plan, and implementation of The Triangle Design Guidelines which incorporate provisions of City’s Commercial Districts Design Standards would ensure that proposed development would not degrade the visual character or quality of the Project site or surrounding areas. The Project would involve minor revisions to the applicable development standards, including updates to Section 2.8.5, Billboard Replacement of the Triangle Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Amendment change would then provide a mechanism to allow for the construction of the two proposed replacement electronic billboar ds and would not result in any substantial changes to existing visual character or quality.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-4 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Zoning for the Project site has not changed since the Final EIR was certified. There has been minimal development on parcels near the Project site; therefore, the visual character of the vicinity has not changed substantially since the Final EIR was certified. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site, which are further urbanizing the Project vicinity.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project involves outdoor lighting, similar to what was assumed in the Final EIR. As required by PDF 1-6, a Lighting Plan will be developed and submitted for review prior to approval of the Project that will demonstrate that the development standards identified in The Triangle Specific Plan as outlined in PDF 1-7 have been implemented. As required by PDF 1-7, 1-8, and 1-9, prior to approval of the Project, the Property Owner/Developer will be required to demonstrate to the City consistency with applicable standards related to exterior lighting and colors and materials.

Also, as required by Mitigation Measure MM 358 AES-1, prior to site plan approval, the Property Owner/Developer will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Murrieta Community Development Director or his/her designee, that no lighting will create a safety hazard or nuisance to off-site vehicular traffic or adjacent land uses. Measures to mitigate potential effects involve building design, building setbacks and screening direct lighting so as to avoid safety and nuisance hazards. The Project would involve the removal of two existing billboards within the Project Site and their replacement with two new electronic billboards that would be approximately 60 feet tall.

To avoid the potential for the increased lighting from these billboards to result in light pollution, the two replacement electronic/ digital billboards would be re viewed by the City to ensure compliance with applicable City requirements including the Mt. Palomar lighting standards contained in Murrieta Municipal Code Section 16.18.110. Also, a highway advertising permit would need to be acquired from Caltrans. During the permitting process, Caltrans will review the billboards to ensure compliance with other applicable requirements including the State’s Outdoor Advertising Act requirements and the Federal Highway Beautification Requirements. All of the PDFs and the MM identified above would still be applicable and implemented as part of the Project.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-5 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• Project Design Features (PDFs) 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10; • Standard Condition (SC) 1-1; and
• Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1.

4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? Most of the Project site is still designated as Farmland of Local Importance, except for the northwest portion of the Project site which is designated now as Urban and Built-Up Land, rather than Other Lands previously (DOC 2023). The Project site is used intermittently to sell pumpkins and Christmas trees; however, there is still no agri cultural or forestry activities occurring on the Project site and nearby. There are no known Williamson Act contracts within the Project site or nearby vicinity. Therefore, no new impacts pertaining to farmland and forestry would result from the Project.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-6 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to these thresholds.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a significant unavoidable impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, the Final EIR determined that the overall Triangle Specific Plan would not be consistent with the AQMP because of forecasted significant and unavoidable long-term emissions exceeding SCAQMD thresholds.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Spec ific Plan. The Project would result in fewer operational air quality emissions than was previously analyzed in the Final EIR given that the Project would develop 279,500 gsf, which is approximately 247,996 gsf less of development than the 527,496 gsf of development that is approved for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C of the Project as shown in the Final EIR. According to the updated trip generation information prepared for the Project, the Project would result in fewer daily trips than the trips that were evaluated for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C within the Final EIR (Claremont Law Group, Inc 2024). Therefore, mobile source air quality emissions would be reduced with the Project from what was approved for the Triangle Specific Plan.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-7 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 queuing. Further, new regulations have been implemented since approval of the Final EIR that would further serve to reduce mobile source emissions for vehicles idling from what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. For example, California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations ban the sale of all new light-duty gasoline powered cars after 2035 (California Energy Commission 2024a). As a result of these regulations, zero emission vehicle saturation in the vehicle fleet in California has been on the rise. In 2023 there were 1,516,107 zero emissions light duty vehicles in California compared to the 27,828,856 total non-zero emission light duty vehicles that existed in California in 2023 (California Energy Commission 2024b). By 2024 that number increased to 1,872,429 total zero emission vehicles in California. In the first quarter of 2024, approximately 25% of the light duty vehicles sold in 2024 were zero emission vehicles (California Energy Commission 2024a). Therefore, the gradual transition of the light duty vehicle fleet to zero emission vehicles will further reduce operational air quality effects of the proposed drive-through fast food restaurants.

As such, there are no substantial changes to the Project that would require major revisions to the Final EIR and all applicable mitigation measures would be required for implementation of the Project .

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations have reduced air pollutant emissions from short-te rm (construction) and long-term (operational) activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Project would emit less criteria pollutants than previously assumed. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Final EIR have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to implementation of the applicable AQMP. Thus, no major revisions of the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? When it was adopted in 2013, the overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a significant unavoidable impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, the Final EIR determined that implementation of the overall Triangle Specific Plan would exceed regional thresholds established by the SCAQMD for VOCs during the peak Project construction day.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-8 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Project would develop 279,500 gsf, which is approximately 247,996 gsf less of development than the 527,496 gsf of development that is approved for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C of the Project as shown in the Final EIR. According to the updated trip generation information prepared for the Project, the Project would result in fewer daily trips than the trips that were evaluated for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C within the Final EIR (Claremont Law Group, Inc 2024). Therefore, mobile source air quality emissions would be reduced with the Project from what was approved for the Triangle Specific Plan.

Since the Final EIR was adopted in 2013, the City has adopted an updated General Plan, Murrieta General Plan 2035. Murrieta General Plan 2035 contains an updated Air Quality Element. The Air Quality Element identifies key issues and challenges facing Murrieta in regards to air quality, its effects on the community, and how it can be addressed as the City continues to grow. The Element also contains a number of goals and policies intended to respond to the key issues and challenges identified within the Element. The Project
Goal AQ-1 Improved air quality through participation in regional and local efforts.

Goal AQ-3 Reduced emissions during construction activities.

Policy AQ-3.1 Ensure that construction activities follow current SCAQMD rules, regulations, and thresholds.

Policy AQ-3.2 Ensure all applicable best management practices are used in accordance with the SCAQMD to reduce emitting criteria pollutants during construction.

Policy AQ-3.3 Require all construction equipment for public and private projects comply with CARB’s vehicle standards. For projects that may exceed daily construction emissions established by the SCAQMD, Best Available Control Measures will be incorporated to reduce construction emissions to below daily emission standards established by the SCAQMD.

Policy AQ-3.4 Require project proponents to prepare and implement a Construction Management Plan, which will include Best Available Control Measures among others. Appropriate control measures will be determined on a project by project basis, and should be specific to the pollutant for which the daily threshold is exceeded.

GOAL AQ-4 Mobile source emissions are reduced by providing a balance of jobs and housing that serve the needs of the community
Goal AQ-5 Air quality is improved through an efficient circulation system, reduced traffic congestion, and reduced vehicle miles traveled.

Policy AQ-5.1 Encourage employers to im plement transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as the following programs to reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled: • Transit subsidies • Bicycle facilities • Alternating work schedules • Ridesharing • Telecommuting and work-at-home programs • Employee education • Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools Policy AQ-5.2 Re-designate truck routes away from sensitive land uses including schools, hospitals, elder and childcare facilities, or residences, where feasible.

Policy AQ-5.7 Reduce industrial truck idling by enforcing California’s 5-minute maximum law, requiring warehouse and distribution facilities to provide adequate on site truck parking, and requiring refrigerated warehouses to provide generators for refrigerated trucks.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-9 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Goal AQ-6 Stationary source pollution (point source and area source) are minimized through existing and future regulations and new technology.

Policy AQ-6.7 During the design review process, encourage the use of measures to reduce indoor air quality impacts (i.e., air filtration systems, kitchen range top exhaust fans, and low-VOC paint and carpet for new developments and busy roadways with significant volumes of heavy truck traffic).

Goal AQ-7 Particulate matter and fugitive dust emissions are reduced throughout the City.

Policy AQ-7.4 Consider the suspension of all grading operations, not including dust control actions, at construction projects when the source represents a public nuisance or potential safety hazard due to reduced visibility on streets surrounding the property.

The Project would be consistent with the aforementioned rules and policies; specifically, the Project would comply with all current SCAQMD rules and regulations; specifically, the Project would comply with the following SCAQMD rules, as applicable: Rule 401 – Visible Emissions, Rule 402 – Nuisance, Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, Rule 431.2 – Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels, Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, Rule 1110.2 – Emissions from Gaseous- and Liquid- Fueled Engines, and Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. Moreover, the Final EIR for the Triangle Specific Plan found that the specific plan would result in reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), although this particular threshold was not included in the State CEQA guidelines at the time. Specifically, the Final EIR stated that proposed development would create jobs in the retail, restaurant, entertainment and hotel sectors and would attract business and jobs that would help to improve the jobs/housing balance and reducing VMT.

At the time the Final EIR was adopted in 2013 the applicable SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was the 2012 AQMP. At that time, the Basin exceeded the pollutant concentration levels defined by the 8 and 1 hour ozone, 24 hour and annual PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Basin was also a state nonattainment area for ozone, NO
2, PM10, and PM2.5 based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

Since then, the SCAQMD has adopted multiple updated AQMPs . The latest AQMP is the 2022 AQMP. As discussed in the 2022 AQMP, in the 2018-2020 design value period, the Basin exceeded the pollutant concentration levels defined by the 8 and 1 hour ozone and annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Basin also exceeded the pollutant concentration levels defined by the 8 and 1 hour ozone and annual PM10 and PM2.5 CAAQS. As such, based on the latest 2022 AQMP, the Basin is not in nonattainment for any pollutants for which the Basin was in attainment for at the time the Final EIR was adopted in 2013.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
Overall, the advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations, have reduced air pollutant emissions from short-term and long-term activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Proj ect would emit less criteria pollutants than previously projected in the Final EIR. No chan ges in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Final EIR have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-10 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Thus, no major revisions of the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold. Specifically, the Fi nal EIR determined that concentrations of criteria pollutants at off site receptors would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ambient air quality, and that no impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to potential CO “hot spots” would occur.

Vehicle queuing and idling related to drive-through fast food restaurants would result in air quality emissions; however, these emissions would not exceed the air quality emissions assumed for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C given that the Project would only result in approximately 53 percent of the vehicular trips and resultant air quality emissi ons as was assumed for the Triangle Specific Plan in the Final EIR. Also, the Triangle Specific Plan’s Final EIR already assumed similar drive- through retail uses would be developed as part of the Project, which involve similar vehicular queuing. Further, new regulations have been implemented since approval of the Final EIR that would further serve to reduce mobile source emissions for vehicles idling from what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. For example, California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations ban the sale of all new light-duty gasoline powered cars after 2035 (California Energy Commission 2024a). As a result of these regulations, zero emission vehicle saturation in the vehicle fleet in California has been on the rise. In 2023 there were 1,516,107 zero emissions light duty vehicles in California compared to the 27,828,856 total non-zero emission light duty vehicles that existed in California in 2023 (California Energy Commission 2024b). By 2024 that number increased to 1,872,429 total zero emission vehicles in California. In the first quarter of 2024, approximately 25% of the light duty vehicles sold in 2024 were zero emission vehicles (California Energy Commission 2024a). Therefore, the gradual transition of the light duty vehicle fleet to zero emission vehicles will further reduce operational air quality effects of the proposed drive-through fast food restaurants.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-11 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the state or national 1-hour or 8- hour CO ambient air standards. To verify that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards, an evaluation of the potential for CO hot spots at nearby intersections was conducted as described in more detail below.

A Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared for the Project, which is included as Appendix E, to evaluate whether there would be any substantial changes in the LOS at the intersections that would be affected by the Project (Rick Engineering Company 2023). The Transportation Project- Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (California Department of Transportation 1998) was followed to determine whether a CO hot spot is likely to form due to Project-generated traffic, based upon traffic volumes provided by the Project’s Focused Traffic Analysis.

In accordance with the Protocol, CO hot spots are typically evaluated when: (a) the LOS of an intersection decreases to a LOS E or worse; (b) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and (c) sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, etc., are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment.

According to the Focused Traffic Analysis, all of the intersections evaluated would meet the criteria mentioned above given that they would either operate at or exceed the acceptable threshold of LOS D except for one. The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Sparkman Court would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing + ambient + cumulative 2025 condition and would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hours and LOS F in the PM peak hours under the existing + ambient + Project + cumulative 2025 condition, which indicates that further analyses related to CO hotspots should be conducted.

Using conservative industry screening methods, a project would not result in a significant impact to local CO concentrations if it meets all of the below criteria:
• The affected intersection carries less than 31,600 vehicles per hour; • The project does not contribute traffic to a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, urban street canyon, below-grade roadway, or other location where horizontal or vertical mixing of air would be substantially limited; and
• The affected intersection, which includes a mix of vehicle types, is not anticipated to be substantially different from the County average, as identified by EMFAC or CalEEMod models (SMAQMD 2009).

The greatest traffic volumes at the affected intersection are estimated to be 5,693 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 7,223 vehicles during the PM peak hour (RICK Engineering 2022). The intersections are not located in a tunnel, urban canyon, or similar area that would limit the mixing of air, nor is the vehicle mix anticipated to be substantially different than the County average.

There would be no potential for a CO hot spot or exceedance of state or federal CO ambient air quality standards because the maximum traffic volume would be substantially less than the 31,600 vehicles per hour screening level. In addition, the congested intersection is located where mixing of air would not be limited; emission rates for CO have been reduced substantially to the point where the State of California has met the federal and State ambient air quality standards for the past decade. Therefore, impacts from CO hot spots would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-12 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
Overall, the advancement of technology and adoption of State programs, standards, and regulations, have reduced air pollutant emissions from construction and operational activities, and therefore, construction and operation of the Proj ect would emit less criteria pollutants than previously projected. No changes in Project context or circumstances beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in the Final EIR have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts pertaining to sensitive receptors. Thus, no major revisions of the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? Odors were not required to be evaluated at the time the Final EIR was certified; therefore, this threshold was not explicitly evaluated.

The Project would involve the development of restaurant land uses that could result in off-site odors; however, the Project would not increase the overall square footage of restaurant land uses when compared to what was evaluated in the Fi nal EIR. The reduced setbacks proposed by the Project would not result in a substantial increase in odors for off-site receptors given the distance to these receptors, including the medical centers and residents to the north of the Project Site.

Therefore, no changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
There are no new land uses that have established since certification of the Final EIR within the vicinity of the Project that would result in a substantial amount of additional people in the Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-13 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 vicinity than what was assumed in the Final EIR. There are expanded medical uses and residences entitled and under development north of the Project Site that were not considered when the Final EIR was certified; however, these receptors are more than 185 feet away and would therefore not be substantially affected by odors from the Project due to the distance.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
Odors were not required to be evaluated at the time the Final EIR was adopted; therefore, this threshold was not explicitly evaluated. There are expanded medical uses and residences entitled and under development north of the Project Site that were not considered when the Final EIR was certified; however, these receptors are more than 185 feet away and would therefore not be substantially affected by odors from the Project due to the distance. Therefore, there is no substantial new information related to this threshold that could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• PDFs 2-1, 2-2, 2-3;
• SCs 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8; and
• MMs 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Consistency Evaluation
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold. Specifically, the Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan has the potential to impact burrowing owls and nesting birds. Through compliance with the MSHCP protective measures (i.e., pre-construction survey for burrowing owl) and permit conditions, no changes in the Project would occur that would require major revisions to the Final EIR.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-14 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 in the Project site are similar to when the Final EIR was certified (Hernandez Environmental Services 2023). No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
In April 2018, the tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ) was listed as State Threatened. The tricolored blackbird has potential to occur in the Project vicinity. The MSHCP provides coverage for take of this species (Section 9, Conservation and Incidental Take Estimates). Therefore, no further surveys or mitigation would be required as the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Pre- construction nesting bird surveys are required and would ensure that if the species is nesting on or adjacent to the Project site, it would be protected with a sufficient buffer.

In July 2019, Crotch’s bumblebee ( Bombus crotchii ) was proposed as a State Endangered species; the State has yet to determine whether it will list the species. In the meantime, Crotch’s bumblebee now has the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species.

The Crotch’s bumblebee is a ground nester and often makes its nest in abandoned mammal burrows and can be found in most native habitat types. The Crotch bumblebee prefers plant genera of Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Escholzia, and Eriogonum . There is limited, disturbed potential habitat for Crotch’s bumblebee on the Project site. Crotch’s bumble bee is not covered by the MSHCP; however, the MSHCP does provide for the substantial conservation of habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed during general biological reconnaissance surveys of the Project Site. As a condition of approval for the Project, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a letter report prepared by a qualified biologist to the City documenting absence of Crotch’s bumble bee from the Project Site.

In April 2020, the Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of mountain lion (Puma concolor) was proposed as a State Threatened species; the State has yet to determine if it will list this species. Mountain lions occur in a variety of habitats, especially brushy habitats and riparian areas with interspersed irregular terrain, rocky outcrops, and tree/brush edges. Mountain lions use caves, natural cavities, and thickets for cover. The Project site is surrounded by existing development and roadways, and does not contain the habitat types described above (Hernandez Environmental Services 2023). Therefore, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for mountain lions.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-15 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, the Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan has the potential to impact US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional areas, riverine features pursuant to the MSHCP, and potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl, The Final EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to this threshold would be less than significant. The Project would not involve any increased impacts to jurisdictional waters, and compensatory mitigation will be coordinated with the regulatory agencies prior to the beginning of Project construction in jurisdictional waters.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would result in less ground disturbance when compared to the overall Triangle Specific Plan that was analyzed in the Final EIR. Conditions within the Project site are similar to when the Final EIR was certified (Hernandez Environmental Services 2023). No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required and the current mitigation measures would still apply.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified. No new or substantially altered drainage patterns have developed within the Project site.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
Recently, the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) has been the subject of shifting regulations. Recent federal revisions to regulations that address the extent of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction and the definition of WOTUS have been issued by the Obama Administration in 2015 and the Trump Administration in 2020. On January 18, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA) published a final Water Rule in the Federal Register that took effect on March 20, 2023. To conform to the May 25, 2023 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Sackett v. EPA), the USEPA issued a revised definition of WOTUS that was published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on September 8, 2023. The updated definition of WOTUS is provided in Title 40 §120.2(a) of the CFR and identifies federal jurisdiction under the CWA as:

1. Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, and interstate non-wetland waters (“paragraph (a)(1) waters”);

2. Impoundments of “waters of the United States” (“paragraph (a)(2) impoundments”); Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-16 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166

3. Tributaries to paragraph (a)(1) waters or (a)(2) impoundments when the tributaries are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of waters (“jurisdictional tributaries”);

4. Wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to paragraph (a)(1) waters, or relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing jurisdictional tributaries that have a continuous surface connection to paragraph (a)(1) waters; and

5. Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to paragraph (a)(1) waters or jurisdictional tributaries.” The above only applies to the enforcement of Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, therefore this only applies to waters subject to regulation by the USACE. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Water Resources Control Board and its local Regional Boards are not bound by this ruling.

The Certified EIR found the that jurisdictional areas within the Project site consist of five habitat types: southern willow scrub, mulefat scrub, herbaceous wetland, and non-wetland WOTUS/CDFW streambed; specifically, the EIR determined that areas under the USACE jurisdiction on-site consist of 0.02 acre of intermittent non-wetland WOTUS, comprised of 3 reaches totaling 410 linear feet and that areas under CDFW jurisdiction onsite total 0.05 acre and consist of less than 0.01 acre each of southern willow scrub and mulefat scrub, 0.03 acre of herbaceous wetland, and 0.02 acre of CDFW streambed.

These findings are consistent with the findings of the site reconnaissance for the Project prepared in January 2023 by Hernandez Environmental Services and included as Appendix C of this Addendum. The site reconnaissance determined that the onsite intermittent drainage and associated riparian vegetation are considered non-wetland WOTUS and this drainage is also regulated by CDFW’. Further, the onsite drainage and associated riparian vegetation are considered Riparian/Riverine areas pursuant to the MSHCP. The onsite drainage and associated riparian vegetation are also regulated by CDFW under the Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

The onsite non-wetland WOTUS are regulated by the USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Although the regulatory definitions of the drainage feature in the Project site have changed since the Final EIR was certified, this does not constitute new information that would result in more severe impacts that was not known at the time the Final EIR was prepared. 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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold. Specifically, the Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan has the potential to impact USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-17 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would result in less ground disturbance when compared to the overall Triangle Specific Plan that was analyzed in the Final EIR. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified. No new or substantially altered drainage patterns have developed within the Project site.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. The Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan has the potential to impact USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas, riverine features pursuant to the MSHCP, and potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl, the Final EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to this threshold would be less than significant.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified. No substantial changes have occurred that would increase wildlife movement or usage of the Project site.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-18 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold. The Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would not impact trees which are protected pursuant to Section 16.42 of the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Final EIR found that since the overall Triangle Specific Plan would be implemented consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP, there would be less than significant impacts related to this threshold.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified. There are no new local policies or ordinances related to biological resources that were not previously in effect when the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, the Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan has the potential to impact USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas, riverine features pursuant to the MSHCP, and potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl, The Final EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to this threshold would be less than significant.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-19 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified. There are no new habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project that were not applicable with the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• SCs 3-1 and 3-2; and
• MMs BIO-1; 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. The Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan could impact unknown archaeological resources and/or human remains during grading and ground disturbance activities. However, the Final EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to this threshold.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-20 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 in less ground disturbance when compared to the overall Triangle Specific Plan that was analyzed in the Final EIR. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The existing land uses and vegetative coverage within the Project site is similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified. No substantial changes have occurred that would increase wildlife movement or usage of the Project site.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• SCs 4-1 and 4-2; and
• MMs CULT-1, 4-1, and 4-2.

4.6 ENERGY
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The comprehensive energy usage of the approved Project was evaluated in the Final EIR within the evaluation of the Triangle Specific Plan’s potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and utility services. Since the approval of the Final EIR, energy standards have become more stringent. The Project will be required to implement the current more stringent requirements pertaining to energy efficiency for buildings and the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Additionally, the Project consists of only a portion of the approved development analyzed by the Final EIR; therefore, the current Project would result in less energy consumption and vehicle trips (i.e., fuel consumpt ion) than what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. As a result, the energy usage would be expected to be less than energy demands required for implementation of the Final EIR.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-21 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 The Project proposes land uses that are consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Triangle Specific Plan. Therefore, there is not a substantial change in the Project from what was evaluated in the Final EIR. The Project would be required to comply with the current energy efficiency standards (Title 24); therefore, the impacts on energy resources associated with implementing the Project would be no more severe than what was previously addressed in the Final EIR. Revisions to the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
Although there has been a change in some of the regulatory requirements associated with nonresidential development, these changes woul d serve to reduce the impact on energy resources. The Project would be required to comply with applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards and CALGreen Code which is more energy efficient than the State of California’s building standards that were applicable at the time of the approved Project. As a result, there would not be new or substantially more severe impacts requiring major revisions to the Final EIR.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
The Final EIR analyzed energy impacts at it relates to air quality, GHG emissions, and utility services. Therefore, the overall energy demands were considered and would not constitute new information. The overall energy usage associated with nonresidential development has become more energy efficient since the preparation of the Final EIR. With implementation of current codes, there are no new mitigation measures required to provide for greater energy efficiency. Therefore, there is no new information that would result in more severe impacts that was not known at the time the Final EIR was prepared.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong Seismic groundshaking?
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-22 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. The Final EIR determined that the Triangle Specific Plan is located in a seismically active region, and people and structures could be exposed to seismic ground shaking. However, with implementation of mitigation measures impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels related to earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to these thresholds with implementation of mitigation measures. The Final EIR determined that the Project site has a low potential for liquefaction. However, the underlying soils are potentially unstable and highly expansive soils. With implementation of mitigation measures, the overall Triangle Specific Plan was found to have less than significant impacts related to these thresholds.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-23 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 The extent of Project impacts upon existing seis mically-induced conditions, such as liquefaction and landslides, would be the same as analyzed in the Final EIR since no increase in the overall developable area is proposed. No changes are proposed to the Project, except that the Project is an initial phase of the Project and only a portion of the overall square footage and number of buildings would be built during this phase. Therefore, there would be no impacts above and beyond what was analyzed in the previous Final EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation and no substantial changes to the Final EIR would be required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The Project remains substantially the same with the exception of a reduction in the overall Project square footage and number of buildings. The context and circumstances for the Project have remained the same and not changed such that Project activities would result in a significant impact pertaining to liquefaction and landslides, requiring new mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Final EIR would be required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil with implementation of mitigation measures.

The Project does not propose changes that would result in new impacts or increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts pertaining to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, the Project would not require new mitigation measures or substantial changes to the Final EIR as the impacts remain the same.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The context and circumstances for the Project remain the same and have not changed since certification of the Final EIR such that Project activities would result in a significant new impact or more severe impacts pertaining to soil erosion and loss of topsoil or require new mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Final EIR would be required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-24 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 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 New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have no impact related to this threshold because the Triangle Specific Plan would be connected to the municipal sewer system and does not propose any septic tanks. No new or more severe impacts would result that would require major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
No changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new or more severe impacts that would require major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation.

New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? Paleontological resources were evaluated in the Final EIR for the Triangle Specific Plan within the cultural resources section, rather than providing this information in the Geology/Soils section as is common practice currently using the latest State CEQA Guidelines. The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to paleontological resources with implementation of mitigation measures including MM 358-CULT-

1. The Project remains substantially the same with no increase in the extent of ground disturbance. The Project does not propose changes that would result in new impacts or increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts perta ining to paleontological resources. Therefore, the Project would not require substantial changes to the Final EIR or new mitigation.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-25 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• SCs 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4, and
• MMs CULT-1, GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, GEO-4, GEO-5, GEO-6, GEO-7, and GEO-8.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to this threshold with implementation of mitigation measures. The Final EIR determined that the Triangle Specific Plan is substantially consistent with the City of Murrieta Climate Action Plan (CAP). However, the Final EIR found that the Triangle Specific Plan is not consistent in the areas of public education and support for advanced technology vehicles. Mitigation measures were required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels related to greenhouse gas emissions. Pursuant to the Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist provided as Appendix D, the Project would be required to implement construction waste diversion, transportation demand management, electric vehicle, tree planting requirements. The Transportation Demand Management Memorandum that was prepared for this phase of the Project is provided as Appendix G (RK Engineering Group, Inc, 2024).

The Project has not substantially changed from the project addressed in the Final EIR. There are no elements of the Project that would result in the generation of substantially greater GHG emissions compared to the emissions generated by the development evaluated in the Final EIR.

Since there is less square footage of development and fewer buildings currently proposed than were approved, there would be a commensurate reduction in the emissions generated by the Project than what was previously analyzed. In addition, the changes in the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) established to reduce California’s energy consumption (this is also discussed in Section 4.6, Energy) would have beneficial effects related to GHG emissions. The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. The Project would result in fewer operational GHG emissions than was previously analyzed in the Final EIR given that the Project would develop 279,500 gsf, which is approximately 247,996 gsf less of development than the 527,496 gsf of development that is approved for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C of the Project as shown in the Final EIR.

According to the updated trip generation information prepared for the Project, the Project would result in fewer daily trips than the trips that were evaluated for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C within the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-26 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Final EIR (Claremont Law Group, Inc 2024). Therefore, mobile source GHG emissions would be reduced with the Project from what was approved for the Triangle Specific Plan.

As such, there are no substantial changes to the Project that would require major revisions to the Final EIR.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The context in which the Project would be implemented is not substantially different than what was evaluated in the Final EIR. There have been no major land use changes or developments in the Project vicinity since the Final EIR was certified. The Project is consistent with the land use and zoning for the Project site and the Project would not allow for any new development or uses beyond that previously authorized.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
The City has prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that outlines actions that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reductions (City of Murrieta 2011a). The CAP includes an emissions inventory, climate action strategies, and steps for implementation. The purpose of the City’s CAP Cons istency Checklist is to, in conjunction with the CAP, provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and that trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. A CAP Checklist has been prepared for the Project, which is attached as Appendix D. The Project shall implement construction waste diversion, trans portation demand management, electric vehicle service equipment, and tree planting measures from the CAP to ensure consistency with City policies related to GHG emissions.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:

PDFs 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, and 11-9. • SCs 9-5 and 9-6, and
• MMs 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-27 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that the overall Triangle Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts related to the use and potential release of hazardous materials and that no mitigation was required beyond standard best practices.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed such that construction and operation activities would result in a significant impact requiring mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation would be required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? There are no existing or proposed schools within a one-quarter-mile radius of the Project site.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-28 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 The Project would not result in an impact pertaining to emissions of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school that was not previously analyzed. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Final EIR, and no mitigation is required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed such that construction and operation activities would result in a new impact or increase the severity of previous impacts pertaining to emissions of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school requiring mitigation.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
Regulations pertaining to hazardous materials have been updated since the Final EIR was prepared; however, the nature of the materials associated with the proposed land uses have not substantially changed. Existing regulations, such as the California Code of Regulations Title 22 establishes requirements pertaining to the storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. To meet the requirements, construction contractors are required to implement control measures for handling and storing various types and quantities of regulated hazardous materials used. Any transport of hazardous materials facilities is also regulated at the federal (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and State (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations) regulations. The new regulations would not result in a new impact that would require major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials 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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 as of February 14, 2023 (CalEPA 2023a).

The Project would not involve any new areas of ground disturbance nor any new demolition that would have the potential to increase impacts related to this threshold. As such no changes are proposed that would result in new impact or increase the severity of previous impacts requiring mitigation. Therefore, no substantial changes to the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The context and circumstances under which the Project is being implemented have not changed.

The Project site is still not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. As such there are no new circumstances that would result in a significant impact pertaining to being on a list of hazardous materials site. Thus, no substantial changes to the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-29 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of an airport. According to the Final EIR, the closest airport to the Project site is a general aviation facility located in French Valley, approximately three miles east of the Project. The Project site is outside the Airport Influence Area and identified Height Review Overlay Zones for this airport; therefore, the Final EIR determined that the overall Triangle Specific Plan Project would have no impacts related to this threshold (RCALUC 2023a).

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The Project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of an airport. The context and circumstances for the Project have not changed (e.g., construction of an airport in the area) such that Project implementa tion would result in a new significant impact or increase the severity of the previous impacts pertaining to safety hazard or excessive noise, requiring mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that the overall Triangle Specific Plan project would generate an increase in the amount and volume of traffic on local and regional roadway networks that could potentially impair implementation of emergency response; however, the Project would be required Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-30 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 to design, construct, and maintain structures, ro adways, and facilities to comply with applicable local, regional, State, and/or federal requirements related to emergency access and evacuation so there would be less than significant impacts. The Final EIR also noted that key transportation facilities that provide emergency access in the vicinity of the Project (e.g., Murrieta Hot Springs Road) would remain fully operational during construction and operation of the Project.

Emergency. Therefore, the Project was determined to have less than significant impacts related to this threshold.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. There have been no major changes to the major arterial roadways near the Project site.

Conditions remain similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR did not specifically evaluate wildfire susceptibility; however, emergency response and impacts on public service providers including the fire department was evaluated in the Final EIR for the overall Triangle Specific Plan. Less than significant impacts were determined with implementation of mitigation measures.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. According to a review of the latest available mapping, the Project site is not located within a wildfire susceptibility zone (CALFIRE 2023).

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-31 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. The Project would result in less ground disturbance when compared to the overall Triangle Specific Plan that was analyzed in the Final EIR. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
No changes in Project context and circumstances have occurred such that a new or more severe water quality impact beyond what was analyzed, would result. The same requirements and standards discussed in previous analyses would still apply to the Project. Thus, no major revisions to the Final EIR and new mitigation are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-32 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? As described in the Final EIR, the major recharge areas for the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin include the Warm Springs, Tucalota, Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta, and Pechanga Creeks and the Temecula River. None of these water bodies are located on the Project site; therefore, development of the Project was determined to not interfere with groundwater recharge. Water service to the Project site would be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which derives approximately 22 percent of thei r water supply from groundwater (EMWD 2020a).

However, the Final EIR determined that the water demand that would result from implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, no impact related to groundwater recharge or supplies would occur and no mitigation was required.

The Project does not include any changes that would adversely affect groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a new or more severe impacts.

Therefore, no major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
There have not been any changes in Project context or circumstances such that a new or more severe impacts pertaining to reduction in ground water supplies would occur. No new impacts or increase in the severity of previous impacts would result. Thus, no major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
a. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; i. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
ii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iii. impede or redirect flood flows?
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-33 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require Major revisions to the EIR? The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil and related to substantially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, with implementation of mitigation measures the overall Triangle Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts.

