Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCanyon Hills Estates Traffic Impact Analysis September 14, 2006 I Ld i URBAN CROSSROADS 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Prepared by: Carleton Waters, P.E. Min Zhou P.E. /Q Ou - 1vt CP Prepare or: Ms. Victoria Mata TRUMARK COMPANIES 26447 Rancho Parkway Lake Forest, CA 92630 CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA September 14, 2006 JN:03129-08 CW:MZ:KT:mt I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY................................................................. 1-1 A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives B. Executive Summary 1. Site Location and Study Area 2. Development Description 3. Principal Findings a. Required Level of Service (LOS) b. Existing Level of Service C. Interim Year Level of Service Without and With Project Conditions d. Post 2025 General Plan Without and With Project Conditions 4. Recommendations a. On-Site b. Off-Site 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 2-1 A. Location B. Land Use and Intensity C. Site Plan D. Zoning and Land Use Category E. Phasing and Timing 3.0 AREA CONDITIONS........................................................................................ 3-1 A. Study Area 1. Area of Significant Traffic Impact B. Study Area Land Use 1. Existing Land Uses C. Site Accessibility 1. Area Roadway System 2. Traffic Volumes and Conditions 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC........................................................................................ 4-1 A. Site Traffic 1. Trip Generation 2. Trip Distribution 3. Trip Assignment B. Interim Year Cumulative Development Traffic 1. Method of Projection 2. Interim Year Cumulative Traffic for Study Area 3. Interim Year Without and With Project Total Traffic C. Post 2025 General Plan Traffic Volumes 1. Method of Projection 2. Lake Elsinore Traffic Model (LETM) Review and Update 3. Post 2025 General Plan With Project Total Traffic 4. Post 2025 General Plan Without Project Total Traffic 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 5-1 A. Site Access B. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis 1. Level of Service for Interim Year Without Project 2. Level of Service for Interim Year With Project 3. Level of Service for Post 2025 General Plan Without Project Condition 4. Level of Service for Post 2025 General Plan With Project Condition 5. Sensitivity Analysis for Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road 6.0 FINDINGS AND PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION............................ 6-1 A. Site Accessibility B. Traffic Impacts C. Project Fair Share Analysis 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 7-1 A. On-Site B. Off-Site Improvement Recommendations 8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... 8-1 APPENDICES TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS ........................................................................... A EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ............................................ B CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS.................................................. C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ................................................................................ D POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES POST PROCESSING WORKSHEETS...................................................................... E INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ........................................................... F INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ........................................................... G POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ........................................................... H POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ........................................................... I SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR LOST ROAD AND COTTONWOOD CANYON ROAD (INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS)........................ i KEY URBAN CROSSROADS INC. STAFF RESUMES ............................................ K LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE 1-A LOCATION MAP........................................................................................ 1-3 1-B CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 1-10 I-C POST 20251-15 FREEWAY AND RAILROAD CANYON INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT DESIGN ........................... 1-16 2-A SITE PLAN................................................................................................. 2-2 3-A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS................................................................... 3-3 3-B CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ........................................................................ 3-5 3-C CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS............................................................... 3-6 3-D RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT......................................................................... 3-7 3-E RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS............................................................... 3-8 3-F EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ......................................... 3-9 3-G EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES....................... 3-15 3-H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES....................... 3-16 3-1 DIAMOND DRIVE / 1-15 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE STACKING REQUIREMENT..................................................................... 3-20 4-A INTERIM YEAR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION.................................... 4-5 4-B LONG RANGE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ..................................... 4-6 4-C INTERIM YEAR PROJECT ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-8 4-D INTERIM YEAR PROJECT ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES...................................................................... 4-9 .... x .. _ ^^''QRE.0 II ICC��//''���}^^IIIyy��.� .,.._....I.14�,4-.�.�J� . . ...,ram �1+.k.�.l��`�.A..�,_._.ay._u..._. :.�,.,�a... ....:::::.:.. .,.... ..fi._.�.. �� '� �7i• ��$�:�$��� � �: --•�£��-� 4& `�?8� �'s � .�11T�t� ��s: '�; +YG '� ._����� � ��� � �"w Gt� a���! �� orr tla 4 �� t � � � - .` �-Mic:�.`�i.� r; it 4 '.-• r� ..,5� - s t� yG. bk t � y,, -..•. _ _ ._.. __ D 86 . . � w._'AW iC_..__._:P'.a.:�!., . -' iC. -... -.i � � .m�� D� - ' ro s.'° kw,t co a. oa_...pe e\itr�th lytL ;1 $Q @u t o[ ac •�: •�',Q � I;�.;Fr�3 �"':. ����,k_..f v �[�.. '+Yi;' bt o � i .', :t •-�. ;' ,ow .[D\}�/�.�?���.e�' �"'�r�el��.,". !1��: �.=:• : it io. a�_ _.,.a ac � � t, .:�- rn� rl� (� °¢ air t♦ ?1'� �� sl , 0,01 .w ��'� � p�a,�,� '+� k` ,,:�':�f+�: � 4j c •t �� � �' lL�� ��i r a.c 'Q:w/ �':' 6a � r ����' 'r p; T� � i�'y�'��..le6�►�" -i t �o:W �w �l�r� �`���1���• •° � � r '��r :w. 1 ,., `� i4 °¢._:t ..... it °:.$ «ma cPr �! J;��•�� 4 f .rf 'c} - � `Cap• o¢ sv �� MONUMENT:SIGN .4r ak NORM Ir P ��. � • 1 ct_ IE al r. Aa �� .1� '�.rri��"��'9® �a"�"L °,4� �w ��,�°p�• pv a4 _ aC � I ii b,C. 'Slr C�MMU'N1,;rp RK' ... ...' pg 6L a5Ni.... at, •a l � ��, a4 as ''•� ;�y � �� �� � ����'6/ ,e� i' r�yC ab. i 4 .d , •' . ` �`� �` aW °& T��P� lac ,i aG� ro :. �� 4�5w YG iQ at �S PROJECTi 9 LOTS 15.00DSF BASKETBALL COURTS 'CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE' ' _ VALUEYBALL COURT OPEN PLAY AREAS rTOTAL:30 LOTSySITE SUMMARYarFLOVVERINGCHIRRr -_IFCL14 WHOXUNITY PARK 55ACRES CRkPE MYRTLE MAS7 LIVE OAK' &#N< LAYOUT 1. PROJECT SUMMARY, CQMMU:NITY PARK PLANTING �EGND TYPICAL WALL AND FENCE CANY�: N . H :1L_ S EST>ATE°S m anie ti C:o s: p e1 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk Coury, Planning Consultant FROM: Ken Seumalo, City Engineer Ed Basubas, City Traffic Engineer BY: Chuck Mackey, Traffic Engineer DATE: October 5, 2006 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAYSIS DATED 9/14/06 The referenced traffic impact analysis has been reviewed and comments follow: the study is a professional effort with few errors and is acceptable. Some conclusions which may be developer driven are not acceptable and will be clarified later in the comments. This study analyzes a propo development that has be duced in scope over the first draft study; there are no 302 we units instead f�350. The proposed project will generate approximately 2, daily trips, 226 AM peak hour trips, and 305 PM peak hour trips. The study shows both interim and long term trips distributions. I have some disagreement regarding the interim distribution. It should be closer to the long term distribution which tX1 was determined by modeling. 