The Project remains substantially the same as the development analyzed in the Triangle Specific Plan Final EIR. There would be no additional impervious surfaces development as part of the Project that would further generate stormwater quantities in exceedance of the downstream drainage systems’ capacity The Project does not propose changes that would result in new impacts or increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts pertaining to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, the Project would not require new mitigation measures or substantial changes to the Final EIR as impacts remain the same.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The context and circumstances for the Project have remained the same and have not changed such that Project activities would result in a significant new impact or more severe impacts pertaining to soil erosion and loss of topsoil or require new mitigation. Thus, no substantial revisions to the Final EIR would be required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been know at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that the Project site is not located in proximity to a lake or ocean; therefore, no seiche- or tsunami-related impacts would occur. Additionally, mudflows are not expected to occur due to the Project site’s relatively flat topography, the nature of the Project site’s soils, and the type of improvements proposed for the Project site. Therefore, the Final EIR determined no impacts related to this threshold.

The Project does not include any substantial changes that would further expose it to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches. The current Project’s smaller amount of development and amount of impervious surface would be within what was calculated for the overall Triangle Specific Plan in the Final EIR. Thus, no new or more severe impacts would result that would require major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-34 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. There are no new water bodies in proximity to the Project site that did not exist when the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• PDFs 6-1, 6-2,
• SCs 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3; and
• MMs H-1, H-2, and H-3.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR found that the Project site is surrounded by highways and urban land uses and would represent a continuation of existing urban development; therefore, implementation of the overall Triangle Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community.

Since the overall specific plan would have no impact related to this threshold, the Project would similarly have no impact.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site; however, the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-35 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Project has no potential to physically divide these residential areas. Therefore, existing conditions are similar to the conditions that existed when the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no substantial new information related to this threshold. 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 New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of The Triangle Specific Plan would be consistent with the applicable land use and planning-related goals and policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents. The Triangle Specific Plan included discretionary actions including a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and other approvals.

The current Project is consistent with the existing land use designation for the Project site and is being designed consistent with applicable design guidelines, etc. There are no substantial changes in the Project that would result in new or more severe impacts that would require major revisions to the Final EIR and no new mitigation.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The Project is consistent with the existing land use designation for the Project site. There have not been any changes in the Project’s context or circumstances such that a new or more severe impact would occur. Thus, no major revisions to the Final EIR or new mitigation are required.

Based on the review of applicable documents, the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts due to a conflict with any policies and regulations that serve to reduce environmental impacts.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• SC 7-1.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-36 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Consistency Evaluation
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?
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 New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that the Triangle Specific Plan would have no impacts related to mineral resources.

Given that implementation of the overall specific plan would have no impact related to this threshold, it is presumed that this Project would similarly have no impact.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. There are no new mineral resource extraction sites in the Project vicinity according to online mapping maintained by the California Department of Conservation (DOC 2023b, 2023c).

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-37 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166

4.13 NOISE
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
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? Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would result in significant construction noise impac ts that would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation that was incorporated into the Project. The Final EIR determined that due to distance and the fact that no pile driving and blasting was proposed as part of the construction of the specific plan, that construction activities would not generate significant vibration levels to sensitive receptors in the study area.

Therefore, the Project would result in less noise impacts when compared to the overall Triangle Specific Plan that was analyzed in the Final EIR. No new construction methods are being proposed that would increase construction noise levels. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. There are no new sensitive receptors near the Project site that could be impacted by construction or operational noise levels. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site; however, the Project would not result in substantial noise impacts to these receptors given the distance of these receptors from the Project site relative to receptors that were analyzed in the Final EIR.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR reported that due to distance and the fact that no pile driving and blasting is expected to occur during construction, construc tion activities would not generate significant vibration levels to sensitive receptors in the study area. The Final EIR determined that the Triangle Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts related to this threshold, and that no mitigation was required.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-38 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 The Project has not substantially changed from what was evaluated in the Final EIR. The Project would result in comparable or less vibration from construction compared to what was previously analyzed due to the limited amount of construction anticipated. There would be no new areas of heavy construction equipment use proposed as part of the Project that would bring vibration generating construction activities closer to offsite uses, and land uses would not be situated closer to sensitive receptors when compared to the approved Project. Construction and operations phase vibration would be less than what was disclosed in the Final EIR.

Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed in Project that will require major revisions to the Final EIR.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. There are no new structures near the Project site that would be impacted by vibration that would result from Project construction.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
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?
The Project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of an airport.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
There are no new airports in proximity to the Project site, nor does the Project involve any improvements that are any closer to existing airports.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• SCs 8-1, and 8-2; and
• MMs N-1, N-2, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-39 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would not involve the development of new residential units. Therefore, the specific plan was not expected to result in the generation of additional residents in the City. Potential indirect effects of the Project related to the employment opportunities from these uses would be accommodated from the local labor and were not anticipated to result in any significant impacts requiring mitigation.

The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within and adjacent to the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site; however, the Project has no potential to induce new growth in these areas beyond what is already occurring independently of the Project.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that since the Project site was vacant and undeveloped, that development of the Triangle Specific Plan would not result in the displacement of any existing housing and would not necessitate a need for the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

For this reason, no impacts associated with the displacement of existing housing would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-40 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 The Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan.

Given that the overall Triangle Specific Plan project would have no impacts related to existing housing, the Project would similarly have no impacts. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site; however, the Project would not remove any of this housing or otherwise necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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:
i) Fire protection?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical se rvices; however, it would not result in the need for the construction of new or expanded facilities and that no physical environmental impacts would result. Less than significant impacts were anticipated with implementation of mitigation measures.

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-41 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Specific Plan and what was analyzed in the Final EIR with regards to affecting fire protection services. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The Project site is not mapped as being susceptible for wildfire (CALFIRE 2023). No new vegetation has established that would constitute an increased fire risk from that which previously existed within the Project site at the time the Final EIR was certified.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
ii) Police protection?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would increase the demand for police protection; however, it would not result in the need for the construction of new or expanded facilities and that no physical environmental impacts would result. Less than significant impacts were anticipated with implementation of mitigation measures.

The current Project is constructing 279,500 square feet which is the equivalent or lesser than what was analyzed in Phase 1c of the Final EIR. The Project is consistent with the Triangle Specific Plan and what was analyzed in the Final EIR with regards to affecting fire protection services. No changes above and beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site that would increase demand for public services. However, each of these developments would be required to pay development impact fees to ensure adequate public service levels of service are maintained.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-42 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 iii) Schools?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that the Project would not involve the development of residential uses; therefore, no new students would be generated by implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan project. Likewise, the Project would not involve the development of residential uses and no new students would be generated by implementation of the Project. There would not be a need for the provision of new or altered school facilities. Although the Project would not generate new students, the Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay construction fees (also known as “developer’s fees”) pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65995. The payment of school mitigation impact fees is deemed to provide “full and complete mitigation of impacts” from the development of real property on school facilities ( California Government Code §65995). No impacts would result and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The Project does not include the development of residential land uses, and thus, would not result in the direct generation of school-aged children. No changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant impacts or incr ease the severity of previous impacts. Thus, no major revisions to the Final EIR and new mitigation would be required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan does not involve the development of residential uses; therefore, there would be no associated increase in population and there would not be a substantial increase in the demand for parks, recreational facilities, and/or libraries. Therefore, the Final EIR determined that there would not be a need for the provision of new or altered parks or libraries, nor would there be any physical impacts associated with the construction of such facilities. Therefore, the Final EIR found that there would be less Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-43 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 than significant impacts related to these threshol ds with implementation of mitigation measures, including payment of in-lieu-fees.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site that would increase demand for parks, libraries, and other public facilities. However, each of these developments would be required to pay development impact fees to ensure adequate parks, libraries, and other public facilities are maintained and expanded to accommodate the additional population that would result from these developments.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• PDFs 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, and 9-6;
• SCs 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, and 9-4; and
• MMs PSU-1, PSU-2, PSU-3, and 9-1.

4.16 RECREATION
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) 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?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan does not involve the development of residential uses; therefore, there would be no associated increase in population and there would not be a substantial increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-44 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Therefore, the Final EIR determined that there would not be a need for the provision of new or altered parks or recreational facilities, nor would there be any physical impacts associated with the construction of such facilities. Therefore, the Final EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts related to these thresholds with implementation of mitigation measures, including payment of in-lieu-fees.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. Several residential projects are being developed north of the Project Site that would increase demand for recreational facilities. However, each of these developments would be required to pay development impact fees to ensure adequate recreational facilities are maintained and expanded to accommodate the additional population that would result from these developments.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that the Triangle Specific Plan would result in potentially significant direct Project impacts at seven study intersections related to Level of Service (LOS). The impacts Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-45 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 would be less than significant at these intersections due to improvements that have already been made by others, payment of a Development Impact Fee and through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The Triangle Specific Plan was found to have potentially significant cumulative impacts at 13 study intersections. The impacts would be less than significant at four intersections due to improvements that have already been made by others, or payment of development impact fees. Also, implem entation of the specific plan was found in the Final EIR to have the potential to result in direct and cumulative impacts to the freeway mainline segments along I-15 and I-215 that would require mitigation.

A Trip Generation Memorandum was prepared for the Project, which provides updated trip generation for the Project’s proposed land uses. Since the Project is a subset of the overall square footage of the Triangle Specific Plan, the Trip Generation Memorandum provides data that show that the Project would result in fewer overall daily trips when compared to the overall Triangle Specific Plan. Also, the Project’s proposed uses would result in fewer daily trips than the trips that were evaluated for Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C within the Final EIR (22,541 daily trips for Phase 1c of the Triangle Specific Plan as shown in the Final EIR vs 19,248 daily trips for the Project). As such, there are no substantial changes to the Project that would require major revisions to the Final EIR. Trip generation rates and a trip generation summary for the Project are provided in Table 4.17-1 and Table 4.17-2 respectively.

Table 4.17-1 – Trip Generation Rates

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-46 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Table 4.17-2 – Trip Generation Summary

Construction traffic and construction work within the roadway right-of-way for roadway improvements would contribute to congestion of the local roadways. However, this condition would be temporary in nature and would not repres ent a significant impact. Mitigation measures were also specified related to construction traffic.

The Final EIR determined that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would not conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program.

Also, the Final EIR determined that with construction of the internal connector road and primary entry driveways, the Triangle Specific Plan would provide adequate emergency access.

As described in the Final EIR, the specific plan would provide adequate pedestrian connectivity through the provision of a meandering sidewalk to access the Project site from Murrieta Hot

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-47 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Springs Road. Bicycle connectivity and amenities would also be provided for through implementation of project design features and mitigation measures.

As described in the Final EIR, the specific plan would include roadway improvements that would be designed and constructed to satisfy all City requirements for street widths, corner radii, intersection control, and other related issues. Adherence to applicable City requirements would ensure the proposed development would not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Therefore, no substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature would occur and no mitigation measures were determined to be necessary for the specific plan.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
New development is occurring north of the Project site that would alter traffic patterns. Therefore, an updated traffic analysis was performed by Rick Engineering which accounts for the new development in the area and current traffic volumes.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR for the Triangle Specific Plan found that the specific plan would result in reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), although this particular threshold was not included in the State CEQA guidelines at the time. Specifically, the Final EIR stated that proposed development would create jobs in the retail, restaurant, entertainment and hotel sectors and would attract business and jobs that would help to improve the jobs/housing balance and reducing VMT.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-48 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
Effective July 1, 2020, CEQA’s methodology for evaluating traffic impacts has shifted from an LOS analysis to a VMT analysis. While this does not constitute a change in the Project, it should be noted that, while the Final EIR evaluated traffic impacts using VMT methodology, the air quality analysis in the Final EIR did calculate the VMT associated with the Project.

There have not been substantial changes in circumstances since the approval of the Final EIR.

The City is suburban in nature. There have been no changes, such as the rerouting or deletion of a high-quality transit corridor that would change the traffic impact analysis. The overall number of trips, and consequently the VMT, associated with the Project would be less than what was previously evaluated in the Final EIR; therefore, impacts associated with the Project would be less than what was previously addressed, and no major revisions to the Final EIR are required.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
The passage of SB 743 required the evaluation of VMT in CEQA documents; however, this does not constitute new information pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, for information purposes, the Project would reduce the number of trips and associated VMT compared to the overall approved Triangle Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts and no major revisions to the Final EIR are required.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• PDFs 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-7, and 10-8; and • MMs 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, and 10-4.

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Consistency Evaluation
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, 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:
1 . 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)?
2 . 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-49 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project which will require major revisions to the EIR? Tribal cultural resources was not an independent resource topic within the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the Final EIR was certified. However, tribal cultural resources was evaluated as a part of the cultural resources that was conducted. The overall Triangle Specific Plan was found in the Final EIR to have a less than significant impact related to cultural resources with implementation of mitigation measures. The Final EIR determined implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan could impact unknown archaeological resources and/or human remains during grading and ground disturbance activities. However, the Final EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to this threshold.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. There are no new tribal cultural resources, or other cultural resources, known to occur within the Project site that were not known when the Final EIR was certified. Updated tribal consultation was conducted by the City for the Project in 2024 pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18; however, no substantial new information on the potential for tribal cultural resources in the Project site came from this consultation.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

As outlined in the MMRP provided as Appendix B, the following are applicable to the Project:
• SCs 4-1 and 4-2; and
• MMs CULT-1, 4-1, and 4-2.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-50 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Consistency Evaluation
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?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? Electricity and Natural Gas
The Final EIR determined that development of The Triangle Specific Plan would generate new demand for electricity and natural gas on the Project site, requiring the installation of electrical and natural gas infrastructure; however, with implementation of project design features and mitigation measures there would be a less than significant impact related to electricity and natural gas.

Potable Water and Sewerage
The Final EIR found that anticipated water demand and wastewater generation would require construction of water and wastewater infrastructure. With construction of required infrastructure for water and sewerage, it was determined that the Triangle Specific Plan would not exceed available capacity of the EMWD wastewater treatment facilities.

Wastewater Treatment
The Final EIR determined that wastewater originating from the Project site would ultimately be treated by facilities owned and operated by the EMWD. The wastewater treatment requirements issued by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for EMWD’s treatment plant were developed to ensure that adequate levels of treatment would be provided for the wastewater flows emanating from all land uses within its se rvice area; therefore, the wastewater from the Project site would not cause the treatment plant to exceed these treatment requirements according to the Final EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR found that implementation of the specific plan would have no impacts and no mitigation would be required related to wastewater treatment.

Conclusion
The Project would result in less demands on public utilities given that the Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents only partial implementation of the Specif ic Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan. No changes above and beyond wh at was analyzed in the Fi nal EIR would result in significant new or more severe impacts requiring mitigation. Thus, major revisions of the Final EIR are not required.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-51 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The building efficiency standards required of projects currently are more stringent than they were when the Final EIR was certified..

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR found that implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan would increase demand for EMWD water supply but that adequate water supply would be available to serve the development that would occur as a part of the specific plan.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The UWMP serves as the document that would address if the water supplier would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projected demand during normal, dry and multiple years.

The 2005 UWMP was the latest UWMP at the time the Triangle Specific Plan’s Final EIR was certified. Currently, the latest UWMP for EMWD is dated 2020 (EMWD 2020). The 2020 UWMP was developed using assumptions based on the land use designations for jurisdictions located within the UWMP boundaries. Given that the Project is consistent with the land use designations for the Project site, it is accounted for in the demand calculations in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, there are no substantial changes in the circumstances of the Project that would require major revisions to the EIR.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-52 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 c) Result in a determination by the wastewat er treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR determined that wastewater originating from the Project site would ultimately be treated by facilities owned and operated by the EMWD. The wastewater treatment requirements issued by the California RWQCB for EMWD’s treatment plant were developed to ensure that adequate levels of treatment would be provided for the wastewater flows emanating from all land uses within its service area; therefore, the wastewater from the Project site would not cause the treatment plant to exceed these treatment require ments according to the Final EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR found that implementation of the specific plan would have no impacts and no mitigation would be required related to wastewater treatment.

The Project would result in less demands on public utilities than the overall Triangle Specific Plan given that the Project represents the first development within the Specific Plan area and will construct 279,500 gsf of development, which represents partial implementation of the Specific Plan that was evaluated in the Final EIR for The Triangle Specific Plan.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. The building efficiency standards required of projects currently are more stringent than they were when the Final EIR was certified; therefore, the regulatory requirements that are required of the Project would likely result in reduced demand for utilities than was previously anticipated for the overall project. For example, additional water efficiency requirements for indoor plumbing fixtures would lead to reductions in wastewater flows from the Project than what was originally assumed for the Triangle Specific Plan.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.
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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New or More Severe Impacts/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR found that the solid waste generated by the Project would represent less than one percent of the daily permitted tonnage at the n earest landfill and would not exceed the landfill Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-53 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 system’s capacity but that implementation of pr oject design features would further reduce the amount of solid waste for disposal.

The waste disposal service for the Project w ould be required to abide by the applicable waste reduction and recycling programs required under existing regulations (i.e., AB 939, AB 341, SB 1383, and AB 1826).

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. New regulations have been adopted since the Final EIR was certified, which are noted above, that are implemented by the waste purveyor.

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

4.20 WILDFIRE
Consistency Evaluation
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?
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?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 4-54 Consistency Evaluation Pursuant to PRC Section 21166 exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No New or More Severe Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Substantial changes proposed in Project, which will require major revisions to the EIR? The Final EIR did not specifically evaluate the topic of wildfire susceptibility; however, emergency response and impacts on public service providers including the fire department was evaluated in the Final EIR for the overall Triangle Specific Plan. Less than significant impacts were determined with implementation of mitigation measures.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the EIR?
The conditions within the Project site are similar to the conditions that were described in the Final EIR. According to a review of the latest available mapping, the Project site is not located within a wildfire susceptibility zone (CALFIRE 2023).

New information (which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified) available?
There is no new information related to this threshold.

Applicable Measures from the MMRP:

There are no measures that are applicable to this resource topic.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 5-1 Conclusions SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
As described in this Addendum, there is substantial evidence that (1) the current Project does not represent a substantial change from the overall Triangle Specific Plan evaluated in the Final EIR; (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified as complete. The current Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated within the Final EIR.

There are no new mitigation measures beyond those that were adopted at the time the Final EIR was certified that would be required to further reduce Project impacts. Therefore, as summarized in this Addendum, none of the conditions in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code apply and no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report should be required.

Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 5-2 Conclusions This page intentionally left blank
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 6-1 References SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. 2023a (J anuary 26, access date). California Important Farmland Finder. Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ ———.2023b (January 26, access date). Well Finder. Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx ———.2023c (January 26, access date). Mines Online. Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html
California Department of Transportation. 2023 (January 26, access date). List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways
California Energy Commission. 2024a. Zero Emission Vehicle Sales Remain Strong.

Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commi ssion. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024- 05/zero-emission-vehicle-sales-remain-strong-california ———. 2024b. Light-Duty Vehicle Population in California. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/dat a-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission- vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics-collection/light
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2023a (February 14, access date). Cortese List Data Resources (web mapper). Sacramento, CA: CalEPA.
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
CALFIRE. 2023 (January 26, access date). FHSZ Viewer. Sacramento, CA: CALFIRE. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz Claremont Law Group, Inc. 2024 (July). Updated Trip Generation Evaluation. Claremont, CA:

Claremont Law Group, Inc. Provided as Appendix F.

Eastern Municipal Water District. 2020a. Urban Water Management Plan. Riverside, CA: EMWD. https://www.emwd.org/post/urban-water-management-plan
Hernandez Environmental Services. 2023 (January). Site Reconnaissance for the Triangle Project. Lake Elsinore, CA: Hernandez Environmental Services. Provided as Appendix C.

KWC Engineers. 2023. Site Plan. Corona, CA: KWC Engineers. Provided as Appendix A.

Murrieta, City of. 2013a (October). Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, The Triangle Specific Plan Project, Case # SP0-007-2452, Murrieta, California, SCH No. 2008061104.

Murrieta, CA: City of Murrieta.
———. 2013b (February). Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, The Triangle Specific Plan Project, Case # SP0-007-2452, Murrieta, California, SCH No. 2008061104. Murrieta, CA: City of Murrieta.
———.2011a. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Murrieta, California. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/806/P---Climate-Action-Plan-PDF Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for The Triangle Specific Plan

R:\Projects\CLA1\3CLA100100\Environmental Documentation\Addendum\Triangle-SP_Addendum-071724.docx 6-2 References Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC). Compatibility Plans. Riverside, CA:

RCALUC. https://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan Rick Engineering Company. 2023 (June). Focused Traffic Analysis. Irvine, CA: Rick Engineering Company. Provided as Appendix E.

RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2024 (July). Transportation Demand Management Memorandum.

Newport, CA: RK Engineering Group, Inc. Provided as Appendix G.

Appendix A

Site Plan

Appendix B

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
The Triangle Specific Plan
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

AESTHETICS
PDF 1-1 Section 2.7 of The Tri angle Specific Plan includes Landscape Development Standards which are
described in Section 3, Project Description. The
Landscape Development Standards address
requirements for landscaped areas, pedestrian
walkways, and open space within The Triangle.

Development standards are identified specifically
for pedestrian connectivity, pedestrian oriented
open spaces, streetscapes and perimeter edges,
parking lots. Additionally, development standards
address reduced energy and water consumption
associated with landscaping. The Triangle Design
Guidelines outline landscape design criteria,
including landscape palettes. Prior to approval of
each Development Plan, the Community
Development Department shall confirm that
landscape plans are in conformance with the
landscape requirements, as outlined in The
Triangle Specific Plan and The Triangle Design
Guidelines. The plans shall be certified by a
licensed Landscape Architect or a licensed
Landscape Contractor.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 1-2 As identified in Section 2.7 of The Triangle Specific Plan and outlined in Section 3, Project Description,
a minimum of 20 percent of the overall project area
shall be landscaped area or open space, with a
minimum of 15 percent of the area within each
planning area reserved for open space use.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 1-3 Graded slopes within the Caltrans right-of-way
along the eastern and southwestern boundaries of
the project site as shown on Exhibit 3-22, Off- site
Impact Map, of the Draft EIR, would be restored to
meet the requirements of Caltrans for Erosion
Control and Highway Planting. Prior to initiation of
grading, grading and landscape plans for this off-
site area shall be subject to Caltrans review and
approval.

Prior to initiation of grading
permits
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 1-4 The Triangle Design Guidelines document the
design criteria that shall be incorporated into all
development within The Triangle and are
described in Section 3, Project Description. The
Design Guidelines shall be used with The Triangle
Specific Plan to implement The Triangle. The key
components of the Design Guidelines include: (1)
Overall Planning Guidelines (design theme, site
planning considerations, expression of corporate
identity, building architectural elements,
landscape design concept and exterior lighting
palette); (2) Guidelines for Land Uses (architecture
elevation treatment, landscape design concept
and influences, plant palettes, and hardscape
elements) and (3) Streetscapes. All elements of
the built environment within the Specific Plan area
shall conform to the Design Guidelines and shall
incorporate appropriate thematic elements.

Compliance with the Design Guidelines shall be
verified by the Community Development
Department prior to approval of each Development
Plan.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 1-5 Section 2.5.7 of T he Triangle Specific Plan
identifies the allowable building height for buildings
within each planning area. Prior to approval of
each Development Plan, the Community
Development Department shall verify that
allowable building heights (presented in Table 3-7
of Section 3, Project Description) are not
exceeded: 100-feet in Planning Area 1, 200- feet
in Planning Areas 2 and 3 and 280-feet in Planning
Area 4.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 1-6 Concurrent with subm ittal of each Development
Plan, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit
a Lighting Plan to the City of Murrieta Community
Development Director and Building and Safety
Department for review to demonstrate that the
development standards identified in The Triangle
Specific Plan as outlined in PDF 1-7 have been
implemented. The Lighting Plan shall include the
Concurrent with
submittal of each
Development Plan
Community
Development and
Building and Safety
Departments

The Triangle Specific Plan
3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
location and type of all outdoor fixtures and the
resulting light patterns, accompanied by
manufacturers catalog cuts and drawings, a
photometric analysis, and the hours of operation
for the project’s lights. The Community
Development Director has the authority to
approve, conditionally ap prove, or deny this
Lighting Plan according to the same process
identified in Section 4.3.1.2, Minor Conditional Use
Permit, of The Triangle Specific Plan.

PDF 1-7 Section 2.10, Exterior Lighting Development
Standards, of The Triangle Specific Plan identifies
the lighting design cr iteria for the proposed
development, including landscape accent, parking
lot, and public space lighting. Prior to approval of
each Development Plan, the Community
Development Department shall confirm that all
lighting design is in conformance with the Exterior
Lighting Development Standards included in The
Triangle Specific Plan, as follows:
• Concurrent with submittal of the
Development Plan, a Conceptual Lighting
Plan shall be submitted for City review. The
Lighting Plan shall include the location and
type of all outdoor fixt ures and the resulting
light patterns and the hours of operation for
the project’s lights.
• Lighting throughout The Triangle shall be
designed to complement the architectural
style of adjacent structures, to enrich the
environment in which it is located, and to
provide a comfortable and safe space for
visitors.
• Low pressure sodium (LPS) lights will be used
only if other lower level lights cannot be used
to serve the same purpose, as the LPS lamps’
pigmentation favors an orange hue. If LPS
lights are used, the use of low-watt wash
lights shall be used in planter areas
Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department
Concept
photometric
plan submitted
with DP-2022-
2705
The Triangle Specific Plan
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and pedestrian zones to mitigate the
undesirable hue of the LPS lamps.
• Exterior lighting on buildings or within the
parking areas shall not blink or flash.
• Neon lights shall be discouraged except
where implemented as an integral element of
a tenant’s prototypical signage or identity.
• Fixtures may be located on buildings,
recessed in-ground, located above grade on
poles or bollards, and in trees.
• Parking area fixtures shall be of a consistent
or related style throughout The Triangle, and
shall be compatible in style with accent
lighting in the project.
• Pedestrian areas shall be illuminated so that
pathways and gathering areas are
highlighted.
• Exceptions to the above requirements shall
be as provided in the City Development Code.

PDF 1-8 As required by Section 2.4.3, Color and Materials, of The Triangle Design Guidelines, the
architectural colors shall be low reflectance,
subtle, neutral and compliment natural earth
tones. The use of high-intensity or fluorescent
colors is prohibited, unless incorporated as part of
an approved comprehensive sign program.

Glazing shall be clear, tinted or non-reflective.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 1-9 Section 2.8 of The Triangle Specific Plan identifies signage regulations as described in Section 3,
Project Description. The location and type
(principal identification, arrival identification,
entrance gateway/tenant identification, and
existing/new display signs [freeway oriented
billboard]) of allowed signs are presented on
Exhibit 3-13. The Property Owner/Developer shall
submit a comprehensive, on-site and freeway-
facing tenant identificat ion sign program for The
Triangle to the City as part of each Development
Plan which shall reviewed according to the
process as identified in Section 4 of The Triangle
Specific Plan.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 1-10 The Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that any new electric or
communication distribution lines or the relocation
of existing overhead facilities in proximity to, and
which would be visible from, scenic corridors shall
be placed underground whenever feasible in
accordance with Public Utilities Commission
regulations.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department
And Engineering/Public
Works Department

SC 1-1 Development within the Specific Plan area shall
adhere to all applicable City of Murrieta lighting
requirements as outlined in Section 16.18.100
(Lighting) and Section 16.18.110 (Mount Palomar
Lighting Standards), as they are presented in the
City’s Municipal Code. Section 16.18.110 outlines
specific requirements for lamp sources and
shielding within the Palomar Lighting Zone and
requires non-exempt uses (such as those
proposed with The Triangle Specific Plan ) to
submit a Lighting Plan to the City for approval. The
Lighting Plan shall be approved prior to approval
of each Building Plan.

Prior to approval of each
Building Plan
Community
Development
Department
And Building & Safety
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 358-AES-1 Prior to site plan approval, the project proponent will demonstrate to the sati sfaction of the City of
Murrieta Community Development Director or
his/her designee, that no lighting will create a
safety hazard or nuisance to off-site vehicular
traffic or adjacent land uses. Measures to mitigate
potential effects involve building design, building
setbacks and screening direct lighting so as to
avoid safety and nuisance hazards.

Prior to site plan approval Community
Development
Department

AIR QUALITY
PDF 2-1 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, all office buildings shall incorporate
sustainable design featur es to demonstrate the
equivalency to a certified project under the U.S.

Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating
System for New Construction.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department
And Building &
Safety Department

PDF 2-2 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, a Travel Demand Management Plan shall be
prepared concurrently with the Development Plan
to identify potential means of reducing automobile
trips to the site. This Plan shall document the steps
to be taken to facilitate and encourage alternate
modes of travel, such as cycling, carpooling, and
alternate fuel vehicle charging stations. It will also
address methods of reducing peak hour
congestion such as flexible work hours.

Compliance with this
PDF will be
accomplished through
implementation of PDF
10-8 under Traffic and
Circulation.

Will be provided prior to
approval of the
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 2-3 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, alternate modes of travel sustainability
measures include the following:
• Bicycle storage racks or lockers shall be
provided within 100-feet of the entry to each
office building in compliance with section

5.106.4 of the California 2010 Green Building
Standards ( California Code of Regulations,
Title24, Part 11). If multiple building entries
are provided, bicycle racks shall be located
Compliance with this
PDF will be
accomplished through
implementation of PDFs
10-6 and 10-7 under
Traffic and Circulation.

Will be provided prior to
approval of the
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department
And Building &
Safety Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
near each entry.
• Bicycle racks or lockers shall also be located
throughout the retail area of The Triangle.
• Bicycle spaces for employees shall be
secure, enclosed spaces that are located in a
key-accessed area and are illuminated at
night. Bicycle spaces for visitors and
customers shall include bicycle racks located
in areas that are clearly visible from a primary
building entrance, illuminated at night, and
protected from damage from moving and
parked vehicles. These racks shall include
provision for securing bicycles in which the
user may lock the frame and wheels.
• The bus turnout and shelters located on
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the Internal
Connector Road shall include a roof canopy,
seating, and shade trees nearby to provide
shelter for riders.

SC 2-1 During construction of the project, the Property Owner/Developer and its contractors shall be
required to comply with regional rules, which
would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant
emissions. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rule 402
requires that air poll utant emissions not be a
nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that
fugitive dust be controlled with the best available
control measures so that the presence of such
dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere
beyond the property line of the emission source.

Two options are presented in Rule 403: monitoring
of particulate concentrations or active control.

Monitoring involves a sampling network around
the project with no additio nal control measures
unless specified concentr ations are exceeded.

The active control option does not require any
monitoring, but requires that a list of
Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
measures be implemented starting with the first
day of construction. Rele vant control measures
from Rule 403 are identifi ed in Appendix F of the
Air Quality Assessment included in Appendix C.

Specific Rule 403 regulatory requirements that are
applicable to the project are as follows:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or
excavation activities shall cease when winds
exceed 25 miles per hour (mph), per
SCAQMD guidelines, in order to limit fugitive
dust emissions.
• The Contractor shall ensure that all disturbed
unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the
project are watered at least three times daily
during dry weather. Implementation of this
measure is estimated to reduce respirable
particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) fugitive dust emissions by
approximately 61 percent.
• The Contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds
on unpaved roads and project site areas are
reduced to 15 mph or less to reduce PM10
and PM2.5 haul road fugitive dust emissions
by approximately 44 percent.

SC 2-2 In accordance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements (Title 13, Chapter 10,
Section 2485, Division 3 of the California Code of
Regulations), heavy duty trucks accessing the site
shall not idle for greater than five minutes at any
location.

Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Building and Safety
Department
And Engineering/Public
Works Department
(Inspections)

The Triangle Specific Plan
9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
SC 2-3 The Property Owner/Developer and its contractors shall minimize pollutant emissions by maintaining
equipment engines in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer’s specifications and
during smog season (May through October) by not
allowing construction equipment to be left idling for
more than five minutes (per California law, see SC
2-2).

Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Engineering/Public
Works Department
(during grading
operations)
And Building and
Safety Department
(during building
construction)

SC 2-4 In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 431.2, the
Property Owner/Developer and its contractors
shall ensure use of low-su lfur diesel fuel in
construction equipment, as required by CARB
(diesel fuel with sulfur content of 15 parts per
million [ppm] by weight or less).

Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Engineering/Public
Works Department
(during grading
operations)
And Building and
Safety Department
(during building
construction)

SC 2-5 The Property Owner/D eveloper and its contractors shall use architectural c oatings that have an
average volatile organic compound (VOC) content
compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which limits
the VOC content of architectural coatings so that
actual emissions do not exceed the allowable
emissions.

Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Building and Safety
Department

SC 2-6 In compliance with SCAQMD Rules 1186
(Certified Street Sweeper Compliance Testing)
and 1186.1 (Less-Polluting Sweepers), the
Property Owner/Developer and its contractors shall
ensure that alternative fuel or otherwise less-
polluting street sweepers are used on the project
site to the maximum extent feasible.

Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Engineering/Public Works
Department

SC 2-7 In compliance with Assembly Bill 13 and Section
6404.5 of the California Labor Code, smoking shall
be prohibited in buildings to minimize exposure of
building occupants to environmental tobacco
smoke. Designated smoking areas shall be located
at least 25 feet away from building entries, air
intakes, and operable windows.

Prior to issuance of each
Development Plan

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Building and Safety
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
SC 2-8 Bicycle storage racks or lockers will be provided within 100 feet of the entry to each office building
in compliance with Section 5.106.4 of the
California 2010 Green Building Standards
(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).