45% interim traffic should be distributed via Lost Road and 55% via Cottonwood Canyon Road. This difference emphasizes the need to construct good geometrics for Lost Road and Navajo Springs Roads. Lost Road and Navajo Springs Road are off-site and in Riverside County. There are some existing homes located along Navajo Springs Road. These roads are crucial to providing adequate circulation for the project. The developer shall provide paved widths of at least the widths shown in the traffic impact analysis. The connection of Lost Road to the City shall be widened to match existing City geometrics. Tapers shall be approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall design a signing and striping plan for these streets and shall be approved by both the City and County Engineers. On Exhibits 4-D and 4-E, the traffic movements shown for the northbound 1-15 ramps at Railroad Canyon Road are not correct. Exhibit 4-1 has several cumulative projects not located correctly. For example, site 20 is not at the top of the page but should be in the lower left, there are two site 6s-the upper one should be removed, and site 7 should relocated to the Summerhill Drive area. However, Appendix C which contains the site distributions has been examined and the calculations are correct. On page 7-3, sight distance is discussed. Please change the word "entrance"to the words "intersection and driveway." Off-site improvements are noted in chapters 1 and 7. Interim improvements have not been discussed. The project's share of responsibility for interim improvement at the 1-15 interchange and Railroad Canyon Road shall be calculated on a fair share basis. The interim fair share is 4.2 percent based on the PM interim peak hour at Railroad Canyon Road and the northbound ramps intersection. The interim project cost is $1.3 million. The project's share is $54,600.00, to be paid before first building permit is issued. 4-E INTERIM YEAR PROJECT ONLY PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTIONVOLUMES...................................................................... 4-10 4-F LONG RANGE PROJECT ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-11 4-G LONG RANGE PROJECT ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES...................................................................... 4-12 4-H LONG RANGE PROJECT ONLY PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES...................................................................... 4-13 4-1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LOCATION MAP .......................................... 4-15 4-J INTERIM YEAR CUMULATIVE ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-19 4-K CUMULATIVE ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTIONVOLUMES...................................................................... 4-20 4-L CUMULATIVE ONLY PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES...................................................................... 4-21 4-M INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-22 4-N INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-23 4-0 PRIMARY MODEL ANALYSIS AREA LOCATION ................................... 4-25 4-P POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-31 4-Q POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-32 4-R POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-33 4-S POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ........................................................... 4-34 5-A INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-3 5-B INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-4 5-C INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-7 5-D INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-8 5-E POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-11 5-F POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-12 5-G POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-13 5-H POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-14 5-1 POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-18 5-J POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-19 5-K POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-20 5-L POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES......................................... 5-21 7-A CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 7-2 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY WITH NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................... 1-8 1-2 REQUIRED STUDY AREA INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ............. 1-13 3-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ................... 3-14 3-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS STACKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA .............................. 3-18 4-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES................................................... 4-2 4-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY............................................. 4-3 4-3 CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES........................... 4-17 4-4 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION ..................................... 4-18 4-5 ANALYSIS AREA OVERALL SUMMARY LAND USE DATA COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-27 4-6 FUNDING SOURCE FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ....................... 4-28 5-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT (EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITION)......................................... 5-2 5-2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS CONDITION) ................................................ 5-6 5-3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT ................................................................................ 5-10 5-4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY.............................................................................. 5-17 5-5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR LOST ROAD AND COTTONWOOD CANYON ROAD (INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS) ................................... 5-25 6-1 PROJECT FAIR SHARE FOR IMPROVEMENTS .................................... 6-4 CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the Canyon Hills Estates Residential Development from a traffic circulation standpoint. Canyon Hills Estates residential development is located east of Lost Road and west of Cottonwood Canyon Road in the County of Riverside. The project northern boundary borders the City of Lake Elsinore. The project is currently in the process of being annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. Study objectives include (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) evaluation of traffic conditions for Interim Year (project full occupancy) without and with the proposed project; (3) evaluation of traffic conditions for Post 2025 General Plan without and with the proposed project; and (4) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve City of Lake Elsinore level of service requirements under both Interim Year and Long Range conditions. Site access under day to day conditions and also under emergency conditions is also addressed in this report. B. Executive Summary 1. Site Location and Study Area The proposed development is located east of Lost Road and west of Cottonwood Canyon Road in the County of Riverside. The project northern boundary borders the City of Lake Elsinore. The project is in the process of being annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. 1-1 Exhibit 1-A illustrates the site location and traffic analysis study area. One of the project access points is located at the west border of the property to Lost Road via Navajo Springs Road. Another is at the east border of the property to Cottonwood Canyon Road. Emergency access that would be controlled by a gate that can only be opened by emergency personnel would also be provided via Turtle Creek Road. Under typical daily conditions, no vehicular access to Turtle Creek Road would be available to the residents of the proposed project. Based on discussions with City staff, the study area includes the following 13 intersections: Diamond Drive (NS) at: • Mission Trail (EW) • Casino Drive (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: ® Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Orange Street (NS) at: • Lemon Street (EW) 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) Canyon Hills Road (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) • Lost Road (EW) 1-2 EXHIBIT 1-A LOCATION MAP a 0 O"9sj2 RA�LROp'D 'SQL ���� i O J �O SATE r; y a....:.i NYON NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. i LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. CHERRY ST. BUNDY CANYON RET. 9 O Z m i sT 9O� LEGEND: =INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION 0=FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129:12-5-05\ 01 URBAN 1-3 Lost Road (NS) at: • Site Westerly Driveway (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Site Easterly Driveway (EW) • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) 2. Development Description The project site is proposed to be developed with a maximum of 302 single-family detached residential dwelling units. The proposed development is projected to generate up to a total of approximately 2,890 U trip-ends per day with 226 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 305 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. During the planning and design stages, a conceptual plan with 350 total units, comprised of 260 single-family detached and 90 single-family attached residential dwelling units was considered. This conceptual design established the theoretical maximum number of units that could be built on the site due to site constraints and land use compatibility based on current conditions. Therefore, Urban Crossroads completed a full traffic impact analysis based on this conceptual plan to understand the maximum potential impacts and mitigation measures that would be required of the project. Subsequently, the project site plan was modified to eliminate the attached dwelling units and only include single-family detached homes. Additionally, many of the lots were enlarged along the project's western boundary. These changes reduced the overall number of proposed units to 302. As shown in Table 4-2, because the Proposed Project produces less traffic than the 350 unit project that was fully analyzed in this report, the following analysis and recommendations are relevant/conservative with respect to the Proposed Project. 1-4 3. Principal Findings a. Required Level of Service (LOS): The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element. The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan states that peak hour intersection operation of LOS "D" or better are generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS "E" and "F" will be considered deficient. Improvements are recommended in this traffic study to mitigate study area intersections back to acceptable Level of Service "D" or better. b. Existing Level of Service: For existing traffic conditions, the study area intersections operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours except the following intersections: Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) The intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road is currently operated by stop sign control on Cottonwood Canyon Road. The intersection does not warrant a traffic signal under the existing conditions. It is also noted by our field observation that although the 1-15 Freeway/Railroad Canyon Road interchange apparently operates at acceptable levels of service when analyzed as isolated intersections, the progression of traffic through the 1-15 Freeway/Railroad Canyon Road interchange creates lengthy vehicle queues. 1-5 C. Interim Year Level of Service Without and With Project Conditions: For Interim Year without and with project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or T" and will require improvements: 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: • Diamond Drive (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (F_W) In addition, traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted and the analysis indicates that no traffic signal is warranted under Interim Year conditions (With and Without Project) for the unsignalized intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at Bundy Canyon Road (EW). d. Post 2025 General Plan Without and With Project Conditions: For Post 2025 General Plan Without and With Project traffic conditions, all intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or"F" during the peak hours except the Project Easterly Driveway at Cottonwood Canyon Road under With Project conditions. 1-6 In addition, traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted and the analysis indicates that traffic signals are warranted under Post 2025 General Plan without and with Project conditions at the following additional intersections: Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: Bundy Canyon Road (EW) Orange Street (NS) at: • Lemon Street (EW) The intersection analysis results with needed improvements for all scenarios are summarized and indicated on Table 1-1. 4. Recommendations The traffic study is based upon two horizon years: Interim Year (project opening year) and Post 2025 (horizon year for general plan traffic modeling). a. On-Site On-Site circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Exhibit 1-B and are described below: • Construct Lost Road from Navajo Springs Road Northerly to Existing Improvement of Lost Road as a non-adjacent off-site improvement at a width of 32 feet in conjunction with the development. The transition to the 64-foot section at the south boundary of Tract 29811 can be accomplished via striping on the paved section north of the transition; 1-7 TABLE 1-1 (PAGE 1 OF 2) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY WITH NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Diamond Dr.(NS)at: • Mission Tr.(EW) TS5 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 34.2 36.3 C D Interim Year Without Project TS5 1 2 s 1 s 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 40.6 48.2 D D Interim Year With Project TS5 1 2 s 1 s 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 40.6 48.3 D D Post 2025 GP Without Project TS' 1 3 6 1 6 2_5 2_5 1>> 2_5 2_5 1 1 2 1» 36.6 47.3 D D Post 2025 GP With Project TS5 1 3 6 1 s 2_5 2_5 1>> 2_5 2_5 1 1 2 1>> 36.6 51.3 D D Casino Dr.(EW) TS5 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 24.3 23.5 C C Interim Year Without Project TS5 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 23.1 25.2 C C Interim Year With Project TS5 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 23.1 25.2 C C Post 2025 GP Without Project TS5 2 3s 1 s 2 3 s 1 s 2 2 s 1»s 2 26 1>>" 33.7 48.1 C D Post 2025 GP With Project TS' 2 3 s 1 s 2 3 s 1 s 2 2 s 1>>s 2 26 1>>' 33.7 48.2 1 C D 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: • Diamond Dr.(EW) TS5 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 32.5 44.9 C D Interim Year Without Project TS' 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 28.8 48.2 C D Interim Year With Project TS5 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 33.6 50.5 C D Post 2025 GP Without Project CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 3 0 0.0 0.0 A A Post 2025 GP With Project CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 3 0 0.0 0.0 A A 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: • Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) TS5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 30.0 37.0 C D -Interim Year Without Project TS5 0.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 2 25.1 30.8 C C Interim Year With Project TS5 0.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 2 25.4 32.3 C C Post 2025 GP Without Project CSS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0.0 0.0 A A Post 2025 GP With Project CSS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0.0 0.0 A A Summerhill Dr.