If multiple building entri es are provided, bicycle
racks shall be located near each entry.

Prior to issuance of each
Development Plan

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Building and Safety
Department
MM 2-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall prepare an
Architectural Coating Plan that indicates the VOC
content of the coatings to be used and the rate of
application. The Plan shall demonstrate that VOC
emissions for painting of the proposed building,
added to VOC emissions from any other on-site
painting that would occur concurrently, would not
exceed 65 pounds per day. This limit provides a
ten pound per day margin for VOC emissions from
sources other than architectural coatings. The
Architectural Coating Plan shall be verified by the
City of Murrieta Building and Safety Department.

Prior to the issuance of
each building permit
Building and Safety
Department

MM 2-2 During construction activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall include the following
language on the Contractor Specifications, which
shall be verified by the City of Murrieta Building
and Safety Department: “The Contractor shall
utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles)
or clean-fuel generators rather than diesel- or
gasoline-powered generators where feasible. The
effectiveness of this measure to reduce emissions
is not quantified by the SCAQMD”. Compliance by
the contractor shall be confirmed by the Building
and Safety Department during construction.

Verification prior to
issuance of a grading
permit

Implementation during
construction
Building and Safety
Department
And Engineering/Public
Works Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 2-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate to
the Community Development Department and the
Building and Safety Department that proposed
buildings include features that exceed minimum
statewide energy requirements (i.e., 20 percent
beyond Title 24). Implementation of these features
shall be confirmed by the Community
Development Department and the Building and
Safety Department fo llowing completion of
construction. At a minimum, these features may
include, but not be limited to:
• Use of low emission water heaters;
• Use of central water heating systems;
• Use of energy-efficient appliances;
• Use of increased insulation;
• Use of automated controls for air
conditioners;
• Use of energy-efficient parking lot lights;
• Use of lighting controls and energy-
efficient lighting.

Prior to the issuance of
each building permit

Verify implementation
following construction
Community
Development
Department
and the Building and
Safety Department

MM 2-4 Prior to the issuance of each occupancy permit,
the Property Owner/Developer shall submit for
approval to the Community Development
Department a plan for the future building manager
to provide educational information to all tenants
and employees on the advantages of purchasing
and using clean, “green” products including, but
not limited to: (1) low VOC paints and cleaning
products, (2) products made from recycled
materials, and (3) products that can be recycled.

The plan shall require the provision of this
information to all tenants upon initial occupancy
and to all new employees working within the
development. Distribution of the material shall be
repeated annually or more frequently.

Prior to the issuance of
each occupancy permit
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SC 3-1 Pursuant to the re quirements Western Riverside
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP), the Property Owner/Developer shall
follow guidelines for protection of biological
resources during construction as outlined in
Section 7.5.3 of the MS HCP and Standard Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for construction as
outlined in Appendix C of the MSHCP. These
requirements include but are not limited to the
following measures applicable to the project:
• The Project will not affect any conserved
habitat for fuel-modification purposes;
• Plans for water pollution and erosion control
will describe sediment and hazardous
materials control, dewatering or diversion
structures, fueling and equipment
management practices, and vegetation. Prior
to construction commencement, the City will
approve the pollution preservation plans;
• Construction activities will be timed to
consider seasonal requirements for breeding
birds and migratory non-resident species.

Habitat clearing will be avoided during
species’ active breeding season (March 1 to
June 30);
• Sediment and erosion-co ntrol measures will
be implemented until such time that soils are
determined to be stabilized successfully;
• Silt fencing or ot her sediment-trapping
materials will be installed at the downstream
end of construction activities to minimize
sediment transport off site;
• The footprint of disturbance will be minimized
to the maximum extent feasible. Access to
sites will occur on pre-existing access routes
to the greatest extent possible;
Prior to issuance of a
grading plan

During construction
Community
Development
Department
Engineering/Public
Works Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
• Equipment storage, fueling, and staging
areas will be sited on non-sensitive upland
habitat types with minimal risk of direct
discharge into riparian areas or other
sensitive habitat types. Those designated
areas will be clearly marked and located in
such a manner as to contain runoff;
• Exotic species removed during construction
will be properly handled to prevent sprouting
or regrowth;
• Training of construction personnel will be
provided;
• Ongoing monitoring and reporting will occur
for the duration of the construction activity to
ensure implementation of best management
practices (BMPs); and
• Waste, dirt, rubble, or trash will not be
deposited in any conservation areas or any
native habitat.

SC 3-2 Prior to grading permit issuance or as identified by ordinance, the Property Owner/Developer shall
pay the appropriate MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee amount as determined by the City,
unless exempted by ordinance. The current fee is
$6,597 per acre for commercial uses.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department
MM 358-BIO-1 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) policies
established by the County of Riverside for the
federally listed End angered/State-listed
Threatened Stephens’ kangaroo rat. Interim
Mitigation fees applicable to the proposed project
($500 per gross acre) shall be paid by the Property
Owner/Developer.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 3-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the Property Owner/Developer shall retain a City-
approved Biological Monitor for the project. The
Biological Monitor shall ensure that all permit
conditions are met, all mitigation measures are
properly implemented, and that the project
complies with all standard conditions and project
design features. Beginning with the initiation of
construction or grading activities, the Biological
Monitor shall submit monthly status reports to the
Community Development Department to
demonstrate compliance with this measure.

Prior to initiation of
construction or grading
activities
Community
Development
Department

MM 3-2 A focused survey for burrowing owl following the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for Western
Riverside County shall be conducted during the
breeding season (March 1 to August 31) prior to
construction to confirm the absence of the species.

Per MSHCP requirements and following specific
direction of the USFWS and the CDFG in
comments on the DBESP, if the focused surveys
are not conducted 30 days prior to construction, a
pre-construction survey for burrowing owl shall be
conducted 30 days prior to construction to
determine presence or abs ence at the time of
construction. If burrowing owl is present during
either the focused survey or the pre-construction
survey, guidelines in Section 6.3.2 of the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) shall be followed to
determine appropriate mitigation per the MSHCP
requirements. Mitigation shall include: (1)
protection of the burrowing owl if present during
the breeding season (March 1 to August 31), and
(2) active translocation during the non-breeding
season (September 1 to February 28) to
conserved habitat within the MSHCP Plan Area.

The Property Owner/Developer shall submit
written evidence that a focused survey has been
completed during the breeding season and prior to
construction and that, if necessary, a pre-
Prior to earth disturbance Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
construction survey for burrowing owls was
performed within 30 days prior to earth
disturbance. Evidence that any necessary
mitigation requirements have been met shall be
provided to the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 3-3 Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the
Property Owner/Developer sh all submit copies of
Contractor Specifications to the
Engineering/Public Works (field inspection)
Department that include the following
requirements to protect nesting birds regulated by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: “When feasible,
vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled
between July 1 and February 28 to avoid the
nesting season. This will ensure that no active
nests will be disturbed and that removal could
proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal activities
shall occur during the nesting season (March 1 to
June 30), all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly
surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a
qualified Biologist prior to removal. If any active
nests are detected, the area shall be flagged,
along with a 300-foot buffer area for non-listed
species and a 500-foot buffer for listed species
and raptors unless it is determined by a qualified
biologist and approved by the regulatory agencies
that a reduced buffer is appropriate. The buffer
area shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is
complete or until it is determined by the Monitoring
Biologist that the nest has failed”. In addition, a
Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the
vegetation removal to ensure that nests not
detected during the init ial survey are not
disturbed. The Biological Monitor shall provide
written notification to the Community Development
and Engineering (field inspection) Department that
these requirements have been accomplished
following completion of grading activities
associated with each grading permit.

Prior to any ground-
disturbing activities

Monitoring during
construction
Community
Development
Department

Engineering/Public
Works Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 3-4 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and any ground-disturbing activities impacting jurisdictional
areas, the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain
and then provide the Department of Public Works
with a copy of the exec uted Section 404 Permit
obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE). The Property Owner/Developer is
obligated to and shall comply with all conditions of
the permit.

Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit and
any ground-disturbing
activities

Compliance verification
during construction

Engineering/Public
Works Department
And
Community
Development
Department

MM 3-5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and any ground-disturbing activities, the Property
Owner/Developer shall obtain and then provide
the Department of Public Works with a copy of the
Section 401 Water Qualit y Certification obtained
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The Property Owner/Developer is
obligated to and shall comply with all conditions of
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit and
any ground-disturbing
activities
Engineering/Public
Works Department
And
Community
Development
Department

MM 3-6 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and any ground-disturbing activities impacting jurisdictional
areas, the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain
and then provide the Department of Public Works
with a copy the executed Streambed Alteration
Agreement obtained from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Property
Owner/Developer is obligated to and shall comply
with all conditions of the permit.

Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit and
any ground-disturbing
activities

Compliance verification
during construction
Engineering/Public
Works Department
And
Community
Development
Department

MM 3-7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that
impacts to 0.21 acres of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine
Habitat (southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub,
herbaceous wetland, disturbed wetland, and
streambed) shall be miti gated consistent with
creation and preservation acreage requirements
outlined in Table 5.3-4 (0.21 acre of off-site
creation and 0.37 acre of off-site preservation).

The mitigation requirement shall be no less than
this amount, and shall comply with the mitigation
requirements of the Section 404
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
Engineering/Public
Works Department
And
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification,
and Streambed Alteration Agreement (refer to
MMs 3-4 through 3-6).

The provision of 0.58 acres of compensatory
mitigation shall be completed at the Applicant-
owned parcel with Specific Plan 310 located north
of the proposed project site, north of Keller Road,
east of Washington Stree t, and west of the San
Diego Canal (APN 388-12-004 and 388-180- 072;
Figure 8 of the DBESP) within the same area as
the project site. Documentation to be submitted to
the Department of Public Works prior to issuance
of a grading permit shall consist of a Riparian
Habitat Mitigation Plan approved by the respective
regulatory agencies for the 0.21- acre of off-site
created habitat, and proof of preservation of 0.37-
acre off-site. This site shall be conserved and
deeded over to the appropriate conservation
authority.

If the applicant-owned Specific Plan 310 mitigation
site described above is no longer available when
the Property Owner/Developer is obtaining
grading permits, then mitigation shall consist of
creating and preserving Riparian/Riverine habitat
at an alternate off-site mitigation site, as identified in the Property Owner/Developer’s USACE and
CDFG permit/agreement for the proposed project.

The Triangle Specific Plan
18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

CULTURAL RESOURCES
professional (i.e., archaeologist, historian,
architect, paleontologist, Native American Tribal
monitor), subject to approval by the City of
Murrieta to evaluate the significance of the find and
appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the
resources is not feasible, salvage operation
requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and which
shall take in to account tribal preferences and
sensitivity concerns. After the find has been
appropriately avoided or mitigated and cleared by
the City, the Project cultural resources
professional and, if applicable, the Native
American monitor representing the Luiseño Indian
Tribe, work in the area may resume. Pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation for archaeological resources. If the
Developer, the project archaeologist and the
Native American Monitor cannot agree on the
significance or the mitigation for such resources,
these issues will be presented to the Community
Development Director for decision. The
Community Development Director shall make the
determination based on the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act with respect
to archaeological resources and shall take into
account the religious beliefs, customs, and
practices of the Luiseño Indian Tribe.

Notwithstanding any other rights available under
the law, the decision of the Community
Development Director shall be appealable to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.

The Triangle Specific Plan
19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
SC 4-2 In the event that human remains are unearthed
during excavation and grading activities of any
future development project, all activity shall cease
immediately. Pursuant to State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall
occur until the County coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of
Native American descent, the coroner shall within
24 hours notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then
contact the most likel y descendant of the
deceased Native American, who shall serve as
consultant on how to proceed with the remains.

During excavation and
grading activities
Engineering/Public
Works Department
(Inspectors)
358-Cult-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the City of Murrieta Community
Development Director that the following measures
shall be implemented to prevent the destruction of
paleontological resources:

A. Prior to any excavation into undisturbed
Pauba Formation deposits, a pre-
construction meeting shall be conducted
in which a qualified Paleontologist shall
explain the procedures necessary to
protect and safely remove potentially
significant fossil materials for study and
curation.

B. A qualified Paleontologist shall be
retained to perform inspections of the site
and to salvage exposed fossils during
excavation activities. The frequency of
these inspections shall depend on fossil
discovery, rock unit sensitivity, and the
rate of excavation. In areas of HIGH
sensitivity and the presence of fossils,
monitoring shall be
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit

Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
required full time.

C. Should a resource(s) be encountered,
the Paleontologist shall be allowed to
divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate
evaluation and, if necessary, salvage.

D. Due to the small size of some of the
potential fossils, it shall be necessary to
collect matrix samples in Pleistocene
fine-grained sediments for processing
through fine screens.

E. Regardless of the final degree of
preservation, evaluat ion and treatment
undertaken, recovered artifacts shall be
housed at a curatorial facility in
compliance with federal regulations (36
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 79).

If these facilities that were offered the
artifacts refuse t he collection, the
collection may be offered to the Murrieta
Unified School District.

F. Should a resource(s) be encountered, a
report shall be prepared that contains an
appended itemized inventory of
specimens. This report and inventory
shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta
as Lead Agency, or their designee, and
signifies completion of the program to
mitigate impacts to paleontological
resources.

G. Should a resource(s) be encountered
and prior to removal and/or salvage of the
archaeological/paleontological material,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
notify the Assistant Superintendent of the
Murrieta School District of the discovery
of such material.

The Triangle Specific Plan
21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 4-1 A Native American Monitor and Qualified
Archaeologist shall be present during any earth-
moving construction activities. At least 30 days
prior to issuance of grading permits, separate
agreements between the Developer/Applicant and
the Qualified Archaeologist and the
Developer/Applicant and a Native American
Monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe
shall be developed regarding prehistoric cultural
resources and shall identify any monitoring
requirements and treatment of cultural resources
so as to meet both the requirements of CEQA and
those of the Luiseño Indian Tribe. The agreements
shall also address roles and responsibilities of the
Native American Monitor and the Archaeologist.

The Native American Monitor agreement shall also
detail treatment and final disposition of any Native
American cultural resour ces, sacred sites, and
human remains discovered on the site. In
compliance with SC 4-2, discovery and treatment
of human remains shall be in compliance with
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The
executed agreements shall be provided to the City
of Murrieta Community Development Director prior
to issuance of a grading permit.

If monitoring of Native American and/or other
archaeological resources occurs during project
construction, a report documenting monitoring
activities conducted by the Qualified Archaeologist
and Native American Monitor shall be submitted to
the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion
of grading. This report s hall document the type of
cultural resources recovered and the disposition
of such resources. If no cultural resources are
identified during the monitoring activities, a letter
report will be completed within 30 days of the
completion of grading.

It will document the type
of monitoring
Monitoring agreement
prior to issuance of
grading permits

Implementation during
any earth-moving
construction activities
Community
Development
Department

Engineering/Public
Works Department
(Inspectors)

The Triangle Specific Plan
22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
activities conducted, report any problems or issues
that occurred and state clearly that no resources
were identified. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City of Murrieta, Eastern
Information Center and the appropriate tribe(s).

MM 4-2 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the
Engineering/Public Works Department shall
confirm that the following note is included on
Contractor Specific ations: “Should any
cultural/scientific resources be discovered during
earth-moving activities, no further grading shall
occur in the area of the discovery until the
Community Development Director and/or Caltrans
(for resources within Calt rans’ right-of-way) is
satisfied that adequate prov isions are in place to
evaluate and protect t hese resources.” This
condition and the approved provisions/
recommendations as determined in the agreement
prepared under MM 4-1 and/or outlined in an
Evaluation Plan, shall be incorporated on the cover
sheet of the grading plan. Tribal and
archaeological monitors shall be allowed to
monitor all grading, excavation and
groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the
authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading
activities.

If potentially significant features or sites are
discovered, an Evaluation Plan shall be developed
by the Project archaeologist and a representative
of Luiseño Indian Tribe and shall contain, at a
minimum, a research design and field
methodology designed to recover data amenable
to testing the site’s abili ty to yield answers to
questions of interest to the public and/or scientific
community. If a site is determined to be significant,
data recovery excavations may be necessary
unless the resource is avoided and
preserved/protected in pl ace. Evaluation shall be
supervised by an individual
or individuals that
meet either the
Prior to issuance of any
grading permit

Implementation during
construction
Engineering/Public
Works Department and
Community Development
Department

Caltrans

The Triangle Specific Plan
23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards as a qualified Prehistoric
Archaeologist, as a Historic Archaeologist (as
applicable), and/or as a Registered Professional
Archaeologist(s) with similar qualifications.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
SC 5-1 The City of Murrieta adopted the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) in its entirety, as set forth in
Chapter 15.08 (Building Code) of the Murrieta
Municipal Code . The Property Owner/Developer
shall comply with the r equirements of the 2010
CBC or the most recent building and seismic
codes in effect at the time the grading plans are
approved in addition to any applicable ordinances
set forth by the City of Murrieta.

Prior to approval of
grading and building
plans
Engineering/Public Works
(for grading) and Building
and Safety Department
(for building)

SC 5-2 Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), a Preliminary Geotechnical Report
shall be submitted and approved by Caltrans for
grading and/or earthwork within Caltrans’ right-of-
way. Corrective work within Caltrans’ right-of-way
shall be done in accordance with Caltrans
standard specifications.

Prior to issuance of an
encroachment permit by
the Caltrans
Engineering/Public
Works Department

Caltrans

SC 5-3 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for each
future development project, a registered geologist
or soils engineer shall prepare an area-specific
Geologic Study, which s hall be submitted to the
Public Works or Building and Safety Department
for approval. The Geologic Study shall specify the
measures necessary to mitigate impacts related to
fault rupture, groundshaking, landslides,
liquefaction or dynamic settling, expansive or
collapsible soils, lateral spreading, and other
geologic and seismic ha zards, if any. All
recommendations in the Geologic Study shall be
implemented during area preparation, grading,
and construction.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit for each
future development
project
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
SC 5-4 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Property Owner/Developer of future development projects
shall comply with each of the recommendations
detailed in the Geotechnical Study, and other such
measure(s) as the City deems necessary to
adequately mitigate potential seismic and
geotechnical hazards.

Prior to issuance of any
Grading Permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department
358-Geo-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that all
structures and roadway improvements have been
designed to resist expected levels of ground
shaking. The most recent version of the California
Building Code ( CBC) outlines specific design
requirements for structures based on expected
potential ground acceleration, intended uses, and
subsurface soils or bedrock conditions at the site.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the Property
Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that all
structures have been designed in accordance with
the most recent seismic standards in the CBC and
seismic design parameter s of the Structural
Engineers Association of California. Roadways will
be designed in accordance with seismic design
provisions established by the California
Department of Transportation to promote safety in
the event of an earthquake.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Building and Safety
Department

358-Geo-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare an Erosion
Control Plan in accordance with requirements
established by the City of Murrieta and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego.

The Erosion Control Plan shall include control
measures which are subject to approval by the
City of Murrieta. All erosion control measures shall
be implemented prior to and during the rainy
season (October 15 to April 15).

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
358-Geo-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall incorporate the following
as part of project grading plans upon approval by
the City. “Unsuitable materials such as alluvium,
topsoil and artificial fill will be excavated and
removed or recompacted prior to placement of
structural fills. Potentia lly liquefiable soils shall
also be excavated.” The Property
Owner/Developer is required to comply with all
conditions of the permit as outlined on the grading
plans; verification of completion of this
requirement shall be completed by the City
Engineering/Public Works Department during
construction.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit

Verification of
completion during
construction
Engineering/Public Works
Department

358-Geo-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall incorporate the following
as part of project grading plans upon approval by
the City. “Removal of compressible materials will
be required in all areas of structural fill to minimize settlement potential.” The Property
Owner/Developer is required to comply with all
conditions of the grading permit as outlined on the
grading plans; verification of completion of this
requirement shall be completed by the City
Engineering/Public Works Department during
construction.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit

Verification of
completion during
construction
Engineering/Public Works
Department

358-Geo-5 During grading operations, unsuitable materials such as colluviums, alluvium, topsoil, landslide
debris and artificial fill shall be excavated and
removed or recompacted prior to placement of
structural fills. Site pr eparation, excavation and
earthwork completion operations shall be
performed under the observation and testing of a
soils engineer.

During grading
operations
Engineering/Public Works
Department

358-Geo-6 During grading operations, removal of
colluvium/compressible materials will be required
in all areas of structural fill to minimize settlement
potential.

During grading
operations
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
358-Geo-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide detailed grading
plans prepared by a r egistered Geotechnical
Engineer (in conformance with established City of
Murrieta procedures) further defining project
earthwork requirements. These plans shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City of
Murrieta. A geotechnical review of the detailed
grading plans for the project shall also be required.

Additional subsurface investigation shall be
conducted during the subsequent planning to
provide specific design requirements for the
project area.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

358-Geo-8 All cut slopes adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall
be contour graded incorporating the following
grading techniques:
a. The angle of the graded slope shall be
gradually adjusted to the angle of the
natural terrain.
b. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The
graded form shall reflect the natural
rounded terrain.
c. The toes and tops of slopes shall be
rounded with curves with radii designed
in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability
permit such rounding.
d. Where cut and fill slopes exceed 300 feet
in horizontal length, the horizontal
contours of the slope shall be curved in a
continuous, undulating fashion.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

MM 5-1 Recommendations from the Preliminary
Geotechnical Report (Leighton Consulting 2008),
the Geotechnical Feasibility Report for the
Proposed Below Grade Parking Structures
(Leighton 2012) and from the forthcoming design-
level geotechnical studies shall be included in the
Prior to issuance of each
grading permit
Engineering/Public
Works Department

Caltrans

The Triangle Specific Plan
27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Grading Plans and Building Design Specifications
prior to issuance of each grading permit.

Compliance with this requirement shall be verified
by the City of Murrieta’s Engineering/Public Works
Department for construction activities under the
jurisdiction of the City of Murrieta and by Caltrans
for grading within Caltrans right-of- way. Based on
the Preliminary Geotechnic al Report, preliminary
recommendations to be included in the project
specifications are related to: site preparation,
removal and recompaction, structural fills, utility
trenches, shrinkage and bulking, slope stability
(slope face compaction and finishing and slope
landscaping), surface drainage and erosion,
foundation design, floo r slab design, footing
setback, anticipated settlement, lateral earth
pressures and resistance, concrete and metallic
corrosion, and preliminary pavement section
design.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Building & Safety
Department

MM 5-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, a note shall be added to the Gr ading Plan that states:
“During grading operations and foundation
installation, grading and earthwork shall be
performed under the reasonably continuous
observation and testing of a registered
Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper
sub-grade preparation, sele ction of satisfactory
materials, and placement and compaction of all
structural fill. Site preparation, removal of
unsuitable soils, approv al of imported earth
materials, fill placement, foundation installation
and other site geotechnically-related operations
shall be observed and tested by a registered
Geotechnical Engineer. A Geotechnical Engineer
shall review the project plans and specifications
prior to release for bidding and construction to
determine whether the geotechnical
recommendations have been effectively
implemented. Review of findings shall be reported
in writing to the Engineering/Public
Prior to issuance of each
grading permit
Engineering /Public
Works Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Works Department by the Geotechnical
Engineer.”

MM 5-3 Prior to issuance of each grading permit that
includes any utility improvements or other work in
trenches on or off the project site, the Property
Owner/Developer shall demonstrate to the City of
Murrieta, and Caltrans for construction within
Caltrans right-of-way, that appropriate
geotechnical measures, as defined in the site-
specific geotechnical in vestigation, have been
included in the Contract or Specifications. These
recommendations may include, but not be limited
to, trench wall support; continuous monitoring of
the shoring elements and existing ground surfaces
in the adjacent area for movement; and off-site
pavement rehabilitation, as needed.

Prior to issuance of each
grading permit
Engineering/Public
Works Department

Caltrans

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PDF 6-1 As described in Section 3, Project Description, The Triangle Specific Plan identifies conceptual on-site
drainage facilities (including on-site detention/
infiltration basins, streets, parking lots, storm
drains, and culverts) and off-site storm drain
connections (refer to Exhibit 5.6-1, Conceptual
Drainage Plan). On-site drainage facilities shall be
designed concurrent with Development Plans for
The Triangle and shall be designed to
accommodate any increase in runoff above the
existing condition. The Property Owner/Developer
shall construct all necessary storm drain and flood-
control improvements an d channelization in
compliance with the City of Murrieta and the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District standards to provide 100-
year flood protection.

Concurrent with
Development Plans
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 6-2 In compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements, including the Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the project
shall incorporate site design practices to reduce
runoff and to promote a hydrologically functional
project that mimics the natural hydrologic regime
to the extent feasible . The proposed project
includes non-structural/source-control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and
structural/treatment-control BMPs. Non-structural/
source-control BMPs include using permeable
paving materials; covering loading docks;
connecting restaurant equipment wash areas to
grease traps connected directly to the sewer; and
implementing other similar measures.

Structural/treatment-control BMPs planned for the
site may include an underground combined
detention/infiltration bas in, landscape detention
areas, and roof/loading docks filter units. Erosion-
control measures shall also be implemented
during and post construction.

Concurrent with
Development Plans
Engineering/Public Works
Department

SC 6-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building
Permit, and as part of the future development’s
compliance with the NPDES requirements, a
Notice of Intent shall be prepared and submitted to
the San Diego RWQCB prov iding notification and
intent to comply with the State of California
General Construction Permit. Also, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Public
Works and the City Engineer for water quality
construction activities on-site. A copy of the
SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the
construction site at all times. The SWPPP shall
outline the source control and/or treatment control
BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the
construction site to the “maximum extent
practicable.” All recommendations in the Plan shall
be implemented during area preparation,
grading,
Prior to issuance of any
grading or building permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and construction. The Property Owner/Developer
shall comply with each of the recommendations
detailed in the Study, and other such measure(s)
as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential
stormwater runoff impacts (General Plan EIR MM
HYD-1).

SC 6-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, future
development projects s hall prepare, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the
City Engineer, a Water Quality Management Plan
or Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which includes Best
Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance
with the Riverside County DAMP and the Murrieta
WQMP. All recommendations in the Plan shall be
implemented during post construction/operation
phase. The Property Owner/Developer shall
comply with each of the recommendations detailed
in the Study, and other su ch measure(s) as the
City deems necessary to mitigate potential water
quality impacts (General Plan EIR MM HYD-2).

Prior to issuance of any
Grading Permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

SC 6-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
construction within the Ca ltrans right-of-way, the
Property Owner/Developer shall provide written
evidence to the City of Murrieta Community
Development and Engineering/Public Works
Department from Caltrans that it is in compliance
with (1) the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide
NPDES Storm Water Permit (Order No. 99-06-
DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003, or the
latest approved NPDES permit in effect at the time
of the issuance of an Encroachment Permit by
Caltrans); (2) the BMPs sp ecified in the Caltrans
Storm Water Management Plan; and (3) the
requirements of the Construction General Permit
(CGP) (NPDES No. CAS000002, Order
No. 2009-0009-DWQ, or the latest approved CGP
in effect at the time of issuance of an
Encroachment Permit by Caltrans).

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for
construction within the
Caltrans right-of-way
Engineering/Public
Works Department and
Community Development
Department

Caltrans

The Triangle Specific Plan
31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
358-H-1 Prior to the issuance of any Development Plan
permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall
prepare a drainage plan which shall identify all
drainage improvements proposed for the project
area. These improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the guidelines and master
drainage plans prepared by the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District and
subject to review and approval by the City of
Murrieta Engineering/Public Works Department.

Prior to the issuance of any
Development Plan
Engineering/Public Works
Department

358-H-2 As a part of any Development Plan permit, detailed hydrology/drainage analysis will be conducted.

This will address existing on-site drainage
conditions and increased runoff flows associated
with the proposed project. The detailed analysis
shall demonstrate that proposed improvements
will adequately handle projec t drainage, and that
the proposed improvement s are integrated and
compatible with any adjoining drainage facilities as
identified in the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage
Plan. This report shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering/Public Works
Department. As the overall plan is finalized,
specific drainage improvements shall be subject to
review and approval by the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

As part of any
Development Plan
submittal
Engineering/Public Works
Department

358-H-3 The Property Owner/Developer shall obtain
encroachment permits from Caltrans for all
proposed drainage connections located within
Caltrans right-of-way and shall comply with the
conditions of the permit.

Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

LAND USE
SC 7-1 The Property Owner/Developer shall obtain an
Encroachment Permit from the California
Department of Transportation prior to initiation of
any activities in State ri ght-of-way. Evidence that
an Encroachment Permit has been obtained shall
be submitted to the City of Murrieta
Engineering/Public Works Department prior to
issuance of a grading permit.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Engineering/Public Works
Department

NOISE
SC 8-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the City
Community Development Department shall verify
that the plans include a note indicating that noise-
generating project construction activities shall
comply with construction-related noise standards
identified in Section 16.30.130 of the City of
Murrieta Municipal Code. These standards
include the limitations on hours of construction and
maximum allowed noise levels as specified on
Table 5.8-4 of this EIR. The Contractor will be
responsible for comply ing with the Murrieta
Municipal Code during construction and
compliance shall be verified by the Community
Development Department.

Prior to approval of
grading plans

Compliance verification
during construction
Community
Development
Department

SC 8-2 The project shall comply with Sections 16.30.90
and 16.30.100 of the City of Murrieta Municipal
Code which define exterior and interior noise level
limits (refer to Tables 5.8-2 and 5.8-3). Noise
sources, including but not limited to HVAC, loading
docks, and emergency generators, shall be
designed and located so that noise will not exceed
the specified limits.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
358-N-1 Truck access, parking area design, air
conditioning/refrigeration units, emergency
generators, loading docks, and other noise
generating features shall be designed to the
satisfaction of the City of Murrieta Community
Development Department to minimize the
potential noise impacts to on-site land uses.

Prior to approval of
Development Plans
Community
Development
Department
358-N-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for hotel uses, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit,
to the satisfaction of the City of Murrieta
Community Development Department, a detailed
acoustical analysis using architectural plans. This
report shall describe and quantify the noise
sources impacting the building(s), the amount of
outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction provided in the
architectural plans, and any upgrades required to
meet the City’s requirements for noise reduction
and the State’s 45 dBA CNEL Title 24 interior
noise standard. The measures described in the
report, when approved, shall be incorporated into
the architectural plans for the buildings and
implemented with building construction. These
measures may include, but not be limited to
(1) weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; (2)
upgraded dual-glazed windows for all windows
facing Murrieta Hot Springs Road, I-15, and/or
I-215; (3) mechanical ventilation/air conditioning;
and (4) exterior wall/roof assembles free of cutouts
or openings. The Property Owner/Developer shall
be responsible for the Contractor complying with
all noise measures identif ied in the acoustical
analysis and the City of Murrieta Community
Development Department shall confirm that
measures have been implemented, prior to
issuance of occupancy permits.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits for hotel
uses

Compliance verification
prior to issuance of
occupancy permits
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2
MM 8-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall include a
note stating the following: “During all project site
excavation and grading on site, the construction
contractors shall equip all construction equipment,
fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers, consistent with
manufacturers’ standards. The Construction
Contractor shall place all stationary construction
equipment so that emitted noise is directed away
from the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the
project site.” The Contractor shall be required to
comply with all noise measures identified on the
grading plans and compliance shall be verified by
the Community Development Department during
construction.

Prior to approval of
grading plans and/or
prior to issuance of
building permits

Compliance verification
during construction
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 8-2 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall include a
note stating the followin g: “The Construction
Contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas
that would create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors.” T he Contractor shall be
required to comply with all noise measures
identified on the grading plans and compliance
shall be verified by the Community Development
Department during construction.

Prior to approval of
grading plans and/or
prior to issuance of
building permits

Compliance verification
during construction
Community
Development
Department

MM 8-3 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall include a
note stating the following: “To the extent feasible,
haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or
residential dwellings. If the haul route passes
residential dwellings or ot her sensitive receptors,
or would create a noise disturbance across a
residential or commercial property line, the
Construction Contractor shall limit haul truck
deliveries to between t he hours of 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM Monday through Saturday.” The
Contractor shall be required to comply with all
noise measures identifie d on the grading plans
and compliance shall be verified by the
Community Development Department during
construction.

Prior to approval of
grading plans and/or
prior to issuance of
building permits

Community
Development
Department

MM 8-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building other than hot els, the Property
Owner/Developer shall submit, to the satisfaction
of the City of Murrieta Community Development
Department, a detailed acoustical analysis using
architectural plans. This analysis shall describe
and quantify the noise sources impacting the
building(s), the amount of noise reduction
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for each
building other than hotels
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
provided in the architectural plans, and any
upgrades required to comply with the City’s
standards for Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments
(Table 5.8-1).

PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
PDF 9-1 As identified in Section 3.3.1 of The Triangle
Specific Plan, and shown on Exhibit 3-17 in
Section 3, Project Description, the proposed
project includes the following improvements to the
existing domestic water system to provide
adequate water demand pressure and fire flow
requirements to the future development. These
lines shall be sized and installed per the
recommendations of final engineering plans and
the requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) and City of Murrieta, as
applicable:

On site
• A new 12-inch looped trunk line internal to the
project site. New 10-inch and 12-inch lines
would connect to the 12-inch looped trunk line
for fire flow and 6-inch and 8-inch water lines
would connect to the 12-inch looped trunk line
to serve the project site.