(NS)at: • Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) TS' 2 2 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 1 3 0 -4 --' F F Interim Year Without Project TS5 2 2 s 1>s 1 1 1>> 2 3 1> 1 3 0 39.3 45.2 D D Interim Year With Project TS5 2 2 s 1>6 1 1 1>> 2 3 1> 1 3 0 40.1 46.2 D D Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 2 3 s 1>>6 2 1 s 1>>6 2 4 s 1>' 1 4 s 1>6 30.8 53.1 C D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 2 3 C, 1»F 2 1 s 1»s 2 4- 1>- 1 4- 1>- 30.8 53.8 C D Orange St.(NS)at: • Lemon St.(EW) AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8.3 9.8 A A Interim Year Without Project AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.9 8.9 A A -Interim Year With Project AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.9 8.9 A A Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 30.2 48.0 C D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 30.5 52.9 C D 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: • Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 28.3 24.6 C C Interim Year Without Project TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 46.0 48.4 D D Interim Year With Project TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 49.0 51.0 D D Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 28.0 40.6 C D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 28.2 41.1 C D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 25.0 27.6 C C Interim Year Without Project TS 115 1 1_5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 27.2 30.5 C C Interim Year With Project TS 1_5 1 1_5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 27.1 30.7 C C Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 2 0_5 1_5 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 40.0 42.2 1 D I D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 2 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 40.6 43.0 D D 1-8 TABLE 1-1(PAGE 2 OF 2) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY WITH NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: Railroad Canyon Rd.(EW) TS' 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 24.5 19.3 C B Interim Year Without Project TS' 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 51.2 40.2 D D Interim Year With Project TS' 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 36.4 34.2 D C Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 2 16 1>>6 1 26 1>6 1 36 1 6 2 3 6 1 33.5 51.1 C D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 2 16 1»6 1 2 6 1>6 1 3 6 16 2 36 1 34.1 54.1 C D Lost Rd.(EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 33.3 23.7 C C Interim Year Without Project TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 27.5 20.2 C C Interim Year With Project TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 28.6 20.6 C C Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 0_5 1_5 1 1 0 35.4 51.0 D D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 0,5 1.5 1 1 0 35.7 53.8 D D Lost Rd.(NS)at: •Navajo Springs Road(EW) CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.7 8.5 A A Interim Year Without Project CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.7 8.5 A A Interim Year With Project CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.9 8.7 A A Post 2025 GP Without Project CSS Traffic signal is not warranted. Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements provide acceptable LOS. 26.4 79.3 D F Post 2025 GP With Project CSS Traffic signal is not warranted. Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements provide acceptable LOS. 67.5 " F F Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: •Project Easterly Access(EW) Intersection does not exist Interim Year Without Project Intersection does not exist Interim Year With Project CSS 0_5 1-5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ( 0 0 0 9.6 9.7 I A A Post 2025 GP Without Project Intersection does not exist Post 2025 GP With Project CSS 0_5 0_5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 12.1 13.6 B B •Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 55.9 50.6 F F Interim Year Without Project CSS Traffic signal is not warranted. Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements provide acceptable LOS. 31.1 65.7 D F Interim Year With Project CSS Traffic signal is not warranted. Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements provide acceptable LOS. 31.1 65.7 D F Post 2025 GP Without Project TS 1 1 1» 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 25.7 47.4 C D Post 2025 GP With Project TS 1 1 1» 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 26.6 48.6 C D ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can ekher be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through:R=Right ' Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. ' TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS =All Way Stop ° -- =Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service"T". s Intersections are analyzed with minimum green time calculated based on the latest MUTCD pedestrian crossing time. c Pedestrians may not be accomodated by every cycle U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls]T 1-1 1-9 EXHIBIT 1-B CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDE STOP CONTROL AT THE PROJECT ACCESS POINT FOR i PROJECT BUILDOUT CONDITIONS. a �f SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION WHEN WARRANTED,OR THE CONSTRUCT LOST ROAD FROM NAVAJO ACCESS COULD BE RESTRICTED PROVIDE STOP SPRING ROAD NORTHERLY TO EXISTING AS LEFT AND RIGHT-IN AND CONTROL AT IMPROVEMENT OF LOST ROAD,AT A RIGHT-OUT ONLY IF/WHEN THE CONSTRUCT COTTONWOOD CANYON ROAD THE PROJECT WIDTH OF 32 FEET IN CONJUNCTION INTERSECTION REACHES THROUGH THE PROJECT AS A COLLECTOR ACCESS POINT. WITH DEVELOPMENT. UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF ROAD CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING SERVICE. DEVELOPMENT. I<L f✓^'sir/ ��.yj,.} 4 r } j ; C••...�/ ../ y 3�I RMW i� 0.' l CONSTRUCT s,f NAVAJO SPRINGS CONSTRUCT FULL-SECTION OF GATED ROAD WITH A 24-FOOT WIDTH TURTLE CREEK ROAD AS AN EMERGENCY TO CONNECT TO LOST ROAD. EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY TO ACCESS ONLY PROTECT BOUNDARY. THE PROJECT SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PAYMENT OF ESTABLISHED CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FEES AND PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES(TUMF)PROGRAM,OR CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE FACILITIES UNDER APPROPRIATE FEE CREDIT AGREEMENTS. SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH PROJECT ENTRANCE SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CALTRANS/COUNTY/CITY SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF LEGEND' FINAL GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. STOP SIGN CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Lake Elsinore California-03129. 61 dwg URBAN 1-10 • Construct Navajo Springs Road as a non-adjacent off- site improvement with a 28-foot width, including a four foot sidewalk to connect to Lost Road; • Construct Cottonwood Canyon Road through the project as a Collector road (48 feet curb-to-curb in a 68-foot right-of-way). This curb-to-curb width is consistent with the recent improvements on the adjacent property to the north. Provide stop control at the project access points to the arterial roadway system for project build-out conditions; • Provide stop control at two project access points. For Post-2025 when Lost Road is constructed according to the City's General Plan Circulation Element Major Highway standard, without or with project conditions, the intersection of Navajo Springs Road at Lost Road is projected to experience unacceptable operations for the minor street (westbound left turns) only. This location does not warrant a traffic signal under Post-2025 conditions, and no other physical improvements will provide acceptable operations for this one movement that serves a maximum of 51 vehicles during the AM peak hour when the unacceptable LOS for this one movement occurs. However, analysis indicates that the available a capacity for this movement is 96 vehicles per hour, which is more than adequate for the anticipated future demand at this intersection without or with project conditions. All other movements at the intersection experience LOS "C" or better operations. 