Off site
• A separate 8-inch off-site water line would be
constructed along Murrieta Hot Springs Road
to provide a direct domestic water connection
to the proposed hotel use(s) on the project
site.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan

Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits
City of Murrieta
Engineering/Public
Works Department, Fire
Department, and
Building & Safety
Department

PDF 9-2 As identified in Section 3.3.2 of The Triangle
Specific Plan and as shown on Exhibit 3-17 in
Section 3, Project Description, the proposed
project includes the following wastewater
improvements which shall be sized and installed
per the recommendations of final engineering
Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
City of Murrieta
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
37 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
plans and the requirements of the EMWD and
City of Murrieta, as applicable:

On site
• A 15-inch gravity sewer would extend from
Murrieta Hot Springs Road onto the project
site and connect to a new 10-inch sewer line
that would collect wast ewater flows from the
project.
• A new 18-inch gravity sewer line would extend
west along Murrieta Hot Springs Road from
the new 15-inch sewer line and connect to an
18-inch off-site sewer line at the project’s
northwest border.
1 Off site
• The existing pump station along Monroe
Avenue north of Medica l Center Drive, the
ten-inch force main that runs adjacent to the
site along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
across I-215 to the east, and the ten-inch dry
sewer along Monroe Avenue would be
abandoned.
• A gravity flow system consisting of a new 15-
inch gravity sewer line would connect with the
existing 10-inch gravity sewer line located
within Monroe Avenue right-of-way between
Medical Center Drive and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road. The 15-inch sewer pipe would
extend south onto the project site to collect
wastewater flows from the project.

PDF 9-3 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, the Construction Management Plan for the
proposed project shall address recycling waste
material during construction to achieve a minimum
50 percent diversion of construction
Prior to construction Community
Development
Department and Building
& Safety Department

1 The design and alignment of the off-site 18-inch gravity sewer located west of the project site was analyzed as a separate pro ject in a Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program 8357, and was approved by the City in 2011.

The Triangle Specific Plan
38 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2
.

The Triangle Specific Plan
39 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
waste from landfills.

PDF 9-4 As stated in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, recycling receptacles shall be located
adjacent to trash receptacles in casual seating and
dining areas and in plazas and courtyards to
provide the opportunity for consumer recycling at
The Triangle.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 9-5 As described in Section 3.4 of The Triangle
Specific Plan and as shown on Exhibit 3-18 in
Section 3, Project Description, the proposed
project includes the following improvements to
electric, natural gas, and telecommunications
facilities which shall be sized and installed per the
recommendations of final engineering plans and
the requirements of Southern California Edison,
Southern California Gas Company, Verizon, and
the City of Murrieta, as applicable. Proposed utility
backbone facilities and service lines shall be
underground except for switching cabinets,
transformers, and similar structures and those
aboveground facilities shown on Exhibit 3-18.

On site
• A new 33,000 volt to 12,000 volt substation
may be installed on the project site if
determined necessary by SCE during final
design.

Off site
• An existing two-inch gas line in Murrieta Hot
Springs Road would be abandoned and
replaced by a new four-inch plastic gas line in
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
• The existing SCE overhead facilities on
Monroe Avenue would be placed
underground and the overhead line removed
from Murrieta hot Springs Road to Walsh
Center Drive. The existing overhead 12-
kilovolt (kV) line feeding across the I-15 to
Prior to approval of each
Development Plan and
prior to issuance of
building permits
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
40 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
and Monroe Avenue would be removed.
• The existing SCE overhead line crossing the
I-15 at the south end of the project site would
be removed once an on-site source of
electricity has been provided.
• Existing SCE underground street lights and
other incidental facilities (including
handholes, conduits, and service to others)
on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs
Road would be relocated to facilitate the
widening of the roadway.
• The two SCE five-inch conduits would be
extended from the existing vaults on the north
side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road south to the
project site to serve the proposed project.
• The two Verizon four-inch conduits would be
extended across Murrieta Hot Springs Road
to the west (Monroe Avenue) and the east
(Hancock Avenue) entrances of the project
site.

PDF 9-6 As stated in Section 2.10 of The Triangle Specific Plan, energy efficient fixtures (such as low-
pressure sodium, compact fluorescents, light
emitting diode (LED), and solar powered lights)
shall be incorporated where possible.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

SC 9-1 In compliance with Se ction 16.36.030 of the City of Murrieta Municipal Code, Non-Residential Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee Required, prior
to issuance of each building permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall be responsible for
payment of the City’s Development Impact Fees
for each building in an amount established by City
Council Resolution. The fees paid shall be that in
effect at the time of issuance of the building permit.

Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
41 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
SC 9-2 The Property Owner/Developer shall comply with
all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations,
including the most current edition of the California
Fire Code and the City of Murrieta Municipal Code,
regarding fire prevention and suppression
measures; fire hydrants; automatic fire
extinguishing systems (inclu ding sprinklers); fire
access; water availability; requirements for high
rise structures; and other, similar requirements.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of
Murrieta Community Development Department
and the Fire Department shall verify compliance
with applicable codes and that appropriate fire
safety measures are included in the project
design. All such codes and measures shall be
implemented prior to occupancy.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Community Development
Department and Building
& Safety Department, and
the Fire Department
SC 9-3 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall be required to
demonstrate that the project meets the applicable
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (24 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Part 6). These standards are
updated, nominally every three years, to
incorporate improved energy efficiency
technologies and methods.

Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Building & Safety
Department

SC 9-4 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall be required to
demonstrate that the Project meets the
requirements California Green Building
Standards (24 CCR 11), where applicable to the
proposed project.

Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Building & Safety
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
42 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 358-PSU-1 Passive solar heating techniques related to building orientation and design will be employed
whenever feasible within the project. Passive
systems involve orienting buildings properly to
take advantage of sun and/or shade exposures,
planting trees to reduce heat gain, providing
adequate roof overhangs to reduce interior space
cooling costs, ensuring that walls are properly
insulated and installing simple heat storage
systems. Compliance with this requirement shall
be verified by the Community Development
Department prior to approval of Development
Plans.

Prior to approval of
Development Plans
Community
Development
Department

MM 358-PSU-2 Roofs and walls will be insulated to reduce heat flow in and out, depending on the indoor/outdoor
temperatures. Light colors will be selected for the
buildings to reflect more summer heat than would
be the case with darker hues.

Prior to approval of
Development Plans
Community
Development
Department

MM 358-PSU-3 To reduce water consumption, the project will incorporate the following water conservation
devises: Low volume toilets, flow reducing faucet
aerators, pressure reducing valves, adequate pipe
insulation to reduce water used before hot water
reaches the equipment or fixtures, and drought
resistant landscaping.

Prior to approval of
Development Plans and
building permits
Community
Development
Department and
Building & Safety
Department

MM 9-1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, and in
coordination with the City of Murrieta, the Property
Owner/Developer shall implement security
measures and design f eatures to reduce the
demand for police services. Additional security
measures may include, but not be limited to:
• Private security personnel staffed at the
project site;
• On-site security cameras that are
monitored;
• Increased lighting around facilities and
parking lots;
Prior to approval of
Development Plans
Community
Development
Department
And Police Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
43 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
• Anti-graffiti measures;
• On-site medical aide; and
• On-site, private, plain-clothed store
security in retail businesses or anti-theft
electronic monitors.

Evidence that security measures have been
implemented to the satisfaction of the City shall be
provided to the Community Development
Department.

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
PDF 10-1 The Triangle Specific Plan includes the following roadway improvements at the project driveways
along Murrieta Hot Springs Road. These
improvements shall be in stalled by the Property
Owner/Developer as part of Phase 1a and shall be
completed prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy permits for Phase 1a uses.

Driveway 1 (Monroe Avenue) at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
• Install northbound approach (2 left turn and 2
thru lanes)
• Install southbound lanes (2 left turn and 2
thru lanes)
• Install eastbound lanes (2 left turn, 4 thru,
and 1 right turn lane)
• Install westbound lanes (2 left turn and 4 thru
lanes)
• Install traffic signal
Driveway 2 at Murrieta Hot Springs Road
• Install 1 northbound right turn lane
• Install 1 eastbound right turn lane with a
minimum 200-foot pocket
• Install 4 th westbound through lane
Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
permits for Phase 1a
uses
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
44 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Driveway 3 (Hancock Avenue) at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
• Install northbound approach (2 left turn, 1
thru, 1 right turn, and 1 shared right-thru lane)
• Restripe southbound approach (2 left turn and
2 thru lanes)
• Install eastbound lanes (2 left turn, 4 thru and
1 right turn lanes)
• Install westbound lanes (2 left turn, 4 thru
[restriping right turn lane to a shared thru/right
turn lane)
• Install northbound right-turn overlap
• Modify traffic signal

PDF 10-2 The Triangle Specific Plan includes the following additional roadway improv ements at the project
Driveway 3 (Hancock Avenue) at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road. These improvements shall be
installed by the Property Owner/Developer as part
of Phase 2 and shall be completed prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy permits for
Phase 2 uses:
• Modify northbound approach (2 left turn
lanes, 1 thru lane and 2 right turn lanes) and
install right turn overlap phasing
• Modify southbound approach (2 left turn
lanes, 1 right turn lane and 1 shared right- thru
lane)
• Modify the eastbound approach (2 left turn
lanes, 4 thru lanes, and 1 right turn lane)
• Modify westbound lanes (2 left turn, 3 thru
lanes and 1 right-turn lane)
Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
permits for Phase 2
uses
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
45 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 10-3 The Triangle Specific Plan includes the following additional roadway improv ements at the project
driveways along Murrieta Hot Springs Road.

These improvements shall be installed by the
Property Owner/Developer as part of Phase 3 and
shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy permits for Phase 3 uses:

Driveway 1 (Monroe Avenue) at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
• Modify northbound approach to provide 2 left
turn lanes, 1 shared left/thru lane, and 1 thru-
right turn lane
• Modify southbound approach to provide 2 left
turn lanes, 1 thru lane, 1 right turn lane, 1
shared right-thru lane
Driveway 3 (Hancock Avenue) at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
• Install northbound approach (1 additional thru
lane)
• Restripe southbound approach to include 2
left turn lanes, 1 thru lane, 1 right turn/thru
lane
Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
permits for Phase 3
uses
Engineering/Public Works
Department

PDF 10-4 As identified in Section 3.3.2 of the Project
Description, an “internal connector road” shall be
provided internal to The Triangle to provide
through circulation connecting the primary entries.

The internal connector road shall form either a
loop road or a grid pattern of connections. A series
of secondary driveways are planned to connect
parking to the internal connector road; these drives
shall include one or two lanes in each direction
with a 10-foot raised median. The onsite
circulation system for The Triangle shall be
finalized prior to submittal of a Development
Plan(s) for City review.

Prior to submittal of a
Development Plans
Community
Development
Department, And
Engineering/Public
Works Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
46 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 10-5 As identified in Se ction 3.3.2 of the Project Description, The Triangle Specific Plan includes a
6-foot meandering sidewa lk along the southern
side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to provide
pedestrian access to the three project entries.

Internal pedestrian circulation consists of 6-foot
sidewalks along the internal circulation road, 5-
foot sidewalks along secondary drives, and 5-foot
pathways that connect the planning area and uses
within The Triangle. Marked crosswalks shall be
provided at all street crossing to ensure pedestrian
safety; mid-block crossings shall be prohibited on
the internal connector road.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department And
Engineering/Public
Works Department

PDF 10-6 As identified in Se ction 3.3.2 of the Project Description and shown on Exhibit 3-5, a 5-foot on-
street bicycle lane is planned for Murrieta Hot
Springs to allow cyclists to access The Triangle. A
5-foot wide bike lane shall be provided either as an
on-street lane on the internal connector road or in a
multi-purpose path along one side of the internal
collector road. The final design of the internal bike
lane shall be shown on the Development Plan(s).

Bicycle racks or lockers shall be located near office
buildings and throughout the retail area of The
Triangle. Bicycle spaces for employees shall be
secure, enclosed spaces that are located in a key-
accessed area and are illuminated at night. Bicycle
spaces for visitors and customers shall include
bicycle racks located in areas that are clearly
visible from a primary building entrance,
illuminated at night, and protected from damage
from moving and parked vehicles. These racks
shall include provision for securing bicycles in
which the user may lock the frame and wheels.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department And
Engineering/Public
Works Department

PDF 10-7 As identified in Se ction 3.3.2 of the Project Description, a public transit stop with a bus turnout
shall be provided on the south side of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road just east of the Monroe Avenue
intersection. The transit stop shall include a
seating bench and passenger shade shelter.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
47 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 10-8 As identified in Section 3.3.2 of the Project
Description, a Travel Demand Management
(TDM) Plan shall be prepared concurrently with
each Development Plan to identify potential
means of reducing automobile trips to the site. The
TDM Plan shall document what steps will be taken
to facilitate and encourage alternate modes of
travel, such as cycling, carpooling, and alternate
fuel vehicles charging stations.

Concurrent with each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

MM 10-1 Existing Plus Project Condition – Direct
Project Impacts
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for
Phase 1a, the Property Owner/Developer shall
assure by permit and bond, the construction of the
following improvements at the intersection of
Hancock Avenue/Parkcrest Drive satisfactory to
the City Engineer.
• Install a traffic signal.
• Modify the southbound approach from a
shared left-through lane with an exclusive
right turn lane to provide an exclusive left
turn lane with a shared through-right turn
lane.
• Modify the westbound approach from a
single approach lane to provide an
exclusive left turn lane and a shared
through-right lane.

Prior to issuance of the
first building permit for
Phase 1a
Engineering/Public Works
Department

MM 10-2 The property owner/developer shall contribute its fair-share cost for impr ovements in the City of
Murrieta at the following intersections that are not
required/conditioned to be constructed by other
approved projects in the City.
• Jefferson Road at Murrieta Hot Springs
Road
o Install northbound free right-
turn lane
o Restripe westbound approach
Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
permits
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
48 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
along Murrieta Hot Springs
Road
o Modify traffic signal
• Madison Avenue at Murrieta Hot Springs
Road
o Restripe eastbound approach
o Modify traffic signal
• Whitewood Drive at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
o Install westbound right-turn
lane
• I-15 Northbound Ramp at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
o Remove northbound free right
and restripe the approach
o Install eastbound free right-turn
lane
o Remove eastbound left-turn
lane
o Install additional eastbound
through lane
o Install additional westbound
through lane
o Modify traffic signal
• I-215 Southbound Ramps at Murrieta
Hot Springs Road
o Install additional southbound
lane
o Modify traffic signal
Fair share payments shall be made to the City of
Murrieta. Should the City adopt a Traffic Mitigation
Fee Program for any of these improvements, the
Property Owner/Developer’s mitigation fees shall
be paid in accordance with that program in lieu of
fair share payments. If a fee program is not
adopted, the actual amount

The Triangle Specific Plan
49 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and timing of fair share payments, or other
financial security for such fair share payments that
may be approved by the City Traffic Engineer,
shall be determined prior to issuance of building
permits. The fair share amount shall be verified by
the Department of Public Works prior to payment.

Evidence of payment or timely compliance with an
approved fair share shall be provided to the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy permits.

MM 10-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits for
development of any allowed uses under Phase 2
of The Triangle Specific Plan, planned
improvements for the Cit y of Temecula I-
15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Project
shall be complete or it shall be demonstrated that
the improvement will be complete prior to issuance
of grading permits. Should the Property
Owner/Developer pursue development of Phase
2 prior to completion of these improvements,
additional traffic analysis shall be required for the
proposed development. Should it be determined
through this traffic analysis that new significant
impacts that are not addr essed in this EIR would
result, additional environmental review pursuant to
CEQA would be required.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
development of any
allowed uses under
Phase 2 of The Triangle
Specific Plan
Engineering/Public
Works Department
AndCommunity
Development
Department

MM 10-4 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the
Property Owner/Developer shall submit
construction Traffic Control Plans to the City of
Murrieta Engineering/Public Works Department,
satisfactory to the City Engineer. The Traffic
Control Plans shall describe traffic-controlling
measures associated wit h project improvements
to be implemented to manage traffic flow in all
directions, including where utilities and other
improvements are being implemented in existing
roadways. The Traffic Control Plans shall include,
but not be limited to, (1 ) identification of
construction haul routes; (2) identification of site
emergency access points/routes; (3) phased
Prior to issuance of each
grading permit
Engineering/Public Works
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
50 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
duration and location of anticipated lane closures;
(4) location of parking for the public and
construction workers during construction phases;
(5) use of flaggers; and (6) temporary routes for
pedestrians and bicyclists to avoid construction
activities. The contractor will be required to obtain
a traffic control permit to minimize disruption to the
traveling public during construction.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PDF 11-1 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, all buildings in The Triangle shall be
constructed in complia nce with the CalGreen
Code.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Building & Safety
Department

PDF 11-2 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, a construction Management Plan shall be
prepared and implemented by the building
contractor(s) to achieve a minimum 50 percent
diversion of construction waste from landfills.

Compliance with this
PDF will be
accomplished through
implementation of PDF 9-
3 under Public Services
and Utilities.

Community
Development
Department

PDF 11-3 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, all flat, non-visible portions of building roofs
shall be cool colors that have a high solar
reflectance and thermal emittance. These
characteristics reflect light, thereby reducing heat
transfer and furthering the ability to allow heat to
escape from a surface once it has been absorbed.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 11-4 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, signs shall be posted in the retail area
limiting idling time for commercial vehicles to no
more than five minutes.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 11-5 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, recycling receptacles will be located
adjacent to trash receptacles in casual seating and
dining areas and in plazas and courtyards to
provide the opportunity for consumer recycling at
The Triangle.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
51 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
PDF 11-6 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, heat islands shall be reduced to minimize the
impact of thermal gradient differences between
developed and undeveloped areas. This is
achieved by including parkways along the south
side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and both sides
of the Internal Connector Road, by requiring
shade trees within large parking fields, and
incorporating lighter colored paving materials for
pathways, sidewalks, and gathering places.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
Community
Development
Department

PDF 11-7 As identified in Section 2.9 of The Triangle Specific Plan, a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certified (or equivalent)
professional shall be involved with all landscaping
plans to promote a range of active and passive
sustainable design measures and professional
best practices.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan
And Prior to issuance of
landscape permits
Community
Development
Department

PDF 11-8 As identified in Section 2.10 of The Triangle
Specific Plan, energy efficient fixtures shall be
incorporated where possible, such as low-
pressure sodium, compact fluorescents, light
emitting diode (LED), and solar powered lights.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan and
building permits
City of Murrieta
Community
Development
Department And
Building & Safety
Department

PDF 11-9 As identified in Section 2.7.4 of The Triangle Specific Plan, careful plant selections and the
latest technology for irrigation will be incorporated
to reduce energy and water consumption.

Elements will include (1) the use of
evapotranspiration irrigation controllers, (2) the
use of a minimum of 50 per cent of low water use
or drought tolerant plants for landscaping, and
(3) the use of mowed turf only in spaces where it
serves a functional purpose.

Prior to approval of each
Development Plan and
landscape permits
City of Murrieta
Community Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 11-1 Prior to the issuance of each occupancy permit, the Applicant shall submit for approval to the City
of Murrieta Community Development Department
a plan for the future building manager to provide
educational information to all tenants and
employees on (1) water conservation; (2) energy
conservation, including the use of energy-efficient
lighting
and the limiting of outdoor lighting;
(3) mobile source emission reduction techniques,
such as use of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs; alternative modes
of transportation; and zero- or low-emission
vehicles; and (4) recycling services. The plan shall
require the provision of this information to all
tenants upon initial occupancy and to all new
employees working wit hin the development.

Distribution of the materials shall be repeated
annually or more frequently.

Prior to the issuance of
each occupancy permit

The requirements of this
MM shall be combined
with the requirements
identified in MM 2-4
under Air Quality
(submittal of one plan to
tenants and employees)
Community
Development
Department

MM 11-2 The proposed project shall provide preferred
parking and facilities for the charging of electric
vehicles. Preferred parking for electric vehicles
shall be provided at the rate of 1 preferred space
per 100 total spaces (1 percent). The initial
construction shall include the infrastructure to
support multiple charging stations at each major
parking location. At Phase 1a, one station shall be
operational and thereafter the Property
Owner/Developer shall provide one station at each
major parking location. Further, the Property
Owner/Developer shall conduct annual tenant
surveys and activate additional stations to meet
the demand.

Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits
Building & Safety
Department
And Community
Development
Department

The Triangle Specific Plan
53 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

B30376-0055 188735.2

THE TRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Timing/Frequency

Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
MM 11-3 Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a hotel, Class A office, or parking garage and prior
to the issuance of each building permit after
completion of 100,000 sf of development in the
Specific Plan area, the Property Owner/ Developer
shall submit plans for approval to the City of
Murrieta Building Department that show the
incorporation of renewable energy generation that
provides a minimum of 10 percent of the estimated
total electrical energy use of the planned
development with the expec tation that greater
energy savings will be accomplished to the extent
feasible.

Prior to the issuance of
any building permit for a
hotel, Class A office, or
parking garage

Prior to the issuance of
each building permit after
completion of 100,000 sf
of development in the
Specific Plan area
Building & Safety
Department
and Community
Development
Department

Appendix C

Biological Site Reconnaissance Memorandum
Hernandez Environmental Services (January 2023)

Page | 1
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 951.334.6219

Memorandum
Date: January 5, 2023
To: Saul Jaffe, Domenigoni-Barton Properties, LLC
From: Shawn Gatchel-Hernandez, Principal Regulatory Specialist Subject: Site Reconnaissance for the Triangle Project

HES was contracted to conduct a site reconnaissance for the Triangle Project (Project) to provide an update on the Project site conditions. The Project site consists of approximately

64.3 acres located south of the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue in the southern portion of the City of Murrieta, within southwestern Riverside County, California (Figures 1 and 2) . The Pro ject consists of the development of the project site with a mixed -use development, including residential, restaurant, commercial/retail, theater/entertainment, hotel, and office uses.

Background
Biological assessments were previously conducted for the Project by BonTerra Consulting in 2007, 2008, and 2010. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted by BonTerra Consulting in 2007 and Helix Environmental Planning in 2020. Jurisdictional delineations were prepared for the Project by Helix Environmental Planning in 2010 and 2019.

The previous biological assessme nts found that the site contained disturbed buckwheat scrub, willow riparian scrub, mulefat scrub, individual Fremont cottonwood trees, ornamental, annual grassland/ruderal, ruderal, disturbed, and developed areas. The entire Project site was previously grubbed and detention basins were constructed. Ruderal and annual grassland/ruderal areas comprised the majority of the Project site . It was determined that t he vegetation within the Project site provide d low to moderate quality habitat for various wildlife species. No listed plant or wildlife species were found to occur on the Project site. The Project site was found to have the potential to support burrowing owl; however, focused surveys found that no burrowing owl were occupying the site at the time of surveys.

The jurisdictional delineation found that the Project site contained a small, unnamed tributary to Murrieta Creek that conveys runoff from I -215 across the southern corner of the site. The drainage enter ed the Project site alon g the southeastern boundary and

Page | 2
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 951.334.6219

meanders through the southern portion of the Project site for approximately 524 feet until it exited at the southern boundary. The drainage continue d off-site for approximately 70 feet before it flowed into a culvert and cont inued under the I-15 Freeway and outlet 0.12 mile north of Monroe Avenue and continued for approximately a mile in storm drains until it connected to Murrieta Creek, which ultimately drains into the Santa Margarita River.

Existing Conditions and Results
HES conducted a site reconnaissance to document current Project site conditions on January 2, 2023. The ambient temperature at 8:30 AM was 47º Fahrenheit, cloudy, with winds ranging from zero to three miles per hour from the southeast . The purpose of the field survey was to document the existing habitat conditions. Representative site photographs were taken and are included within Appendix A.

The Project site consist s of v acant lands that appear s have been previously graded. The site is regularly disturbed by weed abatement activities. A cleared dirt and gravel lot is located in the northwestern portion of the site. Gravel trails cross the site and several lined basins with lined spillways are scattered throughout. A disturbed, ephemeral drainage course crosses through the southeastern portion of the site. Surrounding land uses include Murrieta Hot Springs Road and a mixture of commercial developments to the north; the I- 15 Freeway to the west and south; the I-215 Freeway to the east; a mixture of residential development and undeveloped land to the south.

Habitat Types
Four habitat types occur on the Project site: disturbed/developed areas , ruderal areas , disturbed buckwheat scrub habitat, and ephemeral drainage, as described below.

Disturbed/Developed Areas
The onsite disturbed/developed areas primarily occur within the northern and northwestern portions of the Project site. These areas are disturbed and unvegetated. They consist of a dirt and gravel lot, gravel trails, and lined basins and spillways.

Ruderal Areas
The Project site is dominated by ruderal areas that appear to be frequently mowed. Species observed in these areas include brome grasses ( Bromus sp.), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), cudweed (Lessingia filaginafolia), Page | 3
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 951.334.6219

western ragweed ( Ambrosia psilostachya), telegraph weed ( Heterotheca grandiflora), doveweed (Croton setigerus), and slender buckwheat (Eriogonum gracile).

Disturbed Buckwheat Scrub Habitat
Scattered disturbed buckwheat scrub habitat occurs throughout the site. Species observed within this habitat type include species such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum, Russian thistle, brome grasses, and short-pod mustard.

Ephemeral Drainage
The onsite ephemeral drainage is disturbed by regular mowing. The drainage consists primarily of unvegetated streambed with a small patch of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) thickets where the drainage enters the southeastern portion of the site. The drainage crosses through the southeastern portion of the site. The drainage continues off-site and continues under the I-15 Freeway and eventually connects to Murrieta Creek.

Wildlife
No sensitive plant or animal species were observed during the site reconnaissance. Animal species observed include red -tailed hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos ), mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura), American crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos), and California towhee ( Melozone crissalis ). The site does provide suitable habitat for burrowing owl; however, no burrowing owl or burrowing owl sign were observed during the site reconnaissance.

Jurisdictional Waters
The onsite ephemeral drainage and associated riparian vegetation are consider ed non- wetland Waters of the United S tates (WUS) and C alifornia Department of F ish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction. Further, the onsite drainage and associated riparian vegetation are considered Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservat ion Plan (MSHCP) Riparian/Riverine areas. T he onsite non- wetland WUS are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. The onsite drainage and associated riparian vegetation are also regulated by CDFW under the Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

Nesting Birds
Migratory non-game native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit “take” of all birds and their active nests. The project site does have shrubs Page | 4
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 951.334.6219

that can support nesting songbirds during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15.

Conclusion
Based on the results of the site reconnaissance, the current Project site conditions do not deviate substantially from those recorded during previous biological studies. The site continues to be maintained by weed abatement activities and is dominated by disturbed and ruderal habitats. However, the only tree species documented on the site were arroyo willow located at the southeastern Project site boundary. No sensitive plant or animal species were observed on the site. The onsite ephemeral drainage and associated riparian habitat are regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the Western Riverside County MSHCP.

Legend
Project Site Boundary
Figure 1
Location Map
The Triangle Project
City of Murrieta
Riverside County, California
N

Legend
Project Site Boundary
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
The Triangle Project
City of Murrieta
Riverside County, California
N
Project Location
View of gravel trail and lined spillway.

View of lined basin.

View of ruderal areas and disturbed
buckwheat scrub habitat.

View of onsite ruderal areas.

View of ruderal areas and disturbed
buckwheat scrub in the central portion of
the site.

View of disturbed ephemeral drainage and
patch of arroyo willows along the site
boundary.

Appendix D

Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION
The City of Murrieta has prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that outlines actions that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. The purpose of the CAP Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is to, in conjunction with the CAP, provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from new development is required under CEQA. The CAP is a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of the CAP.

This Checklist contains measures that are required to be implemented on a project-by-project basis to ensure that the specified emissions targets identified in the CAP are achieved. Implementation of these measures would ensure that new development is consistent with the CAP’s assumptions for relevant CAP strategies toward achieving the identified GHG reduction targets. Projects that are consistent with the CAP as determined through the use of this Checklist may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impacts analysis of GHG emissions. Projects that are not consistent with the CAP must prepare a project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible.

The Checklist may be periodically updated to incorporate new GHG reduction techniques, to comply with later amendments to the CAP, or to reflect changes in local, State, or federal laws, regulations, ordinances, and programs.

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
 The Checklist is required only for projects subject to CEQA review. The diagram below shows the context for the CAP Consistency Checklist within the planning review process framework.  If required, the Checklist must be included in the project submittal package. Application materials and submittal procedures can be found on the City of Murrieta website here. This checklist is designed to assist the applicant in identifying the minimum CAP-related requirements specific to their project.

However, it may be necessary to supplement the completed checklist with supporting materials, calculations or certifications, to demonstrate compliance with CAP requirements.  The requirements in the Checklist will be included in the project’s conditions of approval.  The applicant must provide an explanation of how the proposed project will implement the requirements described herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.  If a question in the Checklist is deemed not applicable to a project, an explanation must be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
187212. 1
Application Information
Contact Information
Project No./Name:

Property
Address/APN:

Applicant Name/Co.:

Contact Phone: Contact Email:

Was a consultant retained to complete this checklist? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, complete the following Consultant Name: Contact Phone:

Company Name: Contact Email:

Project Information

1. What is the size of the project (acres)?

2. Identify all applicable proposed land uses:
☐ Residential (indicate # of one- a nd two-family
units):
☐ Residential (indicate # of multi-family units):
☐ Commercial (indicate total square footage):
☐ Hotel (indicate # of rooms):
☐ Industrial (indicate total square footage):
☐ Other (describe):

4. Provide a brief description of the project proposed:
187212. 1
The Shops at the Triangle
910-390-001 through 910-390-003, 910-400-001 through 910-400-018, 910-390-008 through 910-390-022 Saul Jaffe / Tres Estrellas, LLC
(909) 445-9133 [email protected]
X
64 X approximately 270,000 sq. ft.

See Development Plan Application, Specific Plan and SEIR

CAP CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
STEP 1: LAND USE CONSISTENCY
The first step in determining CAP consistency for discretionary development is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in the development of the CAP. This section allows the City to determine a project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP. Projects found not to be consistent with the CAP’s land use assumptions will be subject to a project-specific analysis of GHG emissions’ impact on the environment in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA. This may result in GHG-reducing mitigation measures applied as a condition of project approval, including where feasible the measures listed in Step 2 of this checklist.

Step 1: Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation and supporting documentation for your answer) Yes No

1. Are the proposed land uses in the project consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations? If
“Yes”, questions 2 below is not applicable and the project shall proceed to Step 2 of the checklist.

If “No”, proceed to Question 2 below.

2. If the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan land use or zoning designations, does the project inc
lude a land use plan and/or zoning designation amendment that would result in an equivalent or less GHG- intensive p
roject when compared to the existing designations?
If
“Yes”, at
tach to this checklist the estimated project emissions under both existing and proposed designation(s) for comparison. Compare the maximum buildout of the existing designation and the maximum buildout of the proposed designation. If the proposed project is determined to result in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when compared to the existing designations, proceed to Step 2 of the checklist.

If “
No”, the applicant must conduct a full GHG impact analysis for the proj ect as part of the CEQA process. The project shall incorporate each of the applicable measures identified in Step 2 to mitigate cumulative GHG emissions impacts. 187212. 1
N/A
x
STEP 2: CAP MEASURES CONSISTENCY
The second step of the CAP consistency review is to review and evaluate a project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and actions of the CAP. Step 2 only applies to development projects that involve permits that may require a certificate of occupancy from the Building Official.1 All applicable Checklist questions must be answered “Yes”, and documentation provided, where necessary, that substantiates how compliance would be achieved. For measures for which a “Yes” is indicated, the features must be demonstrated as part of the project’s design and described. All applicable requirements in the Checklist will be included in the conditions of approval.

If any questions are marked with a “No”, the project cannot be determined to be consistent with the CAP, and project specific GHG analysis would be required as part of the CEQA process. If any questions are marked “N/A” (meaning “not applicable”), a statement describing why the question is not applicable shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division or building official.

Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A

1. Zero Net Energy Standards (Measure BE-3)
a) For residential projects, would the project or a portion of the project be subject to building permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or after January 1, 2023? b) For commercial projects or com mercial portions of mixed-use projects, would the project or a portion of the project be subject to building permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or after January 1, 2025?
c) For industrial projects, would the project or a portion of the project be subject to building per
mitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or after January 1, 2025? If “Yes” to either a, b, or c, proceed to question d of this checklist requirement. d) Would the project or portions of the project permitted after January 1, 2023 for residential projects and after January 1, 2025 for nonresidential projects be designed and constructed to comply with the Zero Net Energy standard2?

2. Construction Waste Diversion (Measure SW-2)
a) For residential projects, recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either Section

4.408.2, 4.408.3 or 4.408.4 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24? b) For nonresidential projects, rec ycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either Section

5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24? 1 Actions that are not subject to Step 2 would include, for example: 1) discretionary map actions that do not propose specific development; 2) permits allowing wireless communication facilities; 3) special events permits; 4) conditional use permits that do not result in the use intensification or expansion of an existing building; and 5) non-building infrastructure projects such as roads and pipelines. Because such actions would not result in new occupancy buildings from which GHG emissions reductions could be achieved, the items contained in Step 2 would not be applicable. 2 Although the City has not yet developed a Zero Net Energy standard, the City will develop such a standard prior to January 1, 2023, pursuant to Measure BE-3 in the CAP. For purposes of CAP compliance, all new residential projects that include phases for which building permitting would begin after January 1, 2023, compliance with zero net energy standard as stated herein must be included as a condition of approval and included as a mitigation measure in the project’s environmental document (as applicable). For all new commercial projects, commercial portions of mixed-used projects, and industrial projects that include phases for which building permitting would begin after January 1, 2025, projects must demonstrate compliance with zero net energy standard. Such projects or phases thereof, to meet the zero net energy standard, must achieve a Total Energy Design Rating (Total EDR) and Energy Efficiency Design Rating (Efficiency EDR) of zero, consistent with the standards in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, by the date established above for each land use type. 187212. 1
x
x
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation for your answer) Yes No N/A

3. Transportation Demand Management Program (Measure T-7) a) For the construction of nonresidential projects that would include 50 or more employees, would the project include a transportation demand management plan that meets requirements of Section 16.40 “Transportation Demand Management” of the City’s Municipal Code and has been reviewed and approved by the City of Murrieta Public Works Department?
Check “N/A” if the project is a residential project or if it would include 49 or fewer employees.

4. Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) (Measure T-2)3 Checklist Requirement by Project Type:
a) One- and two-f amily dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages: Would the required parking serving each new dwelling include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the resident(s)? b) Multi-Family Res idential Projects: Would 6% of the total parking spaces required, or a minimum of two spaces, whichever is greater, include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the resident(s)? c) Non-residential projects: W ould 3% of the total parking spaces required, or a minimum of two spaces, whichever is greater, include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the occupant(s)?

5. Tree Planting (Measure LU-2)
a) For residential and non-residential projects, would the project include the planting of new trees where required by Section 16.26 “Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient Landscaping” of the City’s Municipal Code?
3 For the purpose of this Checklist, EVSE is defined by Article 625 of the California Electrical Code. 187212. 1
x
x
x

Appendix E

Focused Traffic Analysis
Rick Engineering Company (June 2023)

TRIANGLE PROJECT

FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CITY OF MURRIETA, CA
JUNE 16, 2023
JOB NUMBER: 19843

i | P a g e

TRIANGLE PROJECT

FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CITY OF MURRIETA, CA

JUNE 16, 2023

PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF MURRIETA
1 TOWN SQUARE
MURRIETA, CA 92562

PREPARED BY:

1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1- INTRODUCTION
The following Focused Traffic Analysis has been prepared to analyze the impacts of the Triangle project and the adjacent nearby known pending and approved projects on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between the I-15 and I-215 freeways. The project is located in the City of Murrieta, and is bound by Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north, I-15 to the west, and I-215 to the east.

Exhibit 1 shows the project vicinity map, and can be found in Attachment A.

1.2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In coordination with City of Murrieta staff, the focused project study area, cumulative project list, project trip generation rates, and trip distribution assumptions were determined. The current proposed Triangle project proposes to construct approximate ly 285,000 sf of commercial development, including the following:

• 14,000 sf of fast-food restaurants with drive-throughs • 16,000 sf of fast-food restaurants without drive-throughs • 42,000 sf of high-turnover sit-down restaurants
• 211,000 sf of commercial retail uses
• 2,000 sf of general offices uses

For analysis purposes, this phase of development was assumed to occur by year 2025. (The above uses and sizes were obtained from the December 23,2022 Murrieta Trip Generation Evaluation, prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc. and submitted to the City as part of the DP-2022-2705 / TTM-2022- 2706 application submittal).

Refer to Exhibit 2 in Attachment A for the project site plan for the current proposed project.

The remainder of the Triangle project site was assumed to be constructed by year 2028. For analysis purposes, as it is currently unknown as to what the remainder of the project site will consist of, the full build uses and sizes assumed for the project were taken from the Triangle project’s appr oved traffic study, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated August 7, 2008.

2.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

2.1- ANALYSIS APPROACH
The Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared based on the City of Murrieta’s Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines , dated March 2021.

The intersections and roadways within the project a rea were analyzed for the following alternatives and scenarios:
• Existing Traffic Conditions
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2025) without Triangle Project, No Interchange Improvements
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2025) with Triangle Project (Current Development Plan), No Interchange Improvements
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2025) without Triangle Project, Dual Left- Turn Lanes at I-15 NB Ramps
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2025) with Triangle Project (Current Development Plan), Dual Left-Turn Lanes at I-15 NB Ramps • Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2025) without Triangle Project, Free Right- Turn Loop Ramp at I-15 NB Ramps
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2025) with Triangle Project (Current Development Plan), Free Right-Turn Loop Ramp at I-15 NB Ramps • Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2028) without Triangle Project, No Interchange Improvements
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2028) with Triangle Project (Current Development Plan), No Interchange Improvements
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2028) without Triangle Project, Dual Left- Turn Lanes at I-15 NB Ramps
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2028) with Triangle Project (Current Development Plan), Dual Left-Turn Lanes at I-15 NB Ramps • Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2028) without Triangle Project, Free Right- Turn Loop Ramp at I-15 NB Ramps
• Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Conditions (2028) with Triangle Project (Current Development Plan), Free Right-Turn Loop Ramp at I-15 NB Ramps • Buildout (2035) Traffic Conditions (Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB Ramps)

2.2- TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Intersection Analysis Methodology
The Level of Service (LOS) for signalized intersect ions was calculated using the methodologies described in Chapter 19 of the 6 th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6). The LOS f or signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is made up of several factors that relate to right-of-way control, geometrics and traffic volume s. The signalized intersection analysis also considers intersection spacing and coordination.

The LOS for two-way and all-way stop controlled intersections was calculated using the methodologies described in Chapters 20 and 21 of the 6 th Edition HCM. The LOS for a two-way stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed control delay for each minor street movement and major street left-turns, and not for the intersection as a whole. The LOS reported reflects the highest dela y and associated LOS for an individual movement, typically occurring on the stop-controlled approach.

The computerized analysis of signalized and unsigna lized intersection operations was performed utilizing the Synchro 11 traffic analysis software. The Synchro 11 s oftware supports HCM 6 methodologies for signalized and stop controlled in tersections and was utilized to produce the analysis results.

The criteria for the LOS grade designations is prov ided below. LOS provides a quick overview of how well an intersection is performing. Within the City of Murrieta, LOS D or better is considered acceptable for all signalized and unsignalized intersections during the peak hours.

LOS CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS

CONTROL DELAY (SEC /VEH )

DESCRIPTION LOS SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS
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 a re
stopping with some backup and light congestion.

>35 and
<55

>25 and
<35
Operations where congestion is noticeable, longer
delays occur, and many vehicles stop. The proportio n of vehicles not stopping declines.

E >55 and
<80
>35 and
<50
Operations where there is significant delay,
extensive queuing, and poor progression.

>80

>50
Operations that are unacceptable to most drivers,
when the arrival rates exceed the capacity of the
intersection.

Source: 6 th Edition Highway Capacity Manual.

Roadway Segment Analysis Methodology
Roadway segments were analyzed based on the volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratios and the City’s daily LOS capacity thresholds per the General Plan Circul ation Element. The analysis results provide a planning-level assessment of whether a segment is u nder, approaching, or over capacity, where LOS E represents capacity. The City of Murrieta conside rs LOS C or better to be acceptable for daily roadway segment operations. The below table presents the roadway segment capacity and LOS thresholds utilized by the City of Murrieta.

LOS CRITERIA FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS

STREET CLASSIFICATION

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
C D E
Freeway (4 lanes) 61,200 68,900 76,500
Freeway (6 lanes) 94,000 105,800 117,500
Freeway (8 lanes) 128,400 144,500 160,500
Freeway (10 lanes) 160,500 180,500 200,600
Expressway (4 lanes) 32,700 36,800 40,900
Expressway (6 lanes) 49,000 55,200 61,300
Multi-Modal Corridor (4 lanes) 28,700 32,300 35,900
Multi-Modal Corridor (6 lanes) 43,100 48,500 53,900
Augmented Urban Arterial (8 lanes) 57,400 64,600 71,800 Urban Arterial (6 lanes) 43,100 48,500 53,900
Arterial (4 lanes) 28,700 32,300 35,900
Arterial (6 lanes) 43,100 48,500 53,900
Major (4 lanes) 27,300 30,700 34,100
Secondary (4 lanes) 20,700 23,300 25,900
Collector (2 lanes) 10,400 11,700 13,000
Source: City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element

3.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

3.1- EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
The following is a brief description of roadways and intersections within the project area, as identified in the City of Murrieta’s General Plan Circulation Element.

Murrieta Hot Springs Road (between I-15 and I-215) is classified as an Augmented Urban Arterial. The roadway is currently constructed as an 8-lane divided roadway that generally traversed east -west.

Class II bike lanes currently exist along both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 45 mph.

Refer to Exhibit 3 in Attachment A that illustrates the existing conditions for the study intersections.

3.2- EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared for The Terraces at Murrieta traffic study. All counts were performed when area schools were in session, in November of 2021.

The following intersections are included in this analysis:

1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 SB (signalized)

2. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 NB (signalized)

3. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court / Project Driveway 1 (unsignalized)

4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Project Driveway 2 (unsignalized) (future)

5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue / Project Driveway 3 (signalized)

6. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-215 SB (signalized)

7. Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-215 NB (signalized)

The following roadway segments were also analyzed:

1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between I-15 NB and Sparkman Court

2. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Sparkman Court and Hancock Avenue

3. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB

All traffic volume counts can be found in Appendix A of the traffic study prepared for The Terraces at Murrieta, dated June 1, 2023, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers.

4.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

4.1- EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (2021)
The existing intersection and roadway operations results are based on existing traffic volumes collected and existing intersection/ roadway geometry.

Exhibit 4 in Attachment A shows the existing traffic movement volumes and recorded segment ADTs within the project area.

Table 1 shows the studied intersections under the existing conditions. The project area intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service, LOS D or better, with the exce ption of the following:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court (LOS F, AM and PM peak hours)

Table 2 shows that the studied roadway segments currently operate at LOS C or better, with the exception of the following:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB- LOS D

4.2- EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2021) QUEUING
Table 3 shows the existing queuing for each of the movements at the study intersections.

The queuing analysis results showed that the 95th percentile queue length currently exceeds the available storage lengths at the following intersections:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court (EB Left – PM peak hour) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue – Project Dwy 3 (SB Right – PM peak hour)

Refer to Attachment B for the capacity analysis and queuing printouts.

5.0 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC

To determine the opening year traffic volumes in the study area for the traffic analysis, cumulative project traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepar ed for The Terraces at Murrieta, dated May 23, 2023, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). This list was originally provide to LLG by the City. However, for the purposed of this analysis, the volumes for the Triangle project in the LLG’s cumulative project list were removed, and the Triangle project traffic volumes from this analysis were then added to the cumulative project volumes shown in Exhibit 5 (refer to Attachment A). Additionally, to account for any unknown cumulative projects that may occur by years 2025 and 2028, a 2% growth rate per year was applied to existing traffic volumes to adjust to the opening years.

6.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC

6.1- TRIP GENERATION
The traffic volumes expected to be generated by the project have been estimated by using the nationally published trip generation rates and recommendations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

The proposed 285,000 sf Triangle project is estimated to generate a total of 20,144 ADT with 1,412 trips (787 inbound: 625 outbound) in the AM peak hour and 1,416 trips (732 inbound: 684 outbound) in the PM peak hour.

Table 4 shows a summary of the calculated trip generation for each filing of the project and can be found in Attachment B.

6.2- TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNEMENT
The project site trip distribution percentages used in the Triangle project’s approved traffic study, prepared by Urban Crossroa ds, dated August 7, 2008 were utilized in this analysis. Note that there are separate trip distribution percentages for the office and retail uses.

The project traffic volumes were assigned to the project area intersections and roadways based on the trip distribution percentages from the Urban Crossroads study.

Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Attachment A) for the trip distribution and project trip exhibits for Year 2025.

Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Attachment A) for the trip distribution and project trip exhibits for Year 2028.

7.0 2025 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

7.1- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025)

Exhibit 16 (Attachment A) shows the Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Volumes for Year 2025.

Table 8 shows that the studied roadway segments currently are anticipated to operate at the following LOS:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between I-15 and Sparkman Court – LOS E

• Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Sparkman Court and Hancock Avenue – LOS D • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB – LOS F

7.2- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025) QUEUING

Tables 9, 10 and 11 (Appendix B) show the anticipated queuing for each of the movements at the study intersections, for all three project scenarios (No Interchange Improvements, EB Dual Left -Turn Lanes, and EB to NB Loop Ramp).

The queuing analysis results showed that the 95th percentile queue length is expected to exceed the available storage lengths at the following intersections:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 SB Ramps (SB Left – PM peak hour) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 NB Ramps (EB Left – PM peak hour) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court (EB Left – PM peak hour) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue (SB Right – AM & PM peak hours) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-215 SB Ramps (SB Left & Right–PM peak hour)

7.3- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025)

Exhibit 17 (Attachment A) show s the Existing + Ambient + Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes for Year 2025.

Tables 5, 6 and 7 (Attachment B) show the intersection operations for all three project scenarios (No Interchange Improvements, EB Dual Left -Turn Lanes, and EB to NB Loop Ramp). As shown, all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Project Driveway 2 (all scenarios) (LOS E – AM peak hour, LOS F – PM peak hour)
Note: the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court/Project Dwy 1 is assumed to be signalized with Project conditions, therefore, operates at an acceptable level of service with project conditions.

Table 8 shows that the studied roadway segment s currently are anticipated to operate at the following LOS:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between I-15 and Sparkman Court– LOS F • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Sparkman Court and Hancock Avenue – LOS F • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB– LOS F

7.4- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025)

QUEUING

8.0 2028 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

8.1- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2028) Exhibit 18 (Attachment A) shows the Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Traffic Volumes for Year 2028.

Tables 12, 13 and 14 (Attachment B) show the intersection operations for all three project scenarios (No Interchange Improvements, EB Dual Left -Turn Lanes, and EB to NB Loop Ramp). As shown, all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Project Driveway 2 (all with project scenarios) (LOS F – AM and PM peak hours)
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue / Project Driveway 3 (all with project scenarios) (LOS E – PM peak hour)

Table 15 shows that the studied roadway segments currently are anticipated to operate at the following LOS:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between I-15 and Sparkman Court– LOS F • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Sparkman Court and Hancock Avenue– LOS E • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB– LOS F

8.2- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2028) QUEUING Tables 16, 17 and 18 (Appendix B) show the anticipated queuing for each of the movements at the study intersections, for all three project scenarios (No Interchange Improvements, EB Dual Left -Turn Lanes, and EB to NB Loop Ramp).

• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-215 SB Ramps (SB Left & Right–PM peak hour)

8.3- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2028) Exhibit 19 (Attachment A) show s the Existing + Ambient + Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes for Year 2028.

Tables 12, 13 and 14 (Attachment B) show the intersection operations for all three project scenarios (No Interchange Improvements, EB Dual Left -Turn Lanes, and EB to NB Loop Ram p). As shown, all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Project Driveway 2 (all with project scenarios) (LOS F – AM and PM peak hours)
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue / Project Driveway 3 (all with project scenarios) (LOS E – PM peak hour)

Table 15 shows that the studied roadway segments currently are anticipated to operate at the following LOS:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between I-15 and Sparkman Court– LOS F • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Sparkman Court and Hancock Avenue – LOS F • Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB– LOS F

8.4- EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (202 8)

QUEUING

Tables 16, 17 and 18 (Appendix B) show the anticipated queuing for each of the movements at the study intersections, for all three project scenarios (No Interchange Improvements, EB Dual Left -Turn Lanes, and EB to NB Loop Ramp).

The queuing analysis results showed that the 95th percentile queue length is expected to exceed the available storage lengths at the following intersections:
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 SB Ramps (SB Left & Right – AM & PM peak hours) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 NB Ramps (NB Left – PM peak hour) • Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court /Project Dwy 1 (EB Right – PM peak hour, SB Right– AM & PM peak hours)
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue/ Project Dwy 3 (EB Left & Right - PM peak hour, SB Right – AM & PM peak hours)
• Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-215 SB Ramps (SB Left & Right–AM & PM peak hours)

9.0 TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE
The current proposed plan by the applicant for the Triangle project shows 285,000 sf of retail, commercial, and office uses for the first phas e of development. The development of the remainder of the project site is unknown at this time. For comparison purposes, 900 units of multi -family (mid- rise) housing was assumed for the remainder of the site. The following are the results of the trip generation comparison:

Previous Project
• Original Triangle Study: 38,739 veh/day
Current/Potential Full Build of Project
• Current Proposed Use (285,000 sf): 20,144 veh/day
• Remainder of site (900 units of Multi-Family): 4,086 veh/day • Total: 24,230 veh/day
By assuming that the remainder of the site is developed with multi-family residential units, this results in approximately 14,509 fewer veh/day than was assumed in the original approved traffic study.

Table 19 shows the trip generation comparison table and can be found in Attachment B.

10.0 BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

10.1- BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2035)
Buildout analysis for the Year 2035 was conducted for the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 NB Ramps to verify if additional improvements are necessary at this intersection . The 2035 volumes were interpolated between the current existing 2021 traffic counts and City’s general plan 2040 forecasted volumes which includes the full buildout of the Triangle project. Peak hour turning volumes for the 2035 conditions were estimated based on techniques described in the National Highway Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) 255 report, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, Chapter 8 . This essentially estimates futur e turn volumes utilizing existing turn volumes, existing ADT’s and future ADT’s. Attachment E contains the backup calculations and additional references.

Exhibit 20 (Attachment A) show s the Buildout Traffic Volumes at the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road / I-15 NB Ramps for Year 2035.

Table 20 (Attachment B) show s the intersection operations for the No Interchange Improvements scenario. As shown, the study intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS D or better and it appears that the intersection functions adequately with no additional improvements.

10.2- BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2035) QUEUING
Tables 21 (Appendix B) show s the anticipated queuing for each of the movements at the study intersection and queuing appears to not exceed the available storage.

11.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This focused traffic analysis evaluated the impacts of the Triangle project and the adjacent nearby known pending and approved projects on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, between the I-15 and I-215 freeways.

Based on the results of the analysis, the following lane configurations are proposed in order to ensure an acceptable LOS:

Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Sparkman Court / Project Driveway 1 Approach Control Type Lane Configuration
Eastbound
Signal

2 left-turn lanes
4 through lanes
1 right-turn lane – (450’ min. storage)
Westbound 2 left-turn lanes
4 through lanes with shared right-turn lane
Northbound 2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes with shared right-turn lane
Southbound
2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 right-turn lane – (300’ min. storage)

Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Hancock Avenue / Project Driveway 3 Approach Control Type Lane Configuration
Eastbound
Signal

2 left-turn lanes
4 through lanes
1 right-turn lane with overlap – (250’ min. storage)
Westbound
2 left-turn lanes
3 through lanes
1 right-turn lane with overlap
Northbound
2 left-turn lanes
1 through lane
2 right-turn lanes with overlap
Southbound
2 left-turn lanes
1 through lane
1 right-turn lane with overlap - (200’ min. storage)

Tables 22, 23, 24 & 25 (Attachment B) show the intersection operations an d queuing results with recommendations for Year 2025 & 2028 study scenarios.

It should be noted that for all project scenarios f or Year 2025 and Year 2028, acceptable LOS is anticipated at each of the signalized study intersections, with no additional improvements.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A

Exhibits
01-JUN-2023 11:56

NOT TO SCALE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
1 JACKSON AVE

MADISON AVE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

VICINITY MAP

MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD

JEFFERSON AVE

MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD
15 15
215
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
SITE

PROJECT

NOT TO SCALE
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0601\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_02_ProjectSitePlan.dgn 2023 Rick Engineering Companyc 01-JUN-2023 11:53

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT 2

PROJECT SITE PLAN
SOURCE: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
01-JUN-2023 16:43

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0601\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_03_ExistingTranspoConditions.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
3 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 DR

WALSH CENTER

SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT

SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
4 =FUTURE DWY
S S
S
6 S
U
3 7
S
2 5
U
4 FUTURE INTERSECTION

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
F F
F
F F
F
F =FREE
F F
01-JUN-2023 16:39

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0601\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_04_ExistingTrafficVolumes.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR VOLUMES
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
4 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
52,610
50,200
57,830
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
61,570
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
=FUTURE DWY
S
1 2
S U
3 S
5 136/212
625/1814
1033/1064
79/49
1491/1998
131/621
918/918
759/1141
1347/1901
207/132
1495/1802
32/31
97/139
1107/1610
191/141
1404/1727
464/534
S
6 7
S
U
4 FUTURE INTERSECTION
155/339
1771/2240
1768/2096
524/510
1572/2020
251/87
101/127
1452/2043
1527/1833
1347/1901
DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
(2021)

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOURCE: THE TERRACES AT MURRIETA, TIA, LLG DATED MAY 1, 2023 41,310
981/767
263/102
77/35
246/171
377/486
147/225
589/622
366/220
171/269
115/143
16-JUN-2023 09:00

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_05_CumulativeProjects.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR VOLUMES
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

26. GIERSON RANCH (DP-2022-2551)

25. SANDSTONE APTS (DP-2022-2601)

24. IVY HOUSE RESIDENTIAL (TTM-2021-2428)

23. 24960 ADAMS AVENUE (DP-2021-2311)

22. JEFFERSON SOUTH APARTMENTS (DP-2022-2480)

21. MONAMOS APARTMENTS (DP-2021-2385)

20. LOS ALAMOS SS & RETAIL (DP-2022-2500)

19. VISTA MURRIETA APTS (DP-2022-2562)

18. MAKENA HANCOCK II PROJECT (DP-2022-2744)

17. JEFFERSON MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT (DP-2022-2685)

16. QMC MURRIETA MULTI-FAMILY (DP-2022-2605)

15. THE TERRACES (2022-2518)

14. U-HAUL (DP-2021-2359)

13. BEYOND FOOD MART (DP-2020-2171)

12. JEFFERSON APARTMENTS (DP-2020-2170)

11. RANCHO SPRINGS MEDICAL CENTER (DP-2020-2199)

10. HANCOCK CHILDREN'S CLINIC (DP-2020-2206)

9. HOTEL MURRIETA (DP-2019-2031)

8. JEFEERSON AND FIG (DP-2019-1919)

7. MURRIETA TOWN SHOPPING CENTER (DP-2018-1802)

6. MAR VISTA BUSINESS PARK (DP-2018-7192)

5. DOWNTOWN MARKET PLACE (DP-2018-1741)

4. JEFFERSON AND IVY (DP-2017-1397)

3. WHITTAKER OFFICE COMPLEX (DP-02-474)

2. SIAL MEDICAL PLAZA (DP-2016-785)

1. LOS ALAMOS COMMUNITY PLAN (DP-2014-490)

PROJECT LIST

CUMULATIVE
X
3 7
10 11
15 18
19 12
13 3
96 8
23 5
4 21
1 12
14 24
26 22
17 25
16 5
15 215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
12,043
14,167
6 7
9,228
SITE

PROJECT

SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
4 9,568
DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
13,064

DISTRIBUTION AND VOLUMES

CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP
S
1 2
S S
3 S
5 170/117
275/222
160/83
S
6 U
4 191/352
85/62
201/237
91/86
244/231
67/59
158/167
30/27
7/26
258/229
229/141
51/129
109/232
17/43
126/275
229/141
107/191
78/87
147/115
88/66
7 S
98/75
188/182
161/187
30/27
67/84
52/103
140/121
55/95
29/27
49/89
29/27
28/9
75/173
63/100
16-JUN-2023 09:02

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_06_ProjectTripDistribution_Commercial.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
6 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
(XX%)
XX%

DISTRIBUTION
=INBOUND PERCENT

DISTRIBUTION
=OUTBOUND PERCENT
XX% =PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
11%
15%
44%
44%
10 %
14%
12 %
7%
1%
3%
12%
18%
2 0
%
18%
29%11%
15%
24%
20%
34%
20%
24%
10%
24%
24%
20%
10%
(26%)
(18%)
(10%)
(30%)
(10%)
(24%)
(12%)
(14%)
14%
(20%)
(20%)
(14%)
(10%)
(34%)
20%
14%
(14%)
(20%)
(11%)
(15%)
S
(COMMERCIAL 2025)

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
34%
16-JUN-2023 09:04

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_07_ProjectTripDistribution_Office.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
7 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
(XX%)
XX%

DISTRIBUTION
=INBOUND PERCENT

DISTRIBUTION
=OUTBOUND PERCENT
XX% =PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
10%
10%
40%
15 %
17%
6%
2%
2%
20%
2 0
%
20%
30%10%
10%
32%
20%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
32%
20%
15%
(20%)
(20%)
(10%)
(30%)
(10%)
17%
(20%)
(20%)
(17%)
(15%)
(37%)
8 %
(32%)
(8%)
(10%)
8%
20%
10%
(10%)
(20%)
(10%)
(10%)
S
(OFFICE 2025)

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
25%
52%
16-JUN-2023 09:11

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_08_ProjectTripVolumes_Commercial.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
8,101
8 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
78/93

VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT
= ONE-WAY ADTX,XXX
86/81 227/212
118/110
162/177
113/123
193/200
152/122
193/200
43/20
236/220
96/100
134/115
188/176
62/68
212/232
157/146
79/73
125/136
88/96
69/75
93/102
110/103
125/136
S
(COMMERCIAL 2025)

PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES
2,213
10,484
2 ,4
14 2,816
4 ,0
2 3
3,621
3,017
2 ,0
12 10,484
78/93
232/280
231/241
128/89
116/120
135/140
77/68
186/224
93/112
108/131
141/132
16-JUN-2023 09:22

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_09_ProjectTripVolumes_Office.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
7 9
15 215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
0/0 1/0
1/0
0/0
1/1
1/0
1/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
2/1
0/0
1/0

VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT
= ONE-WAY ADTX,XXX
0/0
0/1
0/0
0/0
0/1
1/00/1
1/1
0/0
0/0 0/0
1/2
1/1
0/1
1/0
0/0
0/0
0/1
0/1
0/0
1/1
0/0
S
(OFFICE 2025)

PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES
3 6
3 12
4 15
2 5
6 16-JUN-2023 09:23

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_10_ProjectTripVolumes_Total.dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
8,108
10 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
78/94

VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT
= ONE-WAY ADTX,XXX
142/132
86/81 228/212
118/110
162/178
113/123
194/200
152/122
194/200
43/20
237/220
96/100
134/115
190/177
62/68
213/234
157/146
80/73
126/137
88/97
69/76
93/102
111/104
125/136
S
(TOTAL 2025)

PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES
2,216
3,627
3,020
2 ,0
16 10,496
2 ,4
16 4
,0
2 9
2,821
10,499
78/93
10/10
232/281
10/10
116/120
232/242
129/89
135/140
77/69
187/225
93/112
108/131
16-JUN-2023 09:41

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_11_ProjectTripDistribution_Commercial(2028).dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
11 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
(XX%)
XX%

DISTRIBUTION
=INBOUND PERCENT

DISTRIBUTION
=OUTBOUND PERCENT
XX% =PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
18%
44%
12 %
12%
12 %
4%
1%
3%
12%
18%
2 0
%
18%
26%
18%
24%
20%
34%
20%
24%
10%
24%
24%
20%
12%
(26%)
(18%)
(10%)
(30%)
(10%)
(24%)
(12%)
(14%)
12%
(20%)
(20%)
(12%)
(12%)
(32%)
20%
14%
(14%)
(20%)
8%
8%
(8%)
(18%)
S
BUILDOUT (COMMERCIAL 2028)

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION FULL -
44%
34%
16-JUN-2023 09:49

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_12_ProjectTripDistribution_Office(2028).dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
12 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
(XX%)
XX%

DISTRIBUTION
=INBOUND PERCENT

DISTRIBUTION
=OUTBOUND PERCENT
XX% =PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
12%
40%
18 %
14%
4%
1%
3%
20%
2 0
%
20%
28%
12%
32%
20%
30%
20%
20%
10%
20%
32%
20%
18%
(20%)
(20%)
(10%)
(30%)
(10%)
14%
(20%)
(20%)
(14%)
(18%)
(34%)
20%
10%
(10%)
(20%)
8%
8%
(8%)
(12%)
8 %
(32%)
(8%)
(10%)
8%
S
BUILDOUT (OFFICE 2028)

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION FULL -
52%
30%
16-JUN-2023 09:50

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_13_ProjectTripVolumes_Commercial(2028).dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
11,786
13 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
69/129
150/260
67/116
55/72
124/162
217/375
150/260
179/234
124/162
167/374
200/261
264/384
84/187
186/203
200/449
167/204
200/346
167/289
83/108
221/288
138/180
83/108

VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR
= TWO-WAY ADT
= ONE-WAY ADT
X,XXX
X,XXX
=STOP CONTROL
S
BUILDOUT (COMMERCIAL 2028)

PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES FULL -
6,092
2,708
6,092
4 ,0
6 1
15,253
4 ,0
6 1
4,061
6 ,7
6 9
100/225
100/173
138/180100/173
15,253
69/129
207/387
166/309
83/155
97/180
167/375
97/9
117/262
138/70
16-JUN-2023 09:56

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_14_ProjectTripVolumes_Office(2028).dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
2,077
14 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/

VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR
= TWO-WAY ADT
= ONE-WAY ADT
X,XXX
X,XXX
=STOP CONTROL
S
BUILDOUT (OFFICE 2028)

PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES FULL -
1,385
1,2
4 6
2,769
1,3
8 5
554
831
5 5
4 969
172/131
10/61
14/91
69/13
24/152
24/152
241/44
104/19
172/31
12/76
172/31
172/31
12/76
35/227
184/107
86/16
98/32
12/76
276/50
172/31
69/13
86/16
24/152
38/242
10/61
12/76
172/31
276/50
21/137
40/258
121/22
24/152
24/152
17/106
155/28
3,600
16-JUN-2023 09:57

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Rick Engineering Companyc
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\pdf\2023_0616\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\PlanSets\19843_15_ProjectTripVolumes_Total(2028).dgn X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
LEGEND
=INTERSECTION NUMBER

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
13,863
15 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
81/205
322/391
65/133
138/253
458/419
254/279
203/386
148/314
339/405
372/292
448/491
476/499
339/235
476/396
339/320

VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK HR
= TWO-WAY ADT
= ONE-WAY ADT
X,XXX
X,XXX
=STOP CONTROL
S
BUILDOUT (TOTAL 2028)

PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES FULL -
136/129
170/203
284/235
169/238
203/278
162/222
204/551
93/216
109/256
104/245
261/546
221/195
162/332
162/332
100/214
255/201
3,262
7,477
6,923
5 ,3
0 7
5,030
8 ,15
4 4
,6
15 18,022
18,853
339/406
109/85
81/205
10/10
242/614
10/10
16-JUN-2023 10:00

NOT TO SCALE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
16 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
68,862
63,784
76,624
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
75,724
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
=FUTURE DWY
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 FUTURE INTERSECTION
DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
57,679
=FUTURE DWY
X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT

HR VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK
317/346
950/2181
1307/1501
171/115
1117/913
336/213
1775/2255
1684/2194
1123/1159
911/1319
1855/2389
209/730
1684/2194
275/272
1724/2178
52/77
1343/1854
295/219
1624/2056
579/664
547/646
214/338
116/163
1826/2436
1856/2349
301/121
665/699
445/327
266/441
2101/2601
2071/2451
596/578
214/318
152/164
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025)
EXISITNG + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE
158/211
329/285
S
265/233
16-JUN-2023 10:02

NOT TO SCALE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
17 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
72,019
66,796
80,093
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
79,418
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
=FUTURE DWY
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
60,158
=FUTURE DWY
X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT

HR VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK
325/359
988/2290
1369/1565
175/118
1186/959
352/220
1867/2365
1765/2308
1248/1284
957/1387
1944/2509
217/767
1765/2308
287/280
1814/2287
54/79
1409/1951
306/227
1708/2160
607/696
570/675
223/352
122/171
1914/2558
1950/2470
316/126
701/736
467/340
275/462
2207/2736
2177/2577
628/609
224/334
159/172

FUTURE INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2028)
EXISITNG + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE
S
163/213
344/295
27/24
244/218
16-JUN-2023 10:06

NOT TO SCALE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
18 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
72,019
66,796
80,093
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
79,418
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
=FUTURE DWY
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
60,158
=FUTURE DWY
X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT

FUTURE INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2028)
EXISITNG + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE
S
163/213
344/295
27/24
244/218
16-JUN-2023 10:06

NOT TO SCALE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
80,659
19 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
90,041
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
84,448
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
=FUTURE DWY
S
1 2
S
3 S
5 S
6 7
S
U
4 DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
63,420
=FUTURE DWY
X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT

HR VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK
1434/1698
313/371
2402/2928
217/767
2426/2866
316/126
701/736
806/660
2398/2772
790/941
224/334
414/373
1451/1670
1105/1701
339/406
1923/2372
54/79
339/405
2137/2600
287/280
81/205
203/278
1571/2173
306/227
476/499
2047/2395
607/696
S
PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2028)
EXISITNG + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE +
325/359
1124/2419
2315/2856
170/203
2049/2543
204/551
93/216
109/256
226/416
2175/3104
437/794
2307/2950
417/492
344/295
570/675
169/238
223/352
98,946
1508/1350
352/220
27/24
10/10
244/218
81/205
10/10
242/614
16-JUN-2023 11:41

NOT TO SCALE

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
20 15
215
15 5
3 2
1 SPRINGS RD

MURRIETA HOT
ALTA M

URRIETA DR
H
A
N
C
O
C
K

A
V
E
DR

PARK CREST

MADISON AVE

DRCENTER

MEDICAL
6 7

TRIANGLE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
SITE

PROJECT
4 SPRINGS RDMURRIETA HOT
=FUTURE DWY
2 S
DR

WALSH CENTER

MONROE AVE

SPARKMAN CT/
68,521
=FUTURE DWY
X
=SIGNALIZEDS
=UNSIGNALIZEDU
=STOP CONTROL
=INTERSECTION NUMBER
LEGEND
X,XXX = TWO-WAY ADT

HR VOLUMES
XX/XX = AM/PM PEAK
2631/3526
169/802
1620/1620
1119/1682
239/109
718/499
BUILDOUT (2035) VOLUMES
102,458

ATTACHMENT B

Tables
TABLE 1

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Footnotes:

Results calculated utilizing the methodologies described in Chapters 19, 20, 21, and 22 in the 6th edition of the HCM
1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
2 Level of Service
(S)=Signalized, (TWSC)=Two-Way Stop Controlled, (OWSC)=One-Way Stop Controlled NB=Northbound, WB=Westbound, etc.