1-11 • Construct full-section of Turtle Creek Road as an emergency access only to connect to the existing roadway. The emergency access would be controlled by a gate that can only be opened by emergency personnel. Under typical daily conditions, no access to Turtle Creek Road would be available to the residents of the proposed project; • Sight distance at each project entrance should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/County/City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. b. Off-Site The project shall participate in the phased construction of off-site intersection improvements through payment of established City of Lake Elsinore fees and participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program, or construction of off-site facilities under appropriate fee credit agreements. The recommended intersection improvements for all scenarios are summarized in Table 1-2. As part of the off-site improvements, the interchange of the 1-15 Freeway at Railroad Canyon Road is proposed to be completely redesigned by the City and CALTRANS for post 2025 General Plan conditions. The concept design was obtained from City staff and is illustrated on Exhibit 1-C. 1-12 TABLE 1-2(PAGE 1 OF 3) REQUIRED STUDY AREA INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS1 INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT INTERIM YEAR WITH POST 2025 GP WITHOUT POST 2025 GP WITH INTERSECTION PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCE Diamond Dr.(NS)at: Mission Tr.(EW) Pedestrian may not be Pedestrian may not be Pedestrian may not be Pedestrian may not be accommodated by every cycle accommodated by every cycle accommodated by every cycle accommodated by every cycle Construct 3rd northbound Construct 3rd northbound through lane through lane Construct the 3rd southbound Construct the 3rd southbound No improvements necessary No improvements necessary shared left-through lane shared left-through lane TIF Construct 1st southbound free Construct 1st southbound free right turn lane right turn lane Construct 2nd eastbound left Construct 2nd eastbound left turn lane turn lane Construct 3rd eastbound Construct 3rd eastbound shared left-through lane shared left-through lane Construct 1st eastbound right Construct 1st eastbound right turn lane turn lane Construct 1st westbound free Construct 1st westbound free right turn lane right turn lane Diamond Dr.(NS)at: Casino Dr.(EW) Construct 2nd northbound left Construct 2nd northbound left No improvements necessary No improvements necessary turn lane turn lane Construct 1st northbound right Construct 1st northbound right turn lane turn lane Construct 3rd southbound Construct 3rd southbound through lane through lane Construct 1st southbound right Construct 1st southbound right turn lane turn lane TIF Construct 2nd eastbound left Construct 2nd eastbound left turn lane turn lane Construct 1st eastbound free Construct 1st eastbound free right turn lane right turn lane Construct 2nd westbound left Construct 2nd westbound left turn lane turn lane Construct 1st westbound free Construct 1st westbound free right turn lane right turn lane 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Diamond Dr.(EW) Restripe southbound shared Restripe southbound shared left Restripe southbound shared Restripe southbound shared left-through lane to exclusive through lane to exclusive left left-right lane to exclusive free left-right lane to exclusive free left turn lane turn lane right turn lane right turn lane Construct 1 st and 2nd Construct 1st and 2nd Construct 3rd eastbound Construct 3rd eastbound southbound right turn lanes southbound right turn lanes through lane through lane TUMF&TIF Construct 2nd westbound left Construct 2nd westbound left Construct 3rd westbound Construct 3rd westbound turn lane turn lane through lane through lane 1-15 NB Ramps(NIS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) Construct 2nd northbound right Construct 2nd northbound right Construct 3rd eastbound Construct 3rd eastbound turn lane turn lane through lane through lane Construct 2nd eastbound left Construct 2nd eastbound left Construct 3rd westbound Construct 3rd westbound turn lane turn lane through lane through lane Construct 3rd eastbound Construct 3rd eastbound through lane through lane TUMF&TIF Construct 3rd westbound Construct 3rd westbound through lane through lane Construct 2nd westbound right Construct 2nd westbound right turn lane turn lane 1-13 TABLE 1-2(PAGE 2 OF 3) REQUIRED STUDY AREA INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS1 INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT INTERIM YEAR WITH POST 2025 GP WITHOUT I POST 2025 GP WITH INTERSECTION PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCE Summerhill Dr.INS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) Pedestrian may not be Pedestrian may not be Construct 3rd northbound Construct 3rd northbound accommodated by every cycle accommodated by every cycle through lanes through lanes Construct 1st northbound right Construct 1st northbound right Construct 1st northbound free Construct 1st northbound free turn lane with overlap phase turn lane with overlap phase right turn lane right turn lane Convert 1st southbound right Convert 1st southbound right Construct 2nd southbound left Construct 2nd southbound left turn lane to free right turn lane turn lane to free right turn lane turn lane turn lane Construct 3rd eastbound Construct 3rd eastbound Convert 1st southbound right Convert 1st southbound right through lane through lane turn lane to free right turn lane turn lane to free right turn lane TIF Construct 1st eastbound right Construct 1st eastbound right Construct 3rd and 4th Construct 3rd and 4th turn lane with overlap phase turn lane with overlap phase eastbound through lanes eastbound through lanes Construct 1st eastbound right Construct 1st eastbound right turn lane with overlap phase turn lane with overlap phase Construct 4th westbound Construct 4th westbound through lane through lane Construct 1st westbound right Construct 1st westbound right turn lane with overlap phase turn lane with overlap phase Orange St,INS)at: Lemon St.(EW) No improvements necessary No improvements necessary Construct a traffic signal Construct a traffic signal Construct 1st northbound left Construct 1st northbound left turn lane turn lane Construct list southbound left Construct 1st southbound left turn lane turn lane UNKNOWN Construct 1st eastbound left Construct 1st eastbound left turn lane turn lane (See Table 6-1 for Construct 2nd eastbound Construct 2nd eastbound through lane through lane fare-share calculation) Construct 1st and 2nd Construct 1st and 2nd westbound left turn lanes westbound left turn lanes 1-15 SB Ramps(NIS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) Convert southbound through Convert southbound through No improvements necessary No improvements necessary lane to 2nd left lane lane to 2nd left lane Construct 1st southbound right Construct 1st southbound right turn lane turn lane Construct 3rd eastbound Construct 3rd eastbound through lane through lane TUMF Construct 1st and 2nd Construct 1st and 2nd eastbound right turn lanes eastbound right turn lanes Construct 2nd westbound left Construct 2nd westbound left turn turn 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) Construct 1st northbound Construct 1st northbound Construct 2nd northbound left Construct 2nd northbound left shared left-through lane shared left-through lane turn lane turn lane Restripe northbound through Restripe northbound through Construct 1st northbound Construct 1st northbound lane to shared through-right lane to shared through-right shared through-right lane shared through-right lane lane lane Construct 1st northbound right Construct 1st northbound right turn lane turn lane TUMF Construct 2nd eastbound left Construct 2nd eastbound left turn lane turn lane Construct 1st westbound right Construct 1st westbound right turn lane turn lane 1-14 TABLE 1-2(PAGE 3 OF 3) REQUIRED STUDY AREA INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTSI INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT INTERIM YEAR WITH POST 2025 GP WITHOUT =POST2025GPWITH INTERSECTION PROJECTPROJECT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCE Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: • Railroad Canyon Rd.(EW) No improvements necessary (Pedestrians may not be Construct 1st northbound free Construct 1st northbound free No improvements necessary accommodated by every cycle) right turn lane right turn lane UNKNOWN Construct 2nd southbound Construct 2nd southbound through lane through lane (See Table 6-1 for Construct 1st southbound right Construct 1st southbound right turn lane with overlap phase turn lane with overlap phase fare-share calculation) Construct 2nd westbound left Construct 2nd westbound left turn lane turn lane Canyon Hills Rd.INS)at: Lost Rd.