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

TABLE 2

EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Footnotes:
1Source: City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 Draft SEIR (February 2020)

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB Ramps (S) Overall 29.8 C 22.9 C 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB Ramps (S) Overall 12.8 B 14.6 B 3 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman Ct.-
Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1 (OWSC) EB-L >50 F >50 F
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R
5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock Avenue-
Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 13.2 B 23.6 C
6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB Ramps (S) Overall 17.6 B 12.6 B 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB Ramps (S) Overall 8.7 A 7.8 A Future
AM Peak
EXISTING (2021)
PM Peak# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

ADT V/C LOS
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between I-15 NB
Ramps and Sparkman Ct. Augmented Arterial (8-ln, divided) 71,800 52,610 0.73 C 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between Sparkman
Ct. and Hancock Avenue Augmented Arterial (8-ln, divided) 71,800 50,200 0.70 B 3 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between Hancock
Avenue and I-215 SB Ramps Augmented Arterial (8-ln, divided) 71,800 57,830 0.81 D EXISTING (2021)
# ROADWAY SEGMENT FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CAPACITY
(LOS E)1
TABLE 3
EXISTING 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Footnotes:
1 Storage lengths, in feet, based on existing storage per lane 2 Queue is equal to the 95th percentile queue length, in feet, based on SimTraffic 10 software results. In cases where there are more than one lane, the highest number is reported in this table (S)=Signalized, (TWSC)=Two-Way Stop Controlled, (OWSC)=One-Way Stop Controlled NB=Northbound, WB=Westbound, etc., L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through movement group, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane movement group, etc.

AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB Ramps EB-T 3 N/A 159 382 WB-T 3 N/A 108 105
SB-L 1 510 350 357
SB-LTR 1 N/A 320 323
SB-R 1 510 156 59
2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB Ramps EB-L 1 500 140 465 EB-T 3 N/A 49 178
WB-T 3 N/A 92 124
NB-L 1 520 153 131
NB-LT 1 N/A 145 97
NB-R 1 490 0 0 Free movement
3 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman Ct.-
Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1 EB-L 1 170 186 249 Exceeds available storage EB-T 4 N/A 72 1419
WB-TR 1 N/A 7 32
SB-R 1 N/A 94 114
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R N/A
5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock Avenue-
Proj Dwy 3 EB-L 2 200 118 304 Does not exceed 400'
storage between 2 lanes
EB-T 4 N/A 198 630
WB-T 3 N/A 203 200
WB-R 1 500 96 84
SB-L 2 150 187 220 Does not exceed 300'
storage between 2 lanes
SB-R 2 150 328 324 Exceeds available storage
6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB Ramps EB-T 3 N/A 103 88 WB-T 3 N/A 178 163
SB-L 1 470 369 403
SB-LR 1 N/A 422 403
SB-R 1 470 279 93
7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB Ramps EB-T 3 N/A 168 171 WB-T 3 N/A 122 130
NB-L 2 1000 107 126
NB-R 2 1000 124 154
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR. No. OF
LANES STORAGE1
EXISTING (2021)
(S)
NOTES
FUTURE
(S)
(S)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)

IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 934 14 TSF1 467.48 6,545 44.61 51% 49% 319 306 625 33.03 52% 48% 240 222 462 Passby Trips (25%)4 -1,636 -80 -77 -156 -60 -55 -116
Fast-Food Restaurant without Drive-Through Window 933 16 TSF 450.59 7,209 43.18 58% 42% 401 290 691 33.21 50% 50% 266 266 531 Passby Trips (25%)4 -1,802 -100 -73 -173 -66 -66 -133
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Rest. 932 42 TSF 107.2 4,502 9.57 55% 45% 221 181 402 9.05 61% 39% 232 148 380 Passby Trips (25%, PM only)4,7 -95 -58 -37 -95
Commercial Retail (Shopping Center) 820 211 TSF 37.01 7,809 0.84 62% 38% 110 67 177 3.4 48% 52% 344 373 717 Passby Trips (25%, PM only)4,7 -179 -86 -93 -179
General Office Building (less than 10,000 sf) 712 2 TSF 14.39 29 1.67 82% 18% 3 1 3 2.16 34% 66% 1 3 4 Subtotal 22,382 874 695 1569 813 760 1573
Internal Trips (10%)5,6 -2,238 -87 -69 -157 -81 -76 -157 Total 285 TSF 20,144 787 625 1412 732 684 1416
1TSF = Thousand Square Feet
2Refer to ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
3ADT = Average Daily Traffic
4Passby reduction rates have been used to account for traffic that will access the site as an intermediate stop on the way to a primary destination. 5Internal Capture is the reduction of the overall traffic due to the compatability of land uses within the project site. 6Source: Murrieta Triangle Trip Generation Evaluation, prepared by Trames Solutions Inc. December 23, 2022 7ADT passby reduction is based on PM passby reduction only.

TABLE 4

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
285, 000 SF
Phase 1
LAND USE ITE CODE QUANTITY6 DWY
Rate2 ADT3

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Peak
Hr Rate
SPLIT VOLUMES Peak
Hr Rate

SPLIT VOLUMES
C:\RICK\Projects\C19500\19843_TriangleAnalysis\Traffic\Reports\Tables\19843_Triangle_Summary.xlsx TABLE 5
2025 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 28.0 C 26.3 C 31.3 C 26.2 C 3.3 -0.1 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 14.2 B 20.3 C 19.5 B 21.9 C 5.3 1.6 NO (OWSC) EB-L >50 F >50 F - - - - - - -
(S) Overall - - - - 28.4 C 29.0 C - - NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 37.0 E 97.1 F - - YES 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 16.0 B 31.0 C 26.7 C 44.8 D 10.7 13.8 NO 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.5 B 15.0 B 19.7 B 19.8 B 1.2 4.8 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 10.0 B 8.9 A 10.7 B 13.8 B 0.7 4.9 NO EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2025) INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM PeakAM Peak PM Peak

INTERSECTION
Future
# DIR.CONTROL
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2025)
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 13
TABLE 6
2025 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB DUAL LEFT TURNS AT I-15 NB RAMP

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 28.0 C 26.3 C 28.8 C 22.6 C 0.8 -3.7 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 14.2 B 20.3 C 18.8 B 18 B 4.6 -2.3 NO (OWSC) EB-L >50 F >50 F - - - - - - -
(S) Overall - - - - 28.4 C 28.9 C - - NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 37.0 E 97.1 F - - YES 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 16.0 B 31.0 C 26.7 C 44.8 D 10.7 13.8 NO 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.5 B 15.0 B 19.7 B 19.8 B 1.2 4.8 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 10.0 B 8.9 A 10.7 B 13.8 B 0.7 4.9 NO Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 13
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2025)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2025)
Future

INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
TABLE 7
2025 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB FREE RIGHT TURN AND NO LEFT TURN AT I-15 NB RAMP

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

TABLE 8
2025 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Footnotes:
1Source: City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 Draft SEIR (February 2020) DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 28.0 C 26.3 C 28.8 C 28.8 C 0.8 2.5 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 14.2 B 20.3 C 12.6 B 7 A -1.6 -13.3 NO 3 (OWSC) EB-L >50 F >50 F - - - - - - -
(S) Overall - - - - 28.4 C 28.9 C - - NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 37.0 E 97.1 F - - YES 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 16.0 B 31.0 C 26.7 C 44.8 D 10.7 13.8 NO 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.5 B 15.0 B 19.7 B 19.8 B 1.2 4.8 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 10.0 B 8.9 A 10.7 B 13.8 B 0.7 4.9 NO Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2025)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2025)
Future

INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

INCREASE TRAFFIC
EFFECT?

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C YES/NO
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between I-
15 NB Ramps and Sparkman Ct.

Major Arterial (4-lane,
divided) 71,800 68,862 0.96 E 79,358 1.11 F 0.15 NO
2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between
Sparkman Ct. and Hancock Avenue
Augmented Arterial (8-ln,
divided) 71,800 63,784 0.89 D 71,892 1.00 F 0.11 YES
3 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between
Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB
Augmented Arterial (8-ln,
divided) 71,800 76,624 1.07 F 87,123 1.21 F 0.15 NO
EXISTING + AMBIENT
+ CUMULATIVE (2025)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2025)# ROADWAY SEGMENT FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION

CAPACITY
(LOS E) 1
TABLE 9
2025 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 353 352 331 331
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 94
WB-T 3 N/A 107 104 71 76
SB-L 1 510 418 531 486 657 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 366 466 489 657
SB-R 1 510 303 366 361 538 Exceeds available storage
EB-L 1 500 218 563 196 497 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 156 601 152 570
WB-T 3 N/A 133 171 100 45
WB-R 1 N/A 414 31 N/A N/A
NB-L 1 520 187 179 162 177
NB-LT 1 N/A 160 171 156 282
NB-R 1 490 0 113 294 465
EB-L 1 170 217 228 N/A N/A Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A 297 791 N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A 27 24 N/A N/A
SB-R 1 235 196 249 N/A N/A Exceeds available storage
EB-L 2 310 N/A N/A 153 146
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 254 342
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 16 25
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 93 68
WB-T 3 N/A N/A N/A 157 108
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 181 132
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 216 349
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 32 10
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 58 44
SB-L 2 235 N/A N/A 42 42
SB-T 2 N/A N/A N/A 190 376
SB-R 1 235 N/A N/A 265 314 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A 8 150
NB-R 1 N/A 43 61
EB-L 2 245 177 213 196 141
EB-T 4 N/A 224 301 220 349
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 48 37
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 95 56
WB-T 3 N/A 214 334 273 219
WB-R 1 500 114 128 94 97
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 129 106
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 134 163
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 183 289
SB-L 2 150 176 177 175 175 Does not exceed 300'
storage between 2 lanes
SB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 289 298
SB-R 1 150 365 318 87 94 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 97 98 107 93
WB-T 3 N/A 161 154 113 134
SB-L 1 470 343 992 957 851 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 437 1007 955 961
SB-R 1 470 318 637 640 662 Exceeds available storage
(S) EB-T 3 N/A 153 174 170 185
WB-T 3 N/A 128 120 45 N/A
NB-L 2 1000 124 114 201 157
NB-R 2 1000 135 202 165 185
7 4
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-Proj
Dwy 3
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
6 1
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-Monroe
Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 # INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2025) NOTES
(S)
(S)
(S)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2025)
(S)
(S)
(OWSC)
(OWSC) FUTURE
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
TABLE 10
2025 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB DUAL LEFT TURNS AT I-15 NB RAMPS

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 353 352 309 335
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
WB-T 3 N/A 107 104 52 56
SB-L 1 510 418 531 462 571 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 366 466 474 495
SB-R 1 510 303 366 360 430
2 EB-L 1 500 218 563 120 291 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 156 601 136 170
WB-T 3 N/A 133 171 152 132
WB-R 1 N/A 414 31 N/A N/A
NB-L 1 520 187 179 176 178
NB-LT 1 N/A 160 171 186 164
NB-R 1 490 0 113 97 318
3 EB-L 1 170 217 228 N/A N/A Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A 297 791 N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A 27 24 N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A 196 249 N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 N/A N/A 146 125
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 240 323
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 15 17
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 105 101
WB-T 3 N/A N/A N/A 194 300
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 226 302
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 187 298
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 43 21
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 66 58
SB-L 2 235 N/A N/A 37 26
SB-T 2 N/A N/A N/A 167 130
SB-R 1 235 N/A N/A 261 228 Exceeds available storage
4 EB-T 4 N/A 14 66
NB-R 1 N/A 36 63
5 EB-L 2 245 177 213 214 197
EB-T 4 N/A 224 301 227 325
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 45 49
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 135 129
WB-T 3 N/A 214 334 309 319
WB-R 1 500 114 128 94 116
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 101 121
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 123 129
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 162 164
SB-L 2 150 176 177 175 175 Does not exceed 300'
storage between 2 lanes
SB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 293 294
SB-R 1 150 365 318 124 152 Exceeds available storage
6 EB-T 3 N/A 97 98 89 91
WB-T 3 N/A 161 154 138 137
SB-L 1 470 343 992 930 841 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 437 1007 974 870
SB-R 1 470 318 637 626 655 Exceeds available storage
7 (S) EB-T 3 N/A 153 174 163 171
WB-T 3 N/A 128 120 111 122
NB-L 2 1000 124 114 181 188
NB-R 2 1000 135 202 181 186
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
1 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-Monroe
Ave-Proj Dwy 1
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
(S)
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2025)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2025) NOTES
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC) FUTURE
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-Proj
Dwy 3
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
TABLE 11
2025 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB FREE RIGHT TURN AND NO LEFT TURNS AT I-15 NB RAMP

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 353 352 315 367
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A 54 252
WB-T 3 N/A 107 104 50 48
SB-L 1 510 418 531 486 618 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 366 466 506 611
SB-R 1 510 303 366 404 518 Exceeds available storage
EB-L 1 500 218 563 N/A N/A Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 156 601 209 22
WB-T 3 N/A 133 171 249 270
WB-R 1 N/A 414 31 N/A N/A
NB-L 2 520 187 179 177 191
NB-LT 1 N/A 160 171 N/A N/A
NB-R 1 490 0 113 215 234
EB-L 1 170 217 228 N/A N/A Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A 297 791 N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A 27 24 N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A 196 249 N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 N/A N/A 160 N/A
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 279 N/A
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 37 N/A
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 115 N/A
WB-T 3 N/A N/A N/A 193 N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 206 263
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 164 223
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 23 N/A
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 86 79
SB-L 2 235 N/A N/A 29 30
SB-T 2 N/A N/A N/A 86 165
SB-R 1 235 N/A N/A 230 255 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A
NB-R 1 N/A 43 57
EB-L 2 245 177 213 224 143
EB-T 4 N/A 224 301 180 229
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 48 43
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 133 178
WB-T 3 N/A 214 334 270 282
WB-R 1 500 114 128 96 127
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 154 122
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 132 141
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 149 200
SB-L 2 150 176 177 175 175 Does not exceed 300'
storage between 2 lanes
SB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 295 292
SB-R 1 150 365 318 143 159 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 97 98 104 124
WB-T 3 N/A 161 154 169 166
SB-L 1 470 343 992 1044 875 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 437 1007 982 865
SB-R 1 470 318 637 681 638 Exceeds available storage
(S) EB-T 3 N/A 153 174 185 180
WB-T 3 N/A 128 120 123 124
NB-L 2 1000 124 114 178 132
NB-R 2 1000 135 202 168 182
7 4
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-Proj
Dwy 3
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
6 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
1 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-Monroe
Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 (S)
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2025)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2025) NOTES
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC) FUTURE
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
TABLE 12
2028 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 32.0 C 31.5 C 34.2 C 40.2 D 2.2 8.7 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 19.4 B 24.1 C 19.9 B 25.5 C 0.5 1.4 NO (OWSC) EB-L - - - - - - - - - - -
(S) Overall 12.2 B 17.3 B 29.7 C 54.2 D 17.5 36.9 NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 57.8 F 694.4 F - - YES 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 22.1 C 38.2 D 33.5 C 71.4 E 11.4 33.2 YES 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.4 B 18.0 B 21.4 C 32.7 C 3.0 14.7 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 11.9 B 13.3 B 14.3 B 15.8 B 2.4 2.5 NO Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 13
Future

INCREMENTA
L DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2028)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2028)
TABLE 13
2028 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB DUAL LEFT TURNS AT I-15 NB RAMP

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 32.0 C 31.5 C 34.2 C 36 D 2.2 4.5 NO
2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 19.4 B 24.1 C 18.7 B 18.4 B -0.7 -5.7 NO (OWSC) EB-L - - - - - - - - - - -
(S) Overall 12.2 B 17.3 B 29.7 C 45.2 D 17.5 27.9 NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj
Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 57.8 F 694.4 F - - YES
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 22.1 C 38.2 D 33.5 C 74.6 E 11.4 36.4 YES 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215
SB Ramps (S) Overall 18.4 B 18.0 B 21.4 B 32.7 C 3.0 14.7 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215
NB Ramps (S) Overall 11.9 B 13.3 B 14.3 B 15.8 B 2.4 2.5 NO Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-Monroe Ave-
Proj Dwy 1
3 # INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2028)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2028)
Future

INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
TABLE 14
2028 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB FREE RIGHT TURN AND NO LEFT TURN AT I-15 NB RAMP

Footnotes:

Results calculated utilizing the methodologies described in Chapters 19, 20, 21, and 22 in the 6th edition of the HCM 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.
2 Level of Service
(S)=Signalized, (TWSC)=Two-Way Stop Controlled, (OWSC)=One-Way Stop Controlled NB=Northbound, WB=Westbound, etc.

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

TABLE 15
2028 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Footnotes:
1Source: City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 Draft SEIR (February 2020) DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 32.0 C 31.5 C 31.9 C 42.8 D -0.1 11.3 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 19.4 B 24.1 C 12.5 B 7.1 A -6.9 -17.0 NO (OWSC) EB-L - - - - - - - - - - -
(S) Overall 12.2 B 17.3 B 29.7 C 45.2 D 17.5 27.9 NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 57.8 F 694.4 F - - YES 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 22.1 C 38.2 D 33.5 C 62.8 E 11.4 24.6 YES 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.4 B 18.0 B 21.4 C 32.7 C 3.0 14.7 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 11.9 B 13.3 B 14.3 B 15.8 B 2.4 2.5 NO Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 13
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2028)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2028)
Future

INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

INCREASE TRAFFIC
EFFECT?

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C YES/NO
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between
I-15 NB Ramps and Sparkman Ct.

Major Arterial (4-lane,
divided) 71,800 72,019 1.00 F 90,041 1.254 F 0.25 NO
2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between
Sparkman Ct. and Hancock
Augmented Arterial (8-ln,
divided) 71,800 66,796 0.93 E 80,659 1.123 F 0.19 NO
3 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd between
Hancock Avenue and I-215 SB
Augmented Arterial (8-ln,
divided) 71,800 80,093 1.12 F 98,946 1.378 F 0.26 NO
# ROADWAY SEGMENT FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION

CAPACITY
(LOS E) 1
EXISTING + AMBIENT
+ CUMULATIVE (2028)
EXISTING + AMBIENT
+ CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2028)
TABLE 16
2028 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 328 335 314 373
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 249
WB-T 3 N/A 83 68 70 77
SB-L 1 510 448 663 549 588 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 413 664 588 589
SB-R 1 510 366 561 457 544 Exceeds available storage
EB-L 1 500 234 508 207 472 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 153 474 159 518
WB-T 3 N/A 71 47 135 185
WB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 454
NB-L 1 520 165 175 186 1357 Exceeds available storage
NB-LT 1 N/A 165 182 184 1260 Exceeds available storage
NB-R 1 490 56 81 404 612 Free movement
EB-L 1 170 N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 158 154 157 333
EB-T 4 N/A 131 239 259 1250
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 36 413 Exceeds available storage
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 143 166
WB-T 3 N/A 111 87 196 282
WB-TR 1 N/A 154 103 218 336
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 229 343
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 34 257
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 82 226
SB-L 2 235 27 25 36 71
SB-T 2 N/A 136 N/A 297 307
SB-R 1 235 229 195 288 261 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-R 1 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A 51 329
EB-L 2 245 205 136 230 305
EB-T 4 N/A 125 142 240 446
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 59 236 Exceeds available storage
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 203 210
WB-T 3 N/A 245 219 283 290
WB-R 1 500 89 70 98 149
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 88 282
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 108 402
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 140 411
SB-L 2 150 182 175 175 194 Does not exceed 300'
storage between 2 lanes
SB-TR 1 N/A 367 282 300 295
SB-R 1 150 69 95 181 162 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 107 108 98 101
WB-T 3 N/A 149 109 150 149
SB-L 1 470 398 851 860 852 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 492 853 856 862
SB-R 1 470 347 669 638 599 Exceeds available storage
(S) EB-T 3 N/A 172 186 187 191
WB-T 3 N/A 54 N/A 72 79
NB-L 2 1000 112 124 237 471
NB-R 2 1000 133 216 147 196
(OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
(S)
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2028)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2028) NOTES
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
1 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-Monroe
Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 7
4 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-Proj
Dwy 3
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
6 TABLE 17
2028 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB DUAL LEFT TURNS AT I-15 NB RAMPS

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 328 335 328 344
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 173
WB-T 3 N/A 83 68 53 56
SB-L 1 510 448 663 643 602 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 413 664 650 607
SB-R 1 510 366 561 516 561 Exceeds available storage
EB-L 1 500 234 508 127 298
EB-T 3 N/A 153 474 141 217
WB-T 3 N/A 71 47 161 160
WB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 202
NB-L 1 520 165 175 178 1313 Exceeds available storage
NB-LT 1 N/A 165 182 168 1261 Exceeds available storage
NB-R 1 490 56 81 431 610 Free movement
EB-L 1 170 N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 158 154 144 265
EB-T 4 N/A 131 239 281 546
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 53 352
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 149 161
WB-T 3 N/A 111 87 187 254
WB-TR 1 N/A 154 103 214 276
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 208 321
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 24 226
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 57 60
SB-L 2 235 27 25 48 51
SB-T 2 N/A 136 N/A 294 296
SB-R 1 235 229 195 293 260 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 13 259
EB-R 1 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A 71 319
EB-L 2 245 205 136 252 232 Does not exceed 490'
storage between 2 lanes
EB-T 4 N/A 125 142 253 456
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 64 188
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 215 211
WB-T 3 N/A 245 219 320 323
WB-R 1 500 89 70 86 131
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 117 269
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 132 392
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 149 334
SB-L 2 150 182 175 176 175 Does not exceed 300'
storage between 2 lanes
SB-TR 1 N/A 367 282 302 295
SB-R 1 150 69 95 153 187 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 107 108 81 106
WB-T 3 N/A 149 109 125 136
SB-L 1 470 398 851 863 855 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 492 853 860 856
SB-R 1 470 347 669 686 539 Exceeds available storage
(S) EB-T 3 N/A 172 186 175 176
WB-T 3 N/A 54 N/A 114 99
NB-L 2 1000 112 124 247 244
NB-R 2 1000 133 216 162 217
7 4
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-Proj
Dwy 3
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
6 1
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-Monroe
Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 # INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2028)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2028) NOTES
(S)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
TABLE 18
2028 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EB FREE RIGHT TURN AND NO LEFT TURNS AT I-15 NB RAMP

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 328 335 324 369
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A 115 239
WB-T 3 N/A 83 68 47 49
SB-L 1 510 448 663 658 602 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 413 664 638 606
SB-R 1 510 366 561 556 615 Exceeds available storage
EB-L 1 500 234 508 N/A N/A
EB-T 3 N/A 153 474 316 239
EB-R 1 220 N/A N/A 143 144
WB-T 3 N/A 71 47 185 342
WB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NB-L 1 520 165 175 218 194
NB-LT 1 N/A 165 182 N/A N/A
NB-R 1 490 56 81 212 213
EB-L 1 170 N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 158 154 146 104
EB-T 4 N/A 131 239 283 308
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 104 68
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 156 167
WB-T 3 N/A 111 87 160 237
WB-TR 1 N/A 154 103 186 264
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 163 353
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 27 279
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 93 69
SB-L 2 235 27 25 71 30
SB-T 2 N/A 136 N/A 130 289
SB-R 1 235 229 195 247 260 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 129 N/A
EB-R 1 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A 192 107
EB-L 2 245 205 136 319 107 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A 125 142 468 245
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 58 67
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 216 204
WB-T 3 N/A 245 219 275 283
WB-R 1 500 89 70 98 133
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 97 215
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 135 364
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 172 331
SB-L 2 150 182 175 175 182 Exceeds available storage
SB-TR 1 N/A 367 282 297 295
SB-R 1 150 69 95 116 175 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 107 108 111 124
WB-T 3 N/A 149 109 154 158
SB-L 1 470 398 851 864 851 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 492 853 880 877
SB-R 1 470 347 669 653 689 Exceeds available storage
(S) EB-T 3 N/A 172 186 188 184
WB-T 3 N/A 54 N/A 110 114
NB-L 2 1000 112 124 220 180
NB-R 2 1000 133 216 157 177
4 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-
Proj Dwy 3
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
6 7
1 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-
Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 # INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2028)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2028) NOTES
(S)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
TABLE 19

PROJECT TRIP COMPARISON

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

1DU= Dwelling Units
2Refer to ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
3ADT = Average Daily Traffic
4Passby reduction rates have been used to account for traffic that will access the site as an intermediate stop on the way to a primary destination.
5Internal Capture is the reduction of the overall traffic due to the compatibility of land uses within the project site. 6Source: Murrieta Triangle Trip Generation Evaluation, prepared by Trames Solutions Inc. December 23, 2022

IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL
Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise)
221 900 DU 4.54 4,086 0.37 23% 77% 77 256 333 0.39 61% 39% 214 137 351 Total 900 TSF 4,086 77 256 333 214 137 351
VOLUMES Peak
Hr
Rate

SPLIT VOLUMESLAND USE ITE
CODE QUANTITY6 DWY
Rate2 ADT3

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Peak
Hr
Rate
SPLIT
Focused Traffic Analysis 285,000 SF 20,144
Multifamily Housing 900 DU1 4,086
Total 24,230
ADTTrip Generation A Quantity
Trip Generation A 24,230
Trip Generation B 38,739
Difference in Trips -14,509
Trip Generation ADT
TABLE 20
2035 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

BUILDOUT (2035)
AM Peak PM Peak
DELAY
1 LOS
2 DELAY
1 LOS
2 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB Ramps (S) Overall 30.4 C 52.9 D

Footnotes:

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through movement group, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane movement group, etc.

AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-L 1 500 201 523
Exceeds available storage,
however, less than 25' and
deemed acceptable
EB-T 3 N/A 275 620
WB-T 3 N/A 85 138
WB-R 1 N/A N/A 28
NB-L 1 520 306 405
NB-LT 1 N/A 292 402
NB-R 1 490 297 132
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
(S)
BUILDOUT (2035)
NOTES# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 TABLE 22
2025 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATIONS

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 28.0 C 26.3 C 31.3 C 26.2 C 3.3 -0.1 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 14.2 B 20.3 C 19.5 B 21.9 C 5.3 1.6 NO (OWSC) EB-L >50 F >50 F - - - - - - -
(S) Overall - - - - 28.4 C 29.0 C - - -
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 37.0 E 97.1 F - - Yes 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 16.0 B 31.0 C 26.9 C 45.8 D 10.9 14.8 NO 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.5 B 15.0 B 19.7 B 19.8 B 1.2 4.8 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 10.0 B 8.9 A 10.7 B 13.8 B 0.7 4.9 NO Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 Future

INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2025)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2025)
TABLE 23
2025 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATIONS

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 353 352 306 331
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
WB-T 3 N/A 107 104 67 78
SB-L 1 510 418 531 465 602 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 366 466 510 539
SB-R 1 510 303 366 404 473
EB-L 1 500 218 563 189 468 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 156 601 121 507
WB-T 3 N/A 133 171 135 147
WB-R 1 N/A 414 31 22 N/A
NB-L 1 520 187 179 170 165
NB-LT 1 N/A 160 171 185 230
NB-R 1 490 0 113 155 546 Free movement
EB-L 1 170 217 228 N/A N/A
EB-T 4 N/A 297 791 N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A 27 24 N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A 196 249 N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 N/A N/A 151 179
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 229 335
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 16 12
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 109 84
WB-T 3 N/A N/A N/A 207 275
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 253 279
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 191 330
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 26 35
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 63 71
SB-L 2 235 N/A N/A 32 38
SB-T 2 N/A N/A N/A 89 215
SB-R 1 235 N/A N/A 245 268 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A N/A 307
NB-R 1 N/A 43 288
EB-L 2 245 177 213 173 151
EB-T 4 N/A 224 301 200 300
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 38 52
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 139 137
WB-T 3 N/A 214 334 275 285
WB-R 1 500 114 128 108 113
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 106 114
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 131 123
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 207 275
SB-L 2 150 176 177 176 175
SB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 305 275
SB-R 1 150 365 318 123 176 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 97 98 90 118
WB-T 3 N/A 161 154 156 147
SB-L 1 470 343 992 935 848 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 437 1007 903 861
SB-R 1 470 318 637 643 675 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 153 174 174 183
WB-T 3 N/A 128 120 68 72
NB-L 2 1000 124 114 159 158
NB-R 2 1000 135 202 170 201
7 (S)
4 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-
Proj Dwy 3
5 6 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
1 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
2 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-
Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1
3 (OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC) FUTURE
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
(S)
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2025)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2025) NOTES
(S)
TABLE 24
2028 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATIONS

Footnotes:

L=Left-turn movement, T=Thru movement, R= Right-turn movement, etc.

LT=Left-Through lane, LTR=Left-Through-Right lane , etc.

DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 DELAY 1 LOS 2 AM PM YES/NO 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 32.0 C 31.5 C 34.2 C 40.2 D 2.2 8.7 NO 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 19.4 B 24.1 C 19.9 B 25.5 C 0.5 1.4 NO 3 (OWSC) EB-L - - - - - - - - - - -
(S) Overall 12.2 B 17.3 B 29.7 C 45.4 D 17.5 28.1 NO
4 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Proj Dwy 2 (OWSC) NB-R 57.8 F 694.4 F - - YES 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Hancock
Avenue-Proj Dwy 3 (S) Overall 22.1 C 38.2 D 33.9 C 53.1 D 11.8 14.9 NO 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 SB
Ramps (S) Overall 18.4 B 18.0 B 21.4 C 32.7 C 3.0 14.7 NO 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 NB
Ramps (S) Overall 11.9 B 13.3 B 14.3 B 15.8 B 2.4 2.5 NO Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/Sparkman
Ct.-Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1
Future

INCREMENTAL
DELAY (sec)

TRAFFIC
EFFECT?
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE (2028)
EXISTING + AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
(2028)
TABLE 25
2028 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE SUMMARY

TRIANGLE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATIONS

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2 QUEUE 2
EB-T 3 N/A 328 335 305 328
EB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 139
WB-T 3 N/A 83 68 74 63
SB-L 1 510 448 663 620 598 Exceeds available storage
SB-LTR 1 N/A 413 664 628 598
SB-R 1 510 366 561 526 545 Exceeds available storage
EB-L 1 500 234 508 207 493
EB-T 3 N/A 153 474 192 591
WB-T 3 N/A 71 47 143 74
WB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NB-L 1 520 165 175 212 1304 Exceeds available storage
NB-LT 1 N/A 165 182 191 1265 Exceeds available storage
NB-R 1 490 56 81 510 610 Free movement
EB-L 1 170 N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
WB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
EB-L 2 310 158 154 157 153
EB-T 4 N/A 131 239 274 304
EB-R 1 320 N/A N/A 21 53
WB-L 2 245 N/A N/A 137 103
WB-T 3 N/A 111 87 173 104
WB-TR 1 N/A 154 103 216 121
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 235 324
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 44 136
NB-TR 1 N/A N/A N/A 98 69
SB-L 2 235 27 25 31 30
SB-T 2 N/A 136 N/A 190 302
SB-R 1 235 229 195 258 260 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 4 N/A N/A N/A 41 94
EB-R 1 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NB-R 1 N/A N/A N/A 59 113
EB-L 2 245 205 136 278 162
EB-T 4 N/A 125 142 273 360
EB-R 1 215 N/A N/A 63 131
WB-L 2 200 N/A N/A 180 72
WB-T 3 N/A 245 219 270 229
WB-R 1 500 89 70 87 78
NB-L 2 N/A N/A N/A 108 244
NB-T 1 N/A N/A N/A 97 403
NB-R 2 N/A N/A N/A 164 343
SB-L 2 150 182 175 176 176
SB-T 1 N/A 367 282 289 297
SB-R 1 150 69 95 135 160 Exceeds available storage
EB-T 3 N/A 107 108 103 135
WB-T 3 N/A 149 109 152 145
SB-L 1 470 398 851 862 865 Exceeds available storage
SB-LR 1 N/A 492 853 860 851
SB-R 1 470 347 669 652 664 Exceeds available storage
7 (S) EB-T 3 N/A 172 186 183 176
WB-T 3 N/A 54 N/A 81 N/A
NB-L 2 1000 112 124 258 208
NB-R 2 1000 133 216 171 202
5 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 SB Ramps
6 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-215 NB Ramps
1 Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 NB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Sparkman Ct.-
Monroe Ave-Proj Dwy 1
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Proj Dwy 2
4 3
2 EXISTING +
AMBIENT +

CUMULATIVE
(2028)
EXISTING +
AMBIENT +
CUMULATIVE +
PROJECT (2028) NOTES
(S)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(OWSC)
(S)
(S)
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/I-15 SB Ramps
Murrieta Hot Springs
Rd/Hancock Avenue-
Proj Dwy 3
# INTERSECTION CONTROL DIR.

No.

OF
LANES

STORAGE
1 ATTACHMENT C

Synchro

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Timings Timing Plan: Existing AM
1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 625 136 1033 981 0 263
Future Volume (vph) 625 136 1033 981 0 263
Turn Type NA Free NA Split NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 4
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.6 14.6 14.6
Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 71.0 71.0 71.0
Total Split (%) 40.8% 40.8% 59.2% 59.2% 59.2%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 43.7 120.0 43.7 66.8 66.8 66.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.56
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.09 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.30
Control Delay 28.6 0.1 34.6 19.5 20.0 14.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.6 0.1 34.6 19.5 20.0 14.0

LOS C A C B B B
Approach Delay 23.5 34.6 18.6
Approach LOS C C B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.59
Intersection Signal Delay: 25.3 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing AM 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 625 136 0 1033 0 0 0 0 981 0 263 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 625 136 0 1033 0 0 0 0 981 0 263 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1945 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 665 0 0 1099 0 1131 0 187
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 1859 0 1859 0 2062 0 882
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5274 1585 0 5443 0 3705 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 665 0 0 1099 0 1131 0 187
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1585 0 1702 0 1853 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 23.4 0.0 7.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 23.4 0.0 7.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1859 0 1859 0 2062 0 882
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1859 0 1859 0 2062 0 882
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 44.3 0.0 17.0 0.0 13.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.1 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 4.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 45.7 0.0 18.0 0.0 13.9 LnGrp LOS A C A D A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 665 1099 1318
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 45.7 17.4
Approach LOS C D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.0 71.0 49.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.7 * 67 43.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.4 25.4 26.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 8.7 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Existing AM
2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 131 1491 918 759 246 0 77
Future Volume (vph) 131 1491 918 759 246 0 77
Turn Type Prot NA NA Free Split NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8
Permitted Phases Free Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 31.0 88.0 57.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 25.8% 73.3% 47.5% 26.7% 26.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 14.9 95.5 76.5 120.0 15.0 15.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.80 0.64 1.00 0.12 0.12 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.40 0.31 0.52 0.63 0.64 0.05
Control Delay 57.8 2.4 8.0 7.1 62.8 63.0 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.8 2.4 8.0 7.1 62.8 63.0 0.1

LOS E A A A E E A
Approach Delay 6.9 7.6 47.9
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.9 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing AM 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 1491 0 0 918 759 246 0 77 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 131 1491 0 0 918 759 246 0 77 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 142 1621 0 0 998 0 267 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 173 3519 0 0 2853 351 0
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.69 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 0 0 5274 1585 3563 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 142 1621 0 0 998 0 267 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 0 0 1702 1585 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 173 3519 0 0 2853 351 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.76 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 401 3519 0 0 2853 825 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.1 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.4 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A A E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1763 998 267
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 0.3 56.1
Approach LOS B A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 88.0 15.7 72.3 16.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.7 27.0 51.7 27.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.3 11.4 2.0 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.0 0.4 5.2 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Existing AM
5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 191 1107 1404 464 377 147
Future Volume (vph) 191 1107 1404 464 377 147
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.3 38.3 38.3 14.9 14.9
Total Split (s) 21.0 86.0 65.0 65.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (%) 17.5% 71.7% 54.2% 54.2% 28.3% 28.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.9 80.7 63.8 63.8 29.1 29.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.67 0.53 0.53 0.24 0.24
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.28 0.57 0.49 0.52 0.32
Control Delay 73.8 10.8 23.0 3.2 42.2 7.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.8 10.8 23.0 3.3 42.2 7.5

LOS E B C A D A
Approach Delay 20.1 18.1 32.5
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.59
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing AM 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 191 1107 1404 464 377 147
Future Volume (veh/h) 191 1107 1404 464 377 147
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 1178 1494 494 401 156
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 270 3917 2540 789 838 384
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6696 5274 1585 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 1178 1494 494 401 156
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1702 1585 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 10.5 0.4 0.5 11.9 9.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 10.5 0.4 0.5 11.9 9.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 3917 2540 789 838 384
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.30 0.59 0.63 0.48 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 490 4327 2540 789 838 384
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.2 11.2 0.2 0.2 38.9 38.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.0 1.0 3.7 2.0 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 3.1 3.4 0.3 0.9 5.2 9.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.4 11.3 1.2 3.9 40.9 41.3
LnGrp LOS E B A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1381 1988 557
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.2 1.8 41.0
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 78.4 34.0 13.4 65.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.9 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.7 29.1 17.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 13.9 8.9 2.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.6 2.3 0.5 14.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Timings Timing Plan: Existing AM
6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1452 1572 589 366
Future Volume (vph) 1452 1572 589 366
Turn Type NA NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 71.0 71.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 59.2% 59.2% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 78.9 78.9 31.6 31.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.52 0.70 0.75
Control Delay 10.0 16.9 42.6 48.9
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.1 16.9 42.6 48.9

LOS B B D D
Approach Delay 10.1 16.9 44.6
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 21.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing AM 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1452 1572 0 589 366
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1452 1572 0 589 366
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1545 1672 0 674 339
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 934 418
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.55 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5443 5443 0 3705 1648
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1545 1672 0 674 339
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1702 0 1853 1648
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 20.0 23.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 20.0 23.2
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 934 418
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.55 0.60 0.00 0.72 0.81
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1383 618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 41.0 42.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.1 5.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 8.7 0.2 0.0 9.2 10.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.4 1.0 0.0 42.1 47.2
LnGrp LOS A B A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1545 1672 1013
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 1.0 43.8
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 71.0 34.4 71.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 65.7 * 45 65.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.6 25.2 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.7 5.0 11.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Timings Timing Plan: Existing AM
7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 9
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1771 1768 115 171
Future Volume (vph) 1771 1768 115 171
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 97.0 97.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 80.8% 80.8% 19.2% 19.2%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 91.7 91.7 18.8 18.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.20 0.33
Control Delay 3.1 5.7 45.1 26.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.1 5.8 45.1 26.9

LOS A A D C
Approach Delay 3.1 5.8 34.2
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.7 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing AM 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 10
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1771 0 0 1768 115 171
Future Volume (veh/h) 1771 0 0 1768 115 171
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 1870 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1826 0 0 1823 119 176
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3902 0 0 3902 563 455
Arrive On Green 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 0 5443 3594 2901
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1826 0 0 1823 119 176
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1702 1797 1451
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 0.0 0.0 15.7 3.5 6.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 0.0 0.0 15.7 3.5 6.5
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3902 0 0 3902 563 455
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.21 0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3902 0 0 3902 563 455
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 44.1 45.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.5
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 0.0 0.0 4.2 1.6 2.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 45.0 47.9
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1826 1823 295
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 5.6 46.7
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 97.0 97.0 23.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 91.7 91.7 18.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.8 17.7 8.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 13.8 13.8 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Timings Timing Plan: Existing PM
1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1814 212 1064 767 0 102
Future Volume (vph) 1814 212 1064 767 0 102
Turn Type NA Free NA Split NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 4
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.6 14.6 14.6
Total Split (s) 68.0 68.0 52.0 52.0 52.0
Total Split (%) 56.7% 56.7% 43.3% 43.3% 43.3%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max None Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 62.7 120.0 62.7 47.8 47.8 47.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 1.00 0.52 0.40 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.14 0.43 0.59 0.63 0.16
Control Delay 24.3 0.2 19.8 32.5 32.8 11.4
Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.7 0.2 19.8 32.5 32.8 11.4

LOS C A B C C B
Approach Delay 22.1 19.8 30.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.3 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing PM 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1814 212 0 1064 0 0 0 0 767 0 102 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1814 212 0 1064 0 0 0 0 767 0 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1945 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1951 0 0 1144 0 859 0 73
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2668 0 2668 0 1476 0 631
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5274 1585 0 5443 0 3705 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1951 0 0 1144 0 859 0 73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1585 0 1702 0 1853 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 21.8 0.0 3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 21.8 0.0 3.5 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2668 0 2668 0 1476 0 631
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2668 0 2668 0 1476 0 631
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 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 28.3 0.0 22.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 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 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 9.9 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 30.0 0.0 23.1 LnGrp LOS A C A B A C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1951 1144 932
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.7 17.7 29.4
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 68.0 52.0 68.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.7 * 48 62.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 37.4 23.8 18.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.0 5.0 6.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Existing PM
2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 621 1998 918 1141 171 0 35
Future Volume (vph) 621 1998 918 1141 171 0 35
Turn Type Prot NA NA Free Split NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8
Permitted Phases Free Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 65.0 102.6 37.6 17.4 17.4
Total Split (%) 54.2% 85.5% 31.3% 14.5% 14.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 51.5 98.9 43.4 120.0 11.6 11.6 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.82 0.36 1.00 0.10 0.10 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.50 0.52 0.75 0.55 0.55 0.02
Control Delay 50.0 2.1 28.4 15.8 64.5 64.5 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 50.0 2.1 28.4 15.8 64.5 64.5 0.0

LOS D A C B E E A
Approach Delay 13.5 21.4 53.7
Approach LOS B C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85
Intersection Signal Delay: 18.5 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing PM 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 621 1998 0 0 918 1141 171 0 35 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 621 1998 0 0 918 1141 171 0 35 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 647 2081 0 0 956 0 178 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 666 4277 0 0 2198 296 0
Arrive On Green 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 0 0 5274 1585 3563 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 647 2081 0 0 956 0 178 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 0 0 1702 1585 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 666 4277 0 0 2198 296 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.60 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 905 4277 0 0 2198 392 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A C E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 2728 956 178
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 24.6 55.1
Approach LOS A C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 105.8 48.9 56.9 14.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 97.3 61.0 32.3 13.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 42.2 17.7 7.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 18.6 2.7 4.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Existing PM
5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 141 1610 1727 534 486 225
Future Volume (vph) 141 1610 1727 534 486 225
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.3 38.3 38.3 14.9 14.9
Total Split (s) 14.0 84.0 70.0 70.0 36.0 36.0
Total Split (%) 11.7% 70.0% 58.3% 58.3% 30.0% 30.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max None None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 9.5 78.7 65.2 65.2 31.1 31.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.66 0.54 0.54 0.26 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.43 0.70 0.54 0.64 0.48
Control Delay 68.7 13.7 21.8 3.0 43.5 17.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 68.7 13.7 21.9 3.3 43.5 17.5

LOS E B C A D B
Approach Delay 18.1 17.5 35.3
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.4 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing PM 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 1610 1727 534 486 225
Future Volume (veh/h) 141 1610 1727 534 486 225
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 1750 1877 580 528 245
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 211 4220 2866 890 896 411
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.44 0.56 0.56 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6696 5274 1585 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 1750 1877 580 528 245
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1702 1585 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 22.4 30.6 30.4 16.0 16.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 22.4 30.6 30.4 16.0 16.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 211 4220 2866 890 896 411
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.41 0.65 0.65 0.59 0.60
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 4220 2866 890 896 411
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 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 56.5 17.8 18.3 18.2 38.9 39.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.7 0.3 0.5 1.7 2.8 6.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 8.8 11.1 10.6 7.1 14.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.2 18.1 18.8 19.9 41.7 45.2
LnGrp LOS E B B B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1903 2457 773
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.7 19.1 42.8
Approach LOS C B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 84.0 36.0 11.3 72.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.9 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.1 10.0 64.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.4 18.3 7.3 32.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.4 3.1 0.1 17.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Timings Timing Plan: Existing PM
6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2043 2020 622 220
Future Volume (vph) 2043 2020 622 220
Turn Type NA NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 82.4 82.4 28.1 28.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.23 0.24
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.77 0.57
Control Delay 14.1 14.6 48.9 43.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.1 14.7 48.9 43.9

LOS B B D D
Approach Delay 14.1 14.7 47.7
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing PM 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2043 2020 0 622 220
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 2043 2020 0 622 220
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 2173 2149 0 662 234
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 3597 3597 0 801 359
Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5443 5443 0 3705 1648
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 2173 2149 0 662 234
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1702 0 1853 1648
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.0 20.5 15.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.0 20.5 15.5
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3597 3597 0 801 359
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.83 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3597 3597 0 1044 467
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 44.9 42.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 4.3 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.3 8.0 0.0 9.8 6.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.8 9.8 0.0 49.2 44.8
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2173 2149 896
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 9.8 48.0
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.8 30.2 89.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 76.7 * 34 76.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 22.5 27.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.1 3.5 18.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Timings Timing Plan: Existing PM
7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 9
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2240 2096 143 269
Future Volume (vph) 2240 2096 143 269
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 94.0 94.0 26.0 26.0
Total Split (%) 78.3% 78.3% 21.7% 21.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 88.7 88.7 21.8 21.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.18 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.62 0.22 0.52
Control Delay 4.6 11.4 42.9 44.6
Queue Delay 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.4 11.7 42.9 44.7

LOS A B D D
Approach Delay 6.4 11.7 44.0
Approach LOS A B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
Intersection Signal Delay: 12.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Existing PM 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 10
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2240 0 0 2096 143 269
Future Volume (veh/h) 2240 0 0 2096 143 269
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 1870 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2409 0 0 2254 154 289
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3774 0 0 3774 653 527
Arrive On Green 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.18 0.18
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 0 5443 3594 2901
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2409 0 0 2254 154 289
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1702 1797 1451
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 4.4 10.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 4.4 10.9
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3774 0 0 3774 653 527
V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.24 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3774 0 0 3774 653 527
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 42.0 44.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 4.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 7.6 42.8 48.7
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2409 2254 443
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 7.6 46.7
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 94.0 94.0 26.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 88.7 88.7 21.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 26.7 12.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 26.5 21.1 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Intersection: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LTR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 197 129 144 100 119 104 396 349 319
Average Queue (ft) 71 56 34 87 80 82 268 246 47
95th Queue (ft) 159 120 100 97 102 108 350 320 156
Link Distance (ft) 608 608 608 77 77 77 566 566
Upstream Blk Time (%) 26 22 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 89 75 44
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 480
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 149 77 72 61 110 54 166 151 163
Average Queue (ft) 90 14 10 7 16 9 22 117 89
95th Queue (ft) 140 49 41 30 61 35 92 153 145
Link Distance (ft) 563 563 563 1211 1211 1211 925 925
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Sparkman CT Movement EB EB WB SB
Directions Served L T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 190 219 22 115
Average Queue (ft) 123 7 1 49
95th Queue (ft) 186 72 7 94
Link Distance (ft) 1211 254 288
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L L T T T T T T T R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 141 132 162 186 75 128 200 228 122 162 174 Average Queue (ft) 66 78 74 100 130 30 57 101 151 59 130 161 95th Queue (ft) 111 118 121 147 198 63 117 167 203 96 187 187 Link Distance (ft) 414 414 414 414 335 335 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 19
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 27
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 302
Average Queue (ft) 155
95th Queue (ft) 328
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 75 98 116 139 202 165 538 483 429
Average Queue (ft) 65 72 80 106 125 143 229 310 116
95th Queue (ft) 93 85 103 162 178 162 369 422 279
Link Distance (ft) 61 61 61 124 124 124 835 835
Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 17 22 6 12 35
Queuing Penalty (veh) 66 80 107 29 65 182
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 470
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Intersection: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served T T T T T T L L R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 161 166 111 138 141 84 133 131 77 Average Queue (ft) 74 79 110 90 97 103 27 58 74 40
95th Queue (ft) 149 159 168 111 122 122 61 107 124 75
Link Distance (ft) 138 138 138 83 83 83 1043 1043
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 3 8 10 12 30
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 16 48 60 73 179
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 1000
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1164
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Intersection: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LTR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 407 370 336 106 97 87 373 367 121
Average Queue (ft) 187 165 145 60 38 36 262 216 22
95th Queue (ft) 382 337 282 105 88 80 357 323 59
Link Distance (ft) 608 608 608 77 77 77 566 566
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 26 12 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 480
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 514 439 117 202 64 74 106 165 118
Average Queue (ft) 352 48 40 49 20 11 30 80 54
95th Queue (ft) 465 178 100 124 56 41 80 131 97
Link Distance (ft) 563 563 563 1211 1211 1211 925 925
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Intersection: 3: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Sparkman CT Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB SB
Directions Served L T T T T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 195 1262 1277 1237 1214 95 152
Average Queue (ft) 170 808 816 844 759 4 59
95th Queue (ft) 249 1440 1419 1414 1354 32 114
Link Distance (ft) 1211 1211 1211 1211 254 288
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 3 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 15 13 6
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 62
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 81
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B4 B4 B4 B4 WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 96 225 522 523 510 503 342 311 327 343 135 204 Average Queue (ft) 51 159 491 486 492 424 277 274 279 220 51 88 95th Queue (ft) 82 304 506 504 506 630 309 292 305 389 103 155 Link Distance (ft) 414 414 414 414 254 254 254 254 335 335 Upstream Blk Time (%) 69 88 98 46 40 53 74 29
Queuing Penalty (veh) 328 420 464 220 192 254 353 137
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 62
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 87
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T R L L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 92 162 174 339
Average Queue (ft) 145 57 145 174 306
95th Queue (ft) 200 84 220 176 324
Link Distance (ft) 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 82 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 185 8
Intersection: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 97 98 77 139 158 187 408 420 155
Average Queue (ft) 75 75 74 80 106 143 237 304 44
95th Queue (ft) 88 84 76 126 157 163 344 403 93
Link Distance (ft) 61 61 61 124 124 124 835 835
Upstream Blk Time (%) 42 48 54 1 7 29
Queuing Penalty (veh) 286 325 365 9 45 193
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 470
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Intersection: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served T T T T T T L L R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 174 199 182 118 138 129 116 132 157 145 Average Queue (ft) 146 149 151 88 99 104 40 74 109 80
95th Queue (ft) 158 171 171 130 127 125 89 126 154 132
Link Distance (ft) 138 138 138 83 83 83 1043 1043
Upstream Blk Time (%) 46 44 48 11 15 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 340 330 356 75 107 156
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 1000
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 5419

EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025) WITHOUT

TRIANGLE PROJECT

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM
1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 950 317 1307 1117 0 336
Future Volume (vph) 950 317 1307 1117 0 336
Turn Type NA Free NA Split NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 4
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.6 14.6 14.6
Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 71.0 71.0 71.0
Total Split (%) 40.8% 40.8% 59.2% 59.2% 59.2%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 43.7 120.0 43.7 66.8 66.8 66.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.56
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.21 0.75 0.62 0.67 0.38
Control Delay 31.6 0.3 37.8 21.4 22.7 15.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 31.6 0.3 37.8 21.4 22.7 15.5

LOS C A D C C B
Approach Delay 23.8 37.8 20.7
Approach LOS C D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 27.2 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 950 317 0 1307 0 0 0 0 1117 0 336 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 950 317 0 1307 0 0 0 0 1117 0 336 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1945 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1011 0 0 1390 0 1299 0 238
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 1859 0 1859 0 2062 0 882
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5274 1585 0 5443 0 3705 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1011 0 0 1390 0 1299 0 238
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1585 0 1702 0 1853 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 28.7 0.0 9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 28.7 0.0 9.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1859 0 1859 0 2062 0 882
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.27
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1859 0 1859 0 2062 0 882
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 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 30.2 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 18.2 0.0 13.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 19.6 0.0 14.6 LnGrp LOS A C A D A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1011 1390 1537
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 36.1 18.9
Approach LOS C D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.0 71.0 49.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.7 * 67 43.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.8 30.7 30.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 10.7 5.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM
2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 209 1855 1123 911 329 0 158
Future Volume (vph) 209 1855 1123 911 329 0 158
Turn Type Prot NA NA Free Split NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8
Permitted Phases Free Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 35.0 88.0 53.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 29.2% 73.3% 44.2% 26.7% 26.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 20.7 92.5 67.8 120.0 18.0 18.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.77 0.56 1.00 0.15 0.15 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.51 0.43 0.63 0.71 0.71 0.11
Control Delay 54.4 3.7 16.8 9.4 63.3 63.3 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.4 3.7 16.8 9.4 63.3 63.3 0.1

LOS D A B A E E A
Approach Delay 8.9 13.5 42.8
Approach LOS A B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 14.5 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 209 1855 0 0 1123 911 329 0 158 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 209 1855 0 0 1123 911 329 0 158 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 227 2016 0 0 1221 0 358 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 261 3519 0 0 2600 449 0
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.69 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 0 0 5274 1585 3563 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 227 2016 0 0 1221 0 358 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 0 0 1702 1585 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 261 3519 0 0 2600 449 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.80 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 460 3519 0 0 2600 825 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.1 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 54.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E B A A A D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 2243 1221 358
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 0.6 54.2
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 88.0 21.6 66.4 19.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.7 31.0 47.7 27.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 26.3 17.0 2.0 13.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 16.4 0.7 6.9 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM
5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 295 1343 1624 579 547 214
Future Volume (vph) 295 1343 1624 579 547 214
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.3 38.3 38.3 14.9 14.9
Total Split (s) 21.0 86.0 65.0 65.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (%) 17.5% 71.7% 54.2% 54.2% 28.3% 28.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 15.7 80.7 61.0 61.0 29.1 29.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.67 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.24
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.34 0.69 0.58 0.75 0.42
Control Delay 73.6 12.2 16.4 2.1 49.1 7.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.6 12.2 16.6 2.4 49.1 7.2

LOS E B B A D A
Approach Delay 23.2 12.9 37.3
Approach LOS C B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.6 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 295 1343 1624 579 547 214
Future Volume (veh/h) 295 1343 1624 579 547 214
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 314 1429 1728 616 582 228
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 380 4123 2540 789 838 384
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6696 5274 1585 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 314 1429 1728 616 582 228
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1702 1585 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.7 12.3 0.6 1.0 18.4 15.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.7 12.3 0.6 1.0 18.4 15.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 4123 2540 789 838 384
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.35 0.68 0.78 0.69 0.59
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 490 4327 2540 789 838 384
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.3 10.0 0.2 0.2 41.4 40.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 0.1 1.5 7.6 4.7 6.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 3.9 0.4 1.7 8.3 14.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.1 10.0 1.6 7.7 46.1 46.8
LnGrp LOS E B A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1743 2344 810
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.2 3.2 46.3
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 82.2 34.0 17.2 65.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.9 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.7 29.1 17.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 20.4 12.7 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.9 2.6 0.5 20.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM
6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1826 1856 665 445
Future Volume (vph) 1826 1856 665 445
Turn Type NA NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 71.0 71.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 59.2% 59.2% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 74.3 74.3 36.2 36.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.30 0.30
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.78
Control Delay 15.8 12.8 40.2 48.9
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.8 12.8 40.2 48.9

LOS B B D D
Approach Delay 15.8 12.8 42.9
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.78
Intersection Signal Delay: 21.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1826 1856 0 665 445
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1826 1856 0 665 445
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1943 1974 0 781 393
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1060 474
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.55 1.00 0.00 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5443 5443 0 3705 1648
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1943 1974 0 781 393
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1702 0 1853 1648
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 33.4 0.0 0.0 22.9 26.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 33.4 0.0 0.0 22.9 26.8
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1060 474
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.70 0.71 0.00 0.74 0.83
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1383 618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 38.8 40.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 7.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 12.4 0.4 0.0 10.6 11.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 21.3 1.5 0.0 40.3 47.2
LnGrp LOS A C A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1943 1974 1174
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 1.5 42.6
Approach LOS C A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 71.0 38.5 71.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 65.7 * 45 65.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 35.4 28.8 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.9 5.6 16.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM
7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 9
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2101 2071 152 214
Future Volume (vph) 2101 2071 152 214
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 96.0 96.0 24.0 24.0
Total Split (%) 80.0% 80.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 90.7 90.7 19.8 19.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.57 0.25 0.42
Control Delay 3.1 7.1 44.9 39.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.1 7.8 44.9 39.6

LOS A A D D
Approach Delay 3.1 7.8 41.8
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.58
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.3 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 10
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2101 0 0 2071 152 214
Future Volume (veh/h) 2101 0 0 2071 152 214
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 1870 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2166 0 0 2135 157 221
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3859 0 0 3859 593 479
Arrive On Green 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 0 5443 3594 2901
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2166 0 0 2135 157 221
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1702 1797 1451
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.6 0.0 0.0 21.1 4.6 8.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.6 0.0 0.0 21.1 4.6 8.3
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3859 0 0 3859 593 479
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.26 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3859 0 0 3859 593 479
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.2 0.0 0.0 6.1 43.7 45.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 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 6.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.1 3.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.8 0.0 0.0 6.7 44.8 48.5
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2166 2135 378
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.8 6.7 47.0
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 96.0 96.0 24.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 90.7 90.7 19.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.6 23.1 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 19.7 19.1 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM
1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2181 346 1501 913 0 213
Future Volume (vph) 2181 346 1501 913 0 213
Turn Type NA Free NA Split NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 4
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.6 14.6 14.6
Total Split (s) 70.0 70.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Total Split (%) 58.3% 58.3% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max None Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 64.7 120.0 64.7 45.8 45.8 45.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 1.00 0.54 0.38 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.23 0.59 0.73 0.81 0.35
Control Delay 27.7 0.3 22.9 39.4 43.3 25.7
Queue Delay 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.7 0.3 22.9 39.4 43.3 25.7

LOS C A C D D C
Approach Delay 25.7 22.9 38.7
Approach LOS C C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86
Intersection Signal Delay: 27.7 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2181 346 0 1501 0 0 0 0 913 0 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 2181 346 0 1501 0 0 0 0 913 0 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1945 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 2345 0 0 1614 0 1053 0 153
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2753 0 2753 0 1414 0 605
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5274 1585 0 5443 0 3705 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 2345 0 0 1614 0 1053 0 153
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1585 0 1702 0 1853 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 29.5 0.0 7.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 29.5 0.0 7.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2753 0 2753 0 1414 0 605
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2753 0 2753 0 1414 0 605
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 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 32.0 0.0 25.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 13.7 0.0 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 26.4 LnGrp LOS A C A B A D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2345 1614 1206
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.1 19.0 34.5
Approach LOS C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 70.0 50.0 70.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 64.7 * 46 64.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.0 31.5 27.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.1 5.6 10.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM
2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 730 2389 1159 1319 285 0 211
Future Volume (vph) 730 2389 1159 1319 285 0 211
Turn Type Prot NA NA Free Split NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8
Permitted Phases Free Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 62.0 101.0 39.0 19.0 19.0
Total Split (%) 51.7% 84.2% 32.5% 15.8% 15.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 55.3 96.8 37.4 120.0 13.7 13.7 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.81 0.31 1.00 0.11 0.11 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.61 0.76 0.87 0.77 0.78 0.14
Control Delay 51.6 3.3 42.2 20.2 77.2 77.8 0.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 51.6 3.3 42.2 20.2 77.2 77.8 0.2

LOS D A D C E E A
Approach Delay 14.6 30.5 44.6
Approach LOS B C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 730 2389 0 0 1159 1319 285 0 211 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 730 2389 0 0 1159 1319 285 0 211 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 760 2489 0 0 1207 0 297 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 738 4183 0 0 1898 362 0
Arrive On Green 0.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 0 0 5274 1585 3563 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 760 2489 0 0 1207 0 297 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 0 0 1702 1585 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 738 4183 0 0 1898 362 0
V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.82 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 861 4183 0 0 1898 439 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 52.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 37.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 32.7 0.0 62.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A A A C E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 3249 1207 297
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.8 32.7 62.8
Approach LOS B C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 103.6 55.7 47.9 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.7 58.0 33.7 14.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 51.7 25.3 11.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 29.2 2.0 3.8 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM
5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 219 1854 2056 664 646 338
Future Volume (vph) 219 1854 2056 664 646 338
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.3 38.3 38.3 14.9 14.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 83.0 68.0 68.0 37.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 12.5% 69.2% 56.7% 56.7% 30.8% 30.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max None None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 10.9 77.7 62.8 62.8 32.1 32.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.27
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.50 0.87 0.68 0.82 0.69
Control Delay 79.3 13.6 19.1 2.9 50.3 28.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 79.3 13.7 20.3 3.6 50.3 28.9

LOS E B C A D C
Approach Delay 20.6 16.2 43.0
Approach LOS C B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87
Intersection Signal Delay: 22.3 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 219 1854 2056 664 646 338
Future Volume (veh/h) 219 1854 2056 664 646 338
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 238 2015 2235 722 702 367
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 295 4166 2700 838 924 424
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.43 0.53 0.53 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6696 5274 1585 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 238 2015 2235 722 702 367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1702 1585 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 26.9 44.0 47.3 22.4 26.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 26.9 44.0 47.3 22.4 26.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 4166 2700 838 924 424
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.48 0.83 0.86 0.76 0.87
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 317 4166 2700 838 924 424
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 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 55.6 19.6 23.7 24.5 40.4 41.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 0.4 2.3 9.1 5.8 20.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 10.6 16.7 18.2 10.1 23.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.0 20.0 26.0 33.6 46.2 62.3
LnGrp LOS E C C C D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2253 2957 1069
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 27.8 51.8
Approach LOS C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 83.0 37.0 14.2 68.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.9 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 77.7 32.1 11.0 62.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.9 28.5 10.2 49.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 15.9 1.8 0.1 11.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM
6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2436 2349 699 327
Future Volume (vph) 2436 2349 699 327
Turn Type NA NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 81.0 81.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 67.5% 67.5% 32.5% 32.5%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 79.4 79.4 31.1 31.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.77 0.80 0.78
Control Delay 18.7 9.9 47.7 54.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.7 10.1 47.7 54.0

LOS B B D D
Approach Delay 18.7 10.1 49.5
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.7 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 129.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2436 2349 0 699 327
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 2436 2349 0 699 327
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 2591 2499 0 744 348
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 3435 3435 0 919 412
Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5443 5443 0 3705 1648
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 2591 2499 0 744 348
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1702 0 1853 1648
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 37.6 0.0 22.7 24.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 37.6 0.0 22.7 24.1
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3435 3435 0 919 412
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.73 0.00 0.81 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3435 3435 0 1074 481
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 42.4 42.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.6 1.4 0.0 4.1 11.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.5 12.4 0.0 10.8 11.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 1.6 14.0 0.0 46.5 54.4
LnGrp LOS A A B A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2591 2499 1092
Approach Delay, s/veh 1.6 14.0 49.1
Approach LOS A B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 86.0 34.0 86.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 75.7 * 35 75.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 26.1 39.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 30.6 3.7 20.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM
7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 9
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2601 2451 164 318
Future Volume (vph) 2601 2451 164 318
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 94.0 94.0 26.0 26.0
Total Split (%) 78.3% 78.3% 21.7% 21.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 88.7 88.7 21.8 21.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.18 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.73 0.26 0.62
Control Delay 5.6 10.3 43.3 49.6
Queue Delay 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.7 12.9 43.3 49.6