(EW) nstruct 2nd northbound left Construct 2nd northbound left No improvements necessary No improvements necessary turn lane turn lane Construct 1st southbound right Construct 1st southbound right turn lane turn lane UNKNOWN Construct 2nd eastbound left Construct 2nd eastbound left turn lane turn lane (See Table 6-1 for Restripe eastbound through Restripe eastbound through lane to shared through-right lane to shared through-right are-share calculation) Construct 1st eastbound right Construct 1st eastbound right turn lane turn lane Lost Rd.(NS)at: Navajo Springs Road (Project Westerly Access)(EW) Construct 1st northbound Cons ruct 1st northbound No improvements necessary No improvements nece sary shared through-right shared through-right Construct 1st southbound Construct list southbound shared left-through shared left-through Construct 1stwestbound Construct 1 st westbound shared left-right turn lane. shared left-right turn lane. (See Table 6-1 for fare- Restrict westbound left turns if Restrict westbound left turns if share calculation necessary to achieve necessary to achieve acceptable side street levels of acceptable side street levels of service service Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: • Project Easterly Access(EW) Construct 1st northbound Construct 1st northbound DOES NOT EXIST shared left-through DOES NOT EXIST shared left-through Construct 1st southbound Construct 1st southbound shared through-right shared through-right 100%Project Contribution Construct 1 st eastbound shared Construct 1 st eastbound left-right shared left-right Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: • Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) Construct a traffic signal Construct a traffic signal Construct 1st northbound left Construct 1st northbound left turn lane turn lane Construct 1st northbound free Construct 1st northbound free right turn lane right turn lane UNKNOWN Construct 1st southbound left Construct 1st southbound left turn lane turn lane (See Table 6-1 for Construct 1st southbound right Construct 1st southbound right turn lane turn lane fare-share calculation) Construct 1st eastbound left Construct 1st eastbound left turn lane turn lane Construct 2nd and 3rd Construct 2nd and 3rd eastbound through lanes eastbound through lanes Construct 1st eastbound right Construct 1st eastbound right turn lane turn lane Construct 1st and 2nd Construct 1st and 2nd westbound left turn lane westbound left turn lane Construct 2nd westbound Construct 2nd westbound through lane through lane Construct 1st westbound right Construct 1st westbound right turn lane turn lane Primary funding sources/implementation mechanisms are Citywide Fee Program(TIF)and/or Countywide Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Program(TUMF). U:\UcJobs\ 03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excett[03129-08.xls]T 1-2 1-15 EXHIBIT 1-C POST 20251-15 FREEWAY AND RAILROAD CANYON INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT C NCEP E I N V) Z 9 m r r RIGHT RIGHT TURN TURN ONLY ONLY RAILROAD vI%NYON RD. ' 1 J V1 1 n � D z � o � -Dv m N -I Ld� CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 62 URBAN 1 -1 6 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. Location The project site is located east of Lost Road and west of Cottonwood Canyon Road in the County of Riverside. The project northern boundary borders the City of Lake Elsinore. The project is in the process of being annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. B. Land Use and Intensity The project site is proposed to be developed with a maximum of 302 single- family detached residential dwelling units. C. Site Plan Exhibit 2-A illustrates the proposed Canyon Hills Estates development site plan. As illustrated, one of the project access points is located at the west border of the property to Lost Road via Navajo Springs Road, while a second access point is at the east border of the property to Cottonwood Canyon Road. Emergency access that would be controlled by a gate that can only be opened by emergency personnel would also be provided via Turtle Creek Road. Under typical daily conditions, no access to Turtle Creek Road would be available to the residents of the proposed project. D. Zoning and Land Use Category Existing Zoning: Rural Residential, Residential Agriculture, and General Residential Proposed Zoning: SP E. Phasing and Timing The project is expected to be completed by 2010. This report also evaluates post 2025 conditions (City General Plan buildout). 2-1 ZA I z z OP PHI LLJ > j mid i 11 fill 77 Ln LL kn LLJ tA Ln uj �Y1 1E --tz 3.0 AREA CONDITIONS A. Study Area 1. Area of Significant Traffic Impact The study area includes the following 13 intersections: Diamond Drive (NS) at: • Mission Trail (EW) • Casino Drive (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Orange Street (NS) at: • Lemon Street (EW) 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) 3-1 Canyon Hills Road (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) • Lost Road (EW) Lost Road (NS) at: • Site westerly driveway (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Site easterly driveway (EW) • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) B. Study Area Land Use Existing Land Uses The site is currently vacant with hilly terrain. Adjacent uses include the following: North — Pardee Homes - Canyon Hills Specific Plan; South — Vacant; East — Vacant; West — Vacant C. Site Accessibility 1. Area Roadway System Exhibit 3=A identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. The project would provide a connection to Lost Road and another connection to Canyon Hills Road/Cottonwood Canyon Road. 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS as 4D CPO i' O9s' SO ✓.� SO RA11 ROp`D 6D �G200 r 60 2p O \D / ~ �NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. I�O� — l� � �s �S� DR *i 1-PKEv1eW 2U 47 S� �O LEMON ST. ,tiJ 2U ORANGE ST. I �I 2U � CHERRY ST. � 2U N BUNDY CANYON 4D 0 4D Z i m L LEGEND: -1 L �? © =TRAFFIC SIGNAL �$ =ALL WAY STOP -!- =STOP SIGN 4 =NUMBER OF LANES D =DIVIDED U =UNDIVIDED �—oeF =DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 02 URBAN ossao., s 3-3 Exhibit 3-B shows the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 3-C illustrates the City of Lake Elsinore arterial street cross-sections. As illustrated on Exhibit 3-B, Lost Road in the City of Lake Elsinore is designated as a Major Highway, Cottonwood Canyon Road is designated as a Secondary Highway, and Canyon Hills Road in the vicinity of the site is identified as Major Roadway. The County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element is depicted on Exhibit 3-D, and Exhibit 3-E illustrates the Riverside County arterial street cross-sections. The roadway designations discussed previously are consistent with the designations shown on the County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element, except Lost Road is designated as a Collector in the County of Riverside Circulation Element. 2. Traffic Volumes and Conditions Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-F_ The existing ADT volumes are based upon actual 24 hours daily volume counts and/or the peak hour turning movement traffic data collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg: [AM (Approach + Exit Volume ) + PM Peak Hour(Approach + Exit Volume)] / (0.08 + 0.07) = Daily Leg Volume. In the above formula, the constants of 8% and 7% are calculated AM and PM Peak Hour to ADT ratios based on the actual peak hour and daily traffic count data collected. Appendix "A" contains the daily traffic volume count data and the peak hour to ADT ratio calculations. 3-4 EXHIBIT 3-B CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT vp \` O RDA RAMSG9 i • IM la ` ,..ale =, Vat R ' - 0 DCA yO�/ k � 1 E 'YI 4S t a ^_h1Al.ACAR9�/ y^ a f p SITE IVE s t►� �a� 2 LEMON I ^0, 4\g GQ i/F7 A ' YALNtrrS'i°' h -i BAXTER , �1 l � j Gi o w EXISTING INTERCHANGES "r K ti FUTURE INTERCHANGES t 1 FUTURE INTERCHANGES SOUTHBOUND ONLY h c SPECIAL STUDYIPOLICY AREA O SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY BOUNDARY FREEWAY URBAN ARTERIAL-STATE HW Y(6 LANES 1134'R.O.W.) r URBAN ARTERIAL(6-LANES/120'R.O.W_) MAJOR(4-LANES/100'R.O.W.) SECONDARY(4=LANES/90'R.O.W.) COLLECTOR.