LOS A B D D
Approach Delay 5.7 12.9 47.5
Approach LOS A B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77
Intersection Signal Delay: 12.5 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 10
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2601 0 0 2451 164 318
Future Volume (veh/h) 2601 0 0 2451 164 318
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 1870 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2797 0 0 2635 176 342
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3774 0 0 3774 653 527
Arrive On Green 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.18 0.18
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 0 5443 3594 2901
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2797 0 0 2635 176 342
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1702 1797 1451
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.4 5.1 13.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.4 5.1 13.1
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3774 0 0 3774 653 527
V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.27 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3774 0 0 3774 653 527
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 42.2 45.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 6.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 9.6 2.3 5.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.0 43.3 51.6
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2797 2635 518
Approach Delay, s/veh 1.3 9.0 48.8
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 94.0 94.0 26.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 88.7 88.7 21.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 35.4 15.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 39.2 27.9 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Intersection: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LTR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 319 281 148 107 138 118 434 370 310
Average Queue (ft) 254 182 63 86 85 80 320 285 150
95th Queue (ft) 353 268 147 100 107 105 418 366 303
Link Distance (ft) 77 77 77 566 566
Upstream Blk Time (%) 27 32 15
Queuing Penalty (veh) 119 141 64
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 480
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T R L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 266 166 172 106 110 138 135 1256 201 180 Average Queue (ft) 147 89 60 18 32 49 61 42 136 110
95th Queue (ft) 218 156 130 63 93 120 133 414 187 160
Link Distance (ft) 563 563 563 1211 1211 1211 1211 925 925 Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Sparkman CT Movement EB EB WB SB
Directions Served L T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 194 331 75 262
Average Queue (ft) 159 84 4 121
95th Queue (ft) 217 297 27 196
Link Distance (ft) 1211 254 288
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 19
Queuing Penalty (veh) 79
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L L T T T T T T T R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 176 224 233 240 230 75 147 190 243 140 162 175 Average Queue (ft) 110 117 109 144 165 30 50 109 159 71 159 174 95th Queue (ft) 161 177 181 203 224 70 125 172 214 114 168 176 Link Distance (ft) 414 414 414 414 335 335 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 5 53
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 11 114
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 350
Average Queue (ft) 299
95th Queue (ft) 365
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Intersection: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 98 96 140 159 164 387 494 473
Average Queue (ft) 71 78 77 102 112 139 260 315 145
95th Queue (ft) 75 97 92 149 161 151 343 437 318
Link Distance (ft) 61 61 61 124 124 124 835 835
Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 24 24 4 8 36
Queuing Penalty (veh) 114 147 144 25 48 223
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 470
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) AM 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Intersection: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served T T T T T T L L R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 138 150 160 98 120 117 87 152 174 169 Average Queue (ft) 70 88 94 70 70 97 38 70 76 20
95th Queue (ft) 127 153 153 119 128 104 71 124 135 72
Link Distance (ft) 138 138 138 83 83 83 1043 1043
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 1 7 7 30
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 8 45 46 209
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 1000
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1547
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Intersection: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LTR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 338 319 319 108 114 94 582 550 354
Average Queue (ft) 321 272 175 86 82 71 383 333 195
95th Queue (ft) 329 352 306 104 104 102 531 466 366
Link Distance (ft) 77 77 77 566 566
Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 20 10 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 95 99 50 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 480
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Intersection: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 525 625 563 160 130 192 194 74 197 169 173 Average Queue (ft) 437 239 138 78 55 81 96 4 143 120 24 95th Queue (ft) 563 601 379 154 110 150 171 31 179 171 113 Link Distance (ft) 563 563 563 1211 1211 1211 1211 925 925 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 27 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 585
Storage Blk Time (%) 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 63
Intersection: 3: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Sparkman CT Movement EB EB EB EB WB SB
Directions Served L T T T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 195 1070 1005 727 59 303
Average Queue (ft) 179 341 145 24 4 134
95th Queue (ft) 228 791 594 239 24 249
Link Distance (ft) 1211 1211 1211 254 288
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 50
Queuing Penalty (veh) 275
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L L T T T T T T T R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 209 224 358 294 321 192 201 302 355 200 162 175 Average Queue (ft) 110 121 190 215 236 49 67 147 234 72 156 174 95th Queue (ft) 198 213 272 280 301 139 148 242 334 128 177 175 Link Distance (ft) 414 414 414 414 335 335 335 335
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 150 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 4 1 3 51
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 17 2 9 174
Intersection: 5: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Hancock Avenue Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 339
Average Queue (ft) 304
95th Queue (ft) 318
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 49
Intersection: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 90 119 99 138 161 151 874 874 495
Average Queue (ft) 71 79 75 86 102 138 564 596 296
95th Queue (ft) 81 98 89 136 154 149 992 1007 637
Link Distance (ft) 61 61 61 124 124 124 835 835
Upstream Blk Time (%) 15 22 26 2 5 32 14 26
Queuing Penalty (veh) 121 179 215 16 40 250 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 470
Storage Blk Time (%) 35 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 57 10
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex+ Amb+ Cumulative (2025) PM 05/31/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Intersection: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served T T T T T T L L R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 146 164 189 116 122 137 69 128 192 201 Average Queue (ft) 110 119 120 78 79 98 38 72 143 107
95th Queue (ft) 171 174 170 120 120 111 71 114 196 202
Link Distance (ft) 138 138 138 83 83 83 1043 1043
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 3 4 9 7 26
Queuing Penalty (veh) 35 28 37 73 58 210
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 1000
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2204

EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (2025) WITH TRIANGLE

PROJECT (CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN),

NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM
1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1036 317 1376 1259 0 336
Future Volume (vph) 1036 317 1376 1259 0 336
Turn Type NA Free NA Split NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 4
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.6 14.6 14.6
Total Split (s) 50.0 50.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Total Split (%) 41.7% 41.7% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 44.7 120.0 44.7 65.8 65.8 65.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 1.00 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.55
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.77 0.71 0.76 0.38
Control Delay 31.7 0.3 37.6 25.0 27.3 16.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 31.7 0.3 37.6 25.0 27.3 16.1

LOS C A D C C B
Approach Delay 24.3 37.6 24.2
Approach LOS C D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77
Intersection Signal Delay: 28.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1036 317 0 1376 0 0 0 0 1259 0 336 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1036 317 0 1376 0 0 0 0 1259 0 336 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1945 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1102 0 0 1464 0 1450 0 238
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 1902 0 1902 0 2032 0 869
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5274 1585 0 5443 0 3705 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1102 0 0 1464 0 1450 0 238
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1585 0 1702 0 1853 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 9.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 9.6 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1902 0 1902 0 2032 0 869
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.27
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1902 0 1902 0 2032 0 869
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 30.1 0.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 20.1 0.0 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 15.1 0.0 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 43.3 0.0 22.3 0.0 15.2 LnGrp LOS A C A D A C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1102 1464 1688
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 43.3 21.3
Approach LOS C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.0 70.0 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.7 * 66 44.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.7 36.9 34.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 11.6 5.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM
2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 209 2083 1285 1024 329 0 276
Future Volume (vph) 209 2083 1285 1024 329 0 276
Turn Type Prot NA NA Free Split NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8
Permitted Phases Free Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 33.0 90.0 57.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 27.5% 75.0% 47.5% 25.0% 25.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 20.6 92.5 67.9 120.0 18.0 18.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.77 0.57 1.00 0.15 0.15 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.58 0.49 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.19
Control Delay 57.2 3.9 20.7 13.0 63.4 63.4 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.2 3.9 20.7 13.0 63.4 63.4 0.3

LOS E A C B E E A
Approach Delay 8.8 17.3 34.6
Approach LOS A B C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.6 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 209 2083 0 0 1285 1024 329 0 276 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 209 2083 0 0 1285 1024 329 0 276 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 227 2264 0 0 1397 0 358 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 261 3604 0 0 2687 446 0
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 0 0 5274 1585 3563 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 227 2264 0 0 1397 0 358 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 0 0 1702 1585 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 261 3604 0 0 2687 446 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.80 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 430 3604 0 0 2687 766 0
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 0.53 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 9.3 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 10.2 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E B A A B D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 2491 1397 358
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.7 18.9 54.4
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.0 21.6 68.4 19.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 84.7 29.0 51.7 25.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.1 17.0 23.4 13.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.6 0.6 7.8 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM
3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 275 1836 194 194 1767 232 10 27 10 265 Future Volume (vph) 275 1836 194 194 1767 232 10 27 10 265 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 21.3 21.3 11.5 21.3 11.5 20.6 11.5 20.6 20.6 Total Split (s) 19.0 53.0 53.0 15.0 49.0 17.0 40.5 11.5 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 15.8% 44.2% 44.2% 12.5% 40.8% 14.2% 33.8% 9.6% 29.2% 29.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None Max None Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 14.0 48.1 48.1 10.6 44.7 12.4 40.7 7.1 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.37 0.10 0.34 0.06 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.75 0.28 0.69 0.81 0.71 0.09 0.14 0.01 0.68 Control Delay 56.7 29.1 4.8 77.5 19.9 63.9 8.3 55.1 33.7 50.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.7 29.1 4.8 77.5 19.9 63.9 8.3 55.1 33.7 50.0

LOS E C A E B E A E C D
Approach Delay 30.3 25.6 48.6 49.9
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81
Intersection Signal Delay: 30.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 275 1836 194 194 1767 52 232 10 78 27 10 265 Future Volume (veh/h) 275 1836 194 194 1767 52 232 10 78 27 10 265 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 289 1933 211 211 1860 55 252 11 85 28 11 279 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 350 2773 683 265 2629 78 311 547 488 122 900 402 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.81 0.81 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 6470 191 3456 1777 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 289 1933 211 211 1387 528 252 11 85 28 11 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1836 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 29.3 10.5 7.1 15.2 15.2 8.6 0.5 4.7 0.9 0.3 19.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 29.3 10.5 7.1 15.2 15.2 8.6 0.5 4.7 0.9 0.3 19.1 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 350 2773 683 265 1961 746 311 547 488 122 900 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.70 0.31 0.80 0.71 0.71 0.81 0.02 0.17 0.23 0.01 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 432 2773 683 317 1961 746 374 547 488 216 900 402 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 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 27.8 22.4 49.9 8.1 8.1 53.6 28.9 30.4 56.3 33.6 40.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 1.2 1.0 11.4 2.2 5.6 10.7 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.0 9.5 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 4.6 10.9 4.1 3.2 3.0 4.1 4.2 0.2 1.9 0.4 0.1 8.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.7 29.0 23.4 61.3 10.3 13.7 64.3 29.0 31.1 57.2 33.6 50.1 LnGrp LOS E C C E B B E C C E C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2433 2126 348 318
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.4 16.2 55.1 50.2
Approach LOS C B E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 57.0 14.8 35.0 16.1 54.1 8.2 41.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 47.7 13.0 30.4 15.0 43.7 7.5 35.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 31.3 10.6 21.1 11.8 17.2 2.9 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 12.0 0.2 0.7 0.3 14.8 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM
5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 295 1420 135 232 1753 579 108 93 187 547 116 214 Future Volume (vph) 295 1420 135 232 1753 579 108 93 187 547 116 214 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4
Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 1 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.3 15.3 11.5 38.3 38.3 11.0 20.6 11.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 Total Split (s) 17.0 52.9 52.9 18.5 54.4 54.4 12.0 20.6 18.5 28.0 36.6 36.6 Total Split (%) 14.2% 44.1% 44.1% 15.4% 45.3% 45.3% 10.0% 17.2% 15.4% 23.3% 30.5% 30.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max None None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 13.0 48.9 48.9 13.2 49.1 49.1 7.8 16.0 33.8 24.0 32.2 32.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.28 0.20 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.67 0.93 0.68 0.53 0.41 0.24 0.91 0.40 0.32 Control Delay 95.5 14.9 1.4 67.8 32.0 4.3 63.2 53.2 17.9 66.5 35.2 6.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 95.5 14.9 1.4 67.8 36.0 4.6 63.2 53.2 17.9 66.5 35.2 6.9

LOS F B A E D A E D B E D A
Approach Delay 26.7 31.8 39.0 49.6
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93
Intersection Signal Delay: 33.4 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 295 1420 135 232 1753 579 108 93 187 547 116 214 Future Volume (veh/h) 295 1420 135 232 1753 579 108 93 187 547 116 214 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 314 1511 147 252 1865 616 117 101 203 582 202 177 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 363 2733 673 309 2089 649 198 232 595 713 499 423 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.85 0.85 0.18 0.82 0.82 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 1870 2790 3563 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 314 1511 147 252 1865 616 117 101 203 582 202 177 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1870 1395 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 8.0 2.1 8.4 29.5 38.0 4.0 6.0 7.4 18.7 10.7 11.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 8.0 2.1 8.4 29.5 38.0 4.0 6.0 7.4 18.7 10.7 11.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 363 2733 673 309 2089 649 198 232 595 713 499 423 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.55 0.22 0.82 0.89 0.95 0.59 0.44 0.34 0.82 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 2733 673 418 2089 649 230 249 621 713 499 423 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 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 46.6 5.8 5.3 48.3 9.1 9.9 55.2 48.7 40.1 45.9 36.2 36.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.3 0.2 0.2 8.9 6.3 25.0 3.0 1.3 0.3 10.0 2.4 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 1.7 0.7 3.6 4.7 8.1 1.8 2.9 2.6 9.2 5.2 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.9 6.0 5.5 57.2 15.5 34.8 58.2 50.0 40.4 55.9 38.6 39.4 LnGrp LOS E A A E B C E D D E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1972 2733 421 961
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.4 23.7 47.6 49.2
Approach LOS B C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 56.3 10.9 36.6 16.6 54.4 28.0 19.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 47.6 8.0 32.0 13.0 49.1 24.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4 10.0 6.0 13.1 12.5 40.0 20.7 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 10.1 0.1 1.8 0.1 7.2 0.9 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM
6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 9
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2039 2046 665 602
Future Volume (vph) 2039 2046 665 602
Turn Type NA NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 71.0 71.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 59.2% 59.2% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 70.9 70.9 39.6 39.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.33 0.33
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.82
Control Delay 15.4 18.1 39.7 50.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.4 18.5 39.7 50.1

LOS B B D D
Approach Delay 15.4 18.5 42.9
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82
Intersection Signal Delay: 23.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 122.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2039 2046 0 665 602
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 2039 2046 0 665 602
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 2169 2177 0 885 449
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1178 527
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.55 1.00 0.00 0.32 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5443 5443 0 3705 1648
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 2169 2177 0 885 449
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1702 0 1853 1648
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 40.1 0.0 0.0 25.7 30.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 40.1 0.0 0.0 25.7 30.6
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1178 527
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.75 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2796 2796 0 1383 618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 36.7 38.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 2.0 9.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 15.1 0.6 0.0 11.9 13.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 23.5 2.2 0.0 38.7 48.0
LnGrp LOS A C A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2169 2177 1334
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.5 2.2 41.8
Approach LOS C A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 71.0 42.3 71.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 65.7 * 45 65.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 42.1 32.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 13.3 5.6 19.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM
7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 11
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2189 2182 232 214
Future Volume (vph) 2189 2182 232 214
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 97.0 97.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 80.8% 80.8% 19.2% 19.2%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 91.7 91.7 18.8 18.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.46
Control Delay 7.2 7.1 48.0 42.8
Queue Delay 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.2 8.1 48.0 42.8

LOS A A D D
Approach Delay 7.2 8.1 45.5
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.61
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.2 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 12
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2189 0 0 2182 232 214
Future Volume (veh/h) 2189 0 0 2182 232 214
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 1870 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2304 0 0 2297 244 225
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3902 0 0 3902 563 455
Arrive On Green 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 0 5443 3594 2901
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2304 0 0 2297 244 225
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1702 1797 1451
Q Serve(g_s), s 23.3 0.0 0.0 23.1 7.4 8.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.3 0.0 0.0 23.1 7.4 8.5
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3902 0 0 3902 563 455
V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.43 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3902 0 0 3902 563 455
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 45.8 46.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.4 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 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.5 3.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 48.2 50.1
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2304 2297 469
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.7 6.7 49.1
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 97.0 97.0 23.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 91.7 91.7 18.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.3 25.1 10.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 22.5 22.4 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM
1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2262 346 1577 1045 0 213
Future Volume (vph) 2262 346 1577 1045 0 213
Turn Type NA Free NA Split NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4 4
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.6 14.6 14.6
Total Split (s) 69.0 69.0 51.0 51.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 57.5% 57.5% 42.5% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 63.7 120.0 63.7 46.8 46.8 46.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 1.00 0.53 0.39 0.39 0.39
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.23 0.63 0.82 0.90 0.34
Control Delay 31.1 0.3 21.5 44.1 51.8 25.0
Queue Delay 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.1 0.3 21.5 44.1 51.8 25.0

LOS D A C D D C
Approach Delay 39.1 21.5 44.5
Approach LOS D C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90
Intersection Signal Delay: 35.3 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 121.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2262 346 0 1577 0 0 0 0 1045 0 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 2262 346 0 1577 0 0 0 0 1045 0 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1945 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 2432 0 0 1696 0 1195 0 153
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2710 0 2710 0 1445 0 618
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5274 1585 0 5443 0 3705 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 2432 0 0 1696 0 1195 0 153
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1585 0 1702 0 1853 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 51.2 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 7.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 51.2 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 7.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2710 0 2710 0 1445 0 618
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2710 0 2710 0 1445 0 618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 25.2 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 33.0 0.0 24.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 16.5 0.0 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 38.5 0.0 25.7 LnGrp LOS A C A B A D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2432 1696 1348
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 12.5 37.1
Approach LOS C B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 69.0 51.0 69.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 63.7 * 47 63.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 53.2 36.8 23.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.3 5.1 11.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM
2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 730 2601 1337 1442 285 0 321
Future Volume (vph) 730 2601 1337 1442 285 0 321
Turn Type Prot NA NA Free Split NA Free
Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 8
Permitted Phases Free Free
Detector Phase 5 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 22.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 60.0 102.0 42.0 18.0 18.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 85.0% 35.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 54.3 97.3 39.1 120.0 13.2 13.2 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.81 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.11 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.95 0.66 0.84 0.95 0.80 0.81 0.21
Control Delay 53.6 3.6 36.4 31.7 82.5 83.2 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.6 3.7 36.4 31.7 82.5 83.2 0.3

LOS D A D C F F A
Approach Delay 14.6 34.0 39.2
Approach LOS B C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 730 2601 0 0 1337 1442 285 0 321 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 730 2601 0 0 1337 1442 285 0 321 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 760 2709 0 0 1393 0 297 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 790 4115 0 0 1681 359 0
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 0 0 5274 1585 3563 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 760 2709 0 0 1393 0 297 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 0 0 1702 1585 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 49.7 26.3 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 49.7 26.3 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 790 4115 0 0 1681 359 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 831 4115 0 0 1681 410 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 24.7 6.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 64.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A A C E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 3469 1393 297
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.3 26.4 64.8
Approach LOS B C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 102.0 57.2 44.8 16.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.7 56.0 36.7 13.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.3 51.7 29.1 11.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 33.0 1.5 4.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM
3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 272 2316 200 200 2198 281 10 23 10 233 Future Volume (vph) 272 2316 200 200 2198 281 10 23 10 233 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.5 21.3 21.3 11.5 21.3 11.5 20.6 11.5 20.6 20.6 Total Split (s) 17.0 59.0 59.0 14.0 56.0 18.0 35.5 11.5 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 14.2% 49.2% 49.2% 11.7% 46.7% 15.0% 29.6% 9.6% 24.2% 24.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 4.3 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Max Max None C-Max None Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 53.9 53.9 9.8 51.1 13.4 35.7 7.1 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.43 0.11 0.30 0.06 0.21 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.82 0.25 0.73 0.86 0.75 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.72 Control Delay 62.2 27.6 3.5 68.8 20.9 64.7 8.6 54.8 38.4 58.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.2 27.6 3.5 68.8 20.9 64.7 8.6 54.8 38.4 58.2

LOS E C A E C E A D D E
Approach Delay 29.3 24.8 49.6 57.2
Approach LOS C C D E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86
Intersection Signal Delay: 30.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 2316 200 200 2198 77 281 10 93 23 10 233 Future Volume (veh/h) 272 2316 200 200 2198 77 281 10 93 23 10 233 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 278 2363 204 204 2243 79 287 10 95 23 10 238 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 335 2879 709 256 2731 96 346 484 431 108 723 322 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.85 0.85 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 6429 226 3456 1777 1585 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 278 2363 204 204 1683 639 287 10 95 23 10 238 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1830 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 38.5 9.8 6.8 20.8 20.9 9.8 0.5 5.6 0.8 0.3 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 38.5 9.8 6.8 20.8 20.9 9.8 0.5 5.6 0.8 0.3 16.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 335 2879 709 256 2050 777 346 484 431 108 723 322 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.82 0.29 0.80 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.02 0.22 0.21 0.01 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 2879 709 288 2050 777 403 484 431 216 723 322 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.2 28.9 21.0 50.2 6.8 6.8 53.0 32.0 33.8 56.7 38.2 44.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 2.1 0.8 13.0 3.8 9.5 12.0 0.1 1.2 1.0 0.0 14.1 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 14.3 3.8 3.2 3.2 4.9 4.8 0.2 2.3 0.4 0.1 7.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.7 31.1 21.8 63.2 10.6 16.3 65.0 32.0 35.0 57.7 38.2 58.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E B B E C C E D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2845 2526 392 271
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.6 16.3 56.9 58.0
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 59.0 16.0 29.0 15.6 56.3 7.7 37.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 53.7 14.0 24.4 13.0 50.7 7.5 30.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 40.5 11.8 18.9 11.5 22.9 2.8 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 11.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 19.0 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM
5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 219 1923 140 242 2145 664 131 112 225 646 120 338 Future Volume (vph) 219 1923 140 242 2145 664 131 112 225 646 120 338 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 1 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4
Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 3 8 1 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.3 15.3 11.5 38.3 38.3 11.0 20.6 11.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 Total Split (s) 13.0 54.6 54.6 16.1 57.7 57.7 13.0 20.6 16.1 28.7 36.3 36.3 Total Split (%) 10.8% 45.5% 45.5% 13.4% 48.1% 48.1% 10.8% 17.2% 13.4% 23.9% 30.3% 30.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max None None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 49.6 49.6 11.8 52.4 52.4 8.7 16.0 32.4 24.7 32.0 32.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.13 0.27 0.21 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.82 0.21 0.78 1.09 0.78 0.57 0.49 0.30 1.07 0.55 0.48 Control Delay 118.5 14.1 1.5 70.1 69.5 6.5 63.3 55.7 22.0 99.3 37.1 16.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 118.5 14.1 1.5 70.1 75.4 7.5 63.3 55.7 22.0 99.3 37.1 16.4

LOS F B A E E A E E C F D B
Approach Delay 23.3 60.2 41.6 69.4
Approach LOS C E D E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09
Intersection Signal Delay: 48.2 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 219 1923 140 242 2145 664 131 112 225 646 120 338 Future Volume (veh/h) 219 1923 140 242 2145 664 131 112 225 646 120 338 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 238 2090 152 263 2332 722 142 122 245 702 308 248 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 259 2706 667 315 2230 692 200 217 578 733 494 419 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.87 0.87 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 1870 2790 3563 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 238 2090 152 263 2332 722 142 122 245 702 308 248 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1870 1395 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 33.5 7.4 8.8 52.4 52.4 4.8 7.4 9.2 23.4 17.4 16.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 33.5 7.4 8.8 52.4 52.4 4.8 7.4 9.2 23.4 17.4 16.4 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 259 2706 667 315 2230 692 200 217 578 733 494 419 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.77 0.23 0.84 1.05 1.04 0.71 0.56 0.42 0.96 0.62 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 259 2706 667 348 2230 692 259 249 626 733 494 419 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 55.1 29.8 22.3 48.2 7.6 7.6 55.5 50.1 41.3 47.1 38.9 38.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.9 1.4 0.2 14.9 32.4 46.0 6.2 2.3 0.5 24.3 5.8 6.0 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 4.7 12.5 2.8 4.0 9.5 11.6 2.3 3.6 3.2 12.7 8.7 7.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 90.0 31.3 22.5 63.1 40.0 53.6 61.7 52.4 41.8 71.4 44.7 44.6 LnGrp LOS F C C E F F E D D E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2480 3317 509 1258
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.4 44.8 49.9 59.6
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.9 55.8 10.9 36.3 13.0 57.7 28.7 18.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.1 49.3 9.0 31.7 9.0 52.4 24.7 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 35.5 6.8 19.4 10.2 54.4 25.4 11.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.4 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM
6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 9
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2670 2526 699 473
Future Volume (vph) 2670 2526 699 473
Turn Type NA NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 4 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.3 29.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 80.6 80.6 39.4 39.4
Total Split (%) 67.2% 67.2% 32.8% 32.8%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max None None
Act Effct Green (s) 76.9 76.9 33.6 33.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.85 0.82 0.89
Control Delay 18.7 14.7 47.5 64.5
Queue Delay 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.7 31.8 47.5 64.5

LOS B C D E
Approach Delay 18.7 31.8 52.8
Approach LOS B C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90
Intersection Signal Delay: 30.2 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 139.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 2670 2526 0 699 473
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 2670 2526 0 699 473
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 2840 2687 0 826 416
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 3204 3204 0 1034 463
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.63 1.00 0.00 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5443 5443 0 3705 1648
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 2840 2687 0 826 416
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1702 1702 0 1853 1648
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 29.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 29.1
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3204 3204 0 1034 463
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.89 0.84 0.00 0.80 0.90
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3204 3204 0 1087 486
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 40.1 41.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.1 2.8 0.0 4.1 18.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 20.1 0.8 0.0 11.8 14.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 22.8 2.8 0.0 44.3 60.5
LnGrp LOS A C A A D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2840 2687 1242
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 2.8 49.7
Approach LOS C A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 80.6 37.7 80.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 * 4.2 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 75.3 * 35 75.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 58.0 31.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 14.2 2.3 33.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Timings Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM
7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 11
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2698 2555 237 318
Future Volume (vph) 2698 2555 237 318
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.3 15.3 14.2 14.2
Total Split (s) 94.9 94.9 25.1 25.1
Total Split (%) 79.1% 79.1% 20.9% 20.9%
Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode Max C-Max Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 89.6 89.6 20.9 20.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.17 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.75 0.39 0.65
Control Delay 8.4 10.4 45.9 51.5
Queue Delay 0.2 4.8 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 15.1 45.9 51.5

LOS A B D D
Approach Delay 8.6 15.1 49.1
Approach LOS A B D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.4 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road
06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 12
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2698 0 0 2555 237 318
Future Volume (veh/h) 2698 0 0 2555 237 318
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 0 1870 1945 1945
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2901 0 0 2747 255 342
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3813 0 0 3813 626 505
Arrive On Green 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 0 5443 3594 2901
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2901 0 0 2747 255 342
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1702 1797 1451
Q Serve(g_s), s 40.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 7.6 13.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 40.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 7.6 13.2
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3813 0 0 3813 626 505
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.41 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3813 0 0 3813 626 505
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 44.0 46.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.0 7.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 0.0 0.0 10.1 3.6 5.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.4 0.0 0.0 9.5 46.0 53.5
LnGrp LOS B A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2901 2747 597
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 9.5 50.3
Approach LOS B A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 94.9 94.9 25.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 89.6 89.6 20.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 42.0 37.4 15.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 31.2 29.9 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Intersection: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LTR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 294 289 239 72 82 68 582 582 474
Average Queue (ft) 238 158 78 46 52 39 343 361 211
95th Queue (ft) 331 265 163 66 71 62 486 489 361
Link Distance (ft) 48 48 48 566 566
Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 15 5 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 70 24 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 480
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Intersection: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 204 178 131 156 113 139 203 186 176 375 Average Queue (ft) 131 82 23 23 14 21 26 118 103 104
95th Queue (ft) 196 152 71 82 61 85 100 162 156 294
Link Distance (ft) 473 473 473 1082 1082 1082 1236 1236 Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 585
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Intersection: 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 158 173 232 266 249 211 28 108 109 62 105 300 Average Queue (ft) 70 91 161 165 148 128 3 32 46 23 34 65 95th Queue (ft) 139 153 233 254 229 206 16 83 93 56 79 157 Link Distance (ft) 1082 1082 1082 1082 271 271 271
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 310 310 320 245 245
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served TR L L T TR L L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 222 158 245 49 69 28 55 39 284 260
Average Queue (ft) 74 89 140 10 29 2 15 5 36 188
95th Queue (ft) 181 142 216 32 58 11 42 24 190 265
Link Distance (ft) 271 275 275 275 275 269 269
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 235 235 235
Storage Blk Time (%) 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 4: Proj. Dwy 2 & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB NB
Directions Served T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 22 24 64
Average Queue (ft) 1 1 24
95th Queue (ft) 7 8 43
Link Distance (ft) 271 271 288
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Intersection: 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 194 202 208 248 250 64 60 140 144 246 230 280 Average Queue (ft) 129 143 79 113 129 18 22 21 43 63 137 196 95th Queue (ft) 192 196 169 202 220 49 48 71 95 178 205 272 Link Distance (ft) 307 307 307 307 240 240 240
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 9
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 245 245 215 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement WB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L L T R R L L TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 122 136 118 174 218 25 162 175 312 144 Average Queue (ft) 54 78 44 72 105 6 160 174 277 35
95th Queue (ft) 94 129 91 134 183 24 168 175 289 87
Link Distance (ft) 240 311 311 311 311 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 65 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 213 18 0
Intersection: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 91 98 121 114 141 140 866 861 495
Average Queue (ft) 72 76 82 56 62 96 667 741 417
95th Queue (ft) 82 89 107 119 125 147 957 955 640
Link Distance (ft) 70 70 70 113 113 113 827 827
Upstream Blk Time (%) 25 32 37 1 2 11 12 26
Queuing Penalty (veh) 172 221 255 8 14 74 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 470
Storage Blk Time (%) 49 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 148 2
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) AM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Intersection: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served T T T T T T L L R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 164 162 174 52 31 54 104 278 177 162 Average Queue (ft) 119 120 120 7 5 11 66 111 107 43
95th Queue (ft) 170 162 161 29 24 45 106 201 165 103
Link Distance (ft) 144 144 144 15 15 15 1042 1042
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 1 2 3 3 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 9 15 22 19 45
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 1000
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1449
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 1
Intersection: 1: I-15 SB On Ramp/I-15 SB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T R T T T L LTR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 331 294 294 285 70 80 69 601 630 505 Average Queue (ft) 298 232 167 9 45 43 24 503 476 329
95th Queue (ft) 313 331 289 94 70 76 57 657 657 538
Link Distance (ft) 48 48 48 566 566
Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 7 4 18 15
Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 37 19 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 480
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 2
Intersection: 2: I-15 NB Off Ramp/I-15 NB On Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 472 505 473 188 54 89 78 187 452 452 Average Queue (ft) 401 280 113 87 6 11 14 129 129 250
95th Queue (ft) 497 570 295 176 27 45 45 177 282 465
Link Distance (ft) 473 473 473 1082 1082 1082 1236 1236 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 22 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 585
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 15
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 2
Intersection: 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 120 154 280 312 400 285 67 88 89 38 97 138 Average Queue (ft) 66 92 168 193 235 165 4 19 32 13 30 50 95th Queue (ft) 120 146 255 270 342 270 25 51 68 33 66 108 Link Distance (ft) 1082 1082 1082 1082 271 271 271
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 310 310 320 245 245
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Proj. Dwy 1/Sparkman CT & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served TR L L T TR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 174 290 327 26 62 75 39 303 260
Average Queue (ft) 72 135 273 1 13 13 7 142 197
95th Queue (ft) 132 277 349 10 44 42 26 376 314
Link Distance (ft) 271 275 275 275 275 269 269
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 75 26 20
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 235 235
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 37
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2
Intersection: 4: Proj. Dwy 2 & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB NB
Directions Served T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 115 297 247 245 65
Average Queue (ft) 7 28 24 11 35
95th Queue (ft) 45 150 123 88 61
Link Distance (ft) 271 271 271 271 288
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 3
Intersection: 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T T R L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 140 152 306 338 356 345 49 45 62 117 168 250 Average Queue (ft) 85 102 155 202 226 48 13 7 23 70 99 159 95th Queue (ft) 140 141 271 325 349 180 37 28 56 118 155 219 Link Distance (ft) 307 307 307 307 240 240 240
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 6 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 13 38 15 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 245 245 215 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7
Intersection: 5: Proj. Dwy 3/Hancock Avenue & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement WB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L L T R R L L TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 146 92 155 224 322 45 162 175 312 123 Average Queue (ft) 57 57 56 92 155 5 158 174 281 40
95th Queue (ft) 97 92 106 163 289 24 171 175 298 94
Link Distance (ft) 240 311 311 311 311 311
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 63 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 288 41
Intersection: 6: Murrieta Hot Springs Road & I-215 SB Off Ramp Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T T L LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 117 113 140 92 79 141 861 879 495
Average Queue (ft) 74 77 90 38 36 82 843 845 429
95th Queue (ft) 89 93 123 80 76 134 851 861 662
Link Distance (ft) 70 70 70 113 113 113 827 827
Upstream Blk Time (%) 26 29 33 2 57 84
Queuing Penalty (veh) 227 262 292 14 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 470
Storage Blk Time (%) 72 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 169 13
Queuing and Blocking Report Ex + Amb+ Cuml + Proj (2025) PM 06/08/2023
The Triangle Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report
Rick Engineering Company Page 4
Intersection: 7: I-215 NB Off Ramp & Murrieta Hot Springs Road Movement EB EB EB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served T T T L L R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 181 184 191 116 175 241 206
Average Queue (ft) 149 146 139 60 98 146 90
95th Queue (ft) 176 171 185 104 157 198 185
Link Distance (ft) 144 144 144 1042 1042
Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 5 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 83 44 53
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 1000
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1753

Murrieta City CouncilMay 20, 2025

Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025