(2-LANES/68'R.Q.W.) SPECIAL COLLECTOR ONE-WAY SECONDARY(2-LANES%60'R.O.W.) SOURCE:CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TRUMARK CANYON HILLS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 12 URBAN 3-5 EXHIBIT 3-C CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 120'R.O.W, I I I 106' I I 7' 2'-}-11'�11'-}-72'�-}-7N�12' 11'-}-11'---}--12' 7 URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (&LANE) 120'R.O.W. I 96, 12' -6' 12' 17'-}-12' -71RMEDIANBIKE LANE URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY BIKE LANE (&LANE) --100'R.O.W. 8E0' 15'� AISED)N 12' 1S' 10' BIKE LANE MAJOR HIGHWAY I BIKE LANE (4-LANE) L ..._.............._ 90'R.V.W, I I I 70' �-{-- 10' 6' 11'�71' 14'MEDIAN". 1 N6' ip' (PAINTED) 1 BANE SECONDARY HIGHWAY I LANE BIKE IKE (4-LANE) 66'R.O.W. 48' 1 C LOLC ECT§ HIGHWAY I I (2LANE) SOURCE:CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129. 44 URBAN 3-6 EXHIBIT 3-D RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT i I o" 4 3 SITE E� I t 'v - tee, =EXPRESSWAY (184'ROW) ®=EXISTING INTERCHANGE %//=MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO =URBAN ARTERIAL 1112 ROW) !rQ,=PROPOSED INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES - - =ARTERIAL (128'ROW) Q=POSSIBLE CORRIDOR ///,=HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE =MAJOR (lI8'ROW) INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES =SECONDARY (100'ROW) r-0-1—BRIDGE %//=SR-79 RE-ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES COLLECTOR (74'ROW) WATER EZ]=AREA PLAN BOUNDARY --�-- =MOUNTAIN ARTERIA10I0'ROW) =RAILROAD =CITY LIMITS =FREEWAY � SOURCE:RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT(RCIP) TRUMARK CANYON HILLS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129: 13 URBAN 3-7 EXHIBIT 3-E RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS R/W 184 R W 134' -'-118' 25` 2' 6' 1 12' 1 12' 1 14' 6�. 2 ' 2% CURB CURB 2% CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN EXPRESSWAYCORRIDOR-8 LANES R W 184' R W 134' 110' 1 I r r 12� 12'-J 10,25 6' -6 - 14'-T 7'-r-7' -74 � 6' 2 II 2% CURBS_ r-CURB 2% CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR-6 LANES R/W 152' R/W 110, 15'-7 6' 10, --12'-1-12� �-^-14'-----r 7'-I-7' 4'-T--12'--j---121--1--7106'-i--15' 2% CURBS CURB 2% CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY R/W 128' R/W 86' 15'••--i-6' 8'- -12'--I--14'-i--9'-7-g'-1 ___i--_12'__�.-g �7---- CURB 2% CURBS_ 2% CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY R/W 128' R/W 88' 14'--r 6' -14=- --•--12'----1-12�-1 MEDIAN 1Z'--1-12'-- --14'�6'-1--14'-{ 2% PAINTED MEDIAN 2% AUGMENTED MAJOR-6 LANES R/w 118' R W 76' F16' 5' 8' 12' 12' 12' 1 12 B' 5' 16' �- T T T T �T- —T- �- 2% PAINTED MEDIAN 2% MAJOR HIGHWAY-4 LANES R/W -100, R W 64' }--8�-12'' 1 -_12' 1 12'-1 12L- -u'_1_5'1-_13' 2% 2% SECONDARY HIGHWAY R/W R w 78'- 56' -34'* 5'-1-6' 10'-1-12=1-12' 12=1 1106'-i-5' 2% PAINTED MEDIAN 2% INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR *PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR AN INTERIOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL STREET R/W R W 74' 44' 34'* 10=T5' 10'- 1--12=---1-12' 10' 5,7-10, 2% z% SOURCE:RIVERSIDE COUNTY COLLECTOR —� *PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR ALL COLLECTOR STREET 34'IMPROVEMENTS ON 48'R/W CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 45 URBAN 3-8 EXHIBIT 3-F EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) � 37.3 � 23.7 70.S 28.5 (� 9�800 a 28.7 I n 8s �r's ^M ' 13.2 e1 � a •1 � Q v 1 R�� G �q a yo� \�P�Q �,r� RAIIROA �o Q�s �0� 10 •e �a Oyu 3� 6o COTTOZ I SITE »: : : °oo o ............... :............. Jj 1:�: :::;T. :rx cl` `.;.� •gN_ \y_ON RD \� < j/ �NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. t \ i KE�IEw DR 1"' �� IA 14.0 14.5 �ol� o 05 LEMON ST. .5 1.9 ORANGE ST. m 6.1 20.4 —CHERRY ST. �-5.3 19.3 20.1 BUNDY CANYON RD 7.4 � 7.6 Z m m L' s� 90� LEGEND: 10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County California-03129: 17 URBAN osskoA 3-9 As indicated on Exhibit 3-F, daily traffic volumes on Canyon Hills Road range from 10,600 vehicles per day (VPD) to 6,000 VPD. Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road currently carry 3,900 VPD and 1,300 VPD, respectively. The highest daily traffic volumes on the arterial roadway system within the study area occur on Railroad Canyon Road east of the 1-15 Freeway. The daily traffic volume at this location is about 37,300 VPD. The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). Use of this methodology is required by the City of Lake Elsinore. The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are: • LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. • LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. • LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. 3-10 • LOS "D" represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. • LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement. • LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service determined in this study are determined using the HCM methodology as required by the City of Lake Elsinore. For signalized intersections, average total delay per vehicle for the overall intersection is used to determine level of service. Levels of service at the signalized study area intersection has been evaluated using an HCM intersection analysis program. The need for a traffic signal is based on signal warrant analysis pursuant to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2003 Edition), as amended by the California Supplement (Caltrans, 2004). Traffic signal warrant analysis is primarily based upon the 3-11 number of through travel lanes and approach volumes on the major and minor streets. Traffic signal warrants determine the need (or lack thereof) for traffic signal improvements. For all way stop (AWS) controlled intersections, the ability of vehicles to enter the intersection is not controlled by the occurrence of gaps in the flow of the main street. The AWS controlled intersection has been evaluated using the HCM methodology for this type of multi-way stop controlled intersection configuration. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is also based on average total delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. The study area intersections which are currently stop sign controlled with stop control on the minor street, but no control on the major street has been analyzed using the unsignaiized intersection methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Using data collected describing the intersection configuration and traffic volumes at the study area location, the level of service has been calculated. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on average total delay per vehicle for the worst minor street movement(s). The levels of service are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows: AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SECONDS) LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED A 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00 B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00 C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00 D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00 E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00 F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up 3-12 The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Chapter 2, Objective 1.1 states "strive to maintain a minimum Level of Service "C" at all intersections during non-peak hours and Level of Service "D" (volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or less) at all intersections during peak hours to ensure that traffic delays are kept to a minimum." This means that peak hour intersection operations of LOS "D" or better are generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS "E" and "F" will be considered deficient and need improvements. Improvements are recommended in this traffic study to improve study area intersections' operations to acceptable operations (Level of Service "D" or better). Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3-1, along with the existing intersection geometrics and traffic control devices at the analysis locations. Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (see Exhibits 3-G and 3-H). Traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix "A". The existing traffic volume flow conservation has been examined to ensure the reasonableness of the traffic counts. The existing intersection analysis worksheets are included in Appendix "B". The analysis has been performed in a manner that is consistent with the standard TIA methodology for Riverside County, which is also used by the City of Lake Elsinore. Per Riverside County's traffic study guidelines, the lost time for signalized intersection analysis is 4 seconds per phase. A saturation flow rate of 1900 passenger cars/hour/lane is applied. Seven seconds of minimum green are used in areas of light pedestrian activity. In areas of heavy pedestrian activity including the Railroad Canyon interchange area and the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road at Canyon Hills Road, the minimum green times required to accommodate pedestrian 3-13 TABLE 3-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Diamond Dr. (NS)at: • Mission Tr. (EW) TS5 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 34.2 36.3 C D • Casino Dr. (EW) TS5 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 24.3 23.5 C C 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: • Diamond Dr. (EW) TS5 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 32.5 44.9 C D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: • Railroad Cyn Rd. (EW) TS5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 30.0 37.0 C D Summerhill Dr. (NS)at: • Railroad Cyn. Rd. (EW) TS5 2 2 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 1 3 0 --4 --4 F F Orange St. (NS)at: • Lemon St. (EW) AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8.3 9.8 A A 1-15 SB Ramps (NS)at: • Bundy Cyn Rd. (EW) TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 28.3 24.6 C C 1-15 NB Ramps(NS) at: • Bundy Cyn Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 25.0 27.6 C C Canyon Hills Rd. (NS)at: • Railroad Canyon Rd. (EW) TS5 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 24.5 19.3 C B • Lost Rd. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 33.3 23.7 C C Lost Rd. (NS)at: • Navajo Springs Road (EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 10.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8.7 1 8.5 1 A A Cottonwood Cyn Rd. (NS)at: • Site Easterly Driveway(EW) Intersection does not exist • Bundy Cyn Rd. (EW) CSS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 55.9 1 50.6 1 F F � r f., t When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient #x width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right Z Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 _ Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 3 TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS =All Way Stop 4 -- =Delay High, Intersection Unstable,Level of Service"F". Intersections are analyzed with rninirnum green time calculated based on the latest MUTCD pedestrian crossing time. U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls]T 3-1 3-14 EXHIBIT 3-G EXISTING AM PEAL( HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES w-'N ��13g3 216_�- s6_y _ Q ,' 1 ���,,� �� � ���� moo• % i z�9,��� �a OQ. �9Jj2O RAILROp`D 'S/��� �0�� co 4 i i a9 j 1 0 �aaCPO, -x . .-r t u::: :1 COTT � 6 »>S T...... goo -� ") �z213 i pro 63 /� NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. I\ -- } t DR 340 72 i '1 4 (' �AKv �E`N LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. Nry � 57 CHERRY ST. � + `• f--102 418-� tom• BUNDY CANYON � 0--* `\ z - T � 00 00 s� cnorl ­559377 9�4, 725 4-275 -- � 457 205 342—i 416-- lv t N o m CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 15 URBAN 3-15 EXHIBIT 3-H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 68 ' 39 9 _ 70 DER "7 '9ji2 ,_ RAILROAQ yQls �p�' OOP --- O M,e o SATE ��000 RD. -_ 0 Ana =0NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. t —�� ,'�16 's .J b �. -is 16_ t I vWN pR. 55 rn, p'/LAKE 1 96--i 00—M LEMON ST. —ORANGE ST. d -34 —CHERRY ST. f—952 30--4 582--► f BUNDY CANYON 10 t \ Z m to N Norn s i-684 q��, ��508 µ// 179 301—� � �615 \ m ^v CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 16 URBAN _ _ assao,.�s 3-16 movements on every signal cycle in every direction have been calculated based on the methodology described in the 2004 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). As indicated in Table 3-1, the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (Level of Service "D" or better) except the following intersections: Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) The intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road is currently operated by stop sign control on Cottonwood Canyon Road. The intersection doesn't warrant a traffic signal under the existing conditions. It is also noted that although isolated intersection analysis indicates that the 1-15 Freeway/Railroad Canyon Road interchange operates at acceptable level of service, the progression of traffic through the 1-15 Freeway and Railroad Canyon Road interchange creates lengthy vehicle queues. Table 3-2 summarizes the queuing analysis for the intersections of Railroad Canyon Road at 1-15 Freeway Northbound and Diamond Drive Ramps at 1-15 Freeway Southbound during Existing conditions. The 95th percentile queue length has been selected for the queue calculation. As shown on Table 3-2, the queues in number of vehicles have been multiplied by an average per vehicle stacking distance of 22 feet and divided by the number of lanes in the lane group. The required queue 3-17 TABLE 3-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS STACKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA HCM2000 95% VEHICLES PROVIDED NO. OF (per lane) STACKING ACCEPTABLE? INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES AM PWDISTANCE'l AM PM NBL 1 20 22 210 NO NO NBT 2 10 38 460 YES NO Railroad Canyon Road (NS)/1-15 Freeway Northbound (EW) SBT 2 24 28 145 NO NO SBR 1 50 50 165 NO NO WBL/TL 1 12 16 645 YES YES WBR 1 26 50 645 1 YES NO NBT 2 18 34 340 NO NO NBR 1 22 16 340 NO NO Diamond Drive Ramps(NS)/1-15 Freeway Southbound (EW) SBL 1 44 46 245 NO NO SBT 2 14 18 475 YES YES EBL 1 22 34 475 NO NO EBT/TR 1 40 68 475 NO NO 1 Stacking distance based on turn lane length or distance to next(upstream)traffic signal for through movements. 2 Required stacking distance based on 95th percentile queue length(2 x average)as reported on HCM worksheets. U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls]3-2 3-18 lengths for Existing conditions have been compared to the available stacking distances provided for each study intersection approach to determine if any stacking deficiencies exist. As indicated on Table 3-2, the following approaches are deficient in stacking distance requirements during AM and/or PM peak hours for Existing conditions: Railroad Canyon Road (NS) at: • 1-15 Freeway Northbound (EW) — Northbound Left — Northbound Through — Southbound Through — Southbound Right — Westbound Right Diamond Drive Ramps (NS) at: • 1-15 Freeway Southbound (EW) — Northbound Through — Northbound Right — Southbound Left — Eastbound Left — Eastbound Shared Through Right The stacking conditions at the interchange area are also shown on Exhibit 3- I. The queuing analysis indications that extra storage may be needed at many locations. The City is already in the process of providing the following interim improvements (under construction by the end of 2006) for the Railroad Canyon Road at 1-15 Interchange: 3-19 EXHIBIT 3-1 DIAMOND DRIVE/1-15 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE STACKING REQUIREMENTS a, x z: yt 4 ayy i f fi. y e v �i t Ea b rt� 9 LEGEND: `` ' +. =50TH PERCENTILE =95TH PERCENTILE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: STACKING URBAN -- -- - ._. _._ 3-20 • Add one eastbound through lane on Railroad Canyon Road between 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramp and Grape Street; • Widen 1-15 Freeway Southbound Off Ramp by providing dual left turn lanes; • Widen 1-15 Freeway Northbound Off Ramp by providing dual right turn lanes; • Provide dual eastbound left turn lanes at the intersection of 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps at Railroad Canyon Road; • Widen 1-15 Freeway Northbound On Ramp to providing two accepting ramp lanes. 3-21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-22 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC A. Site Traffic 1. Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and produced by a development. The project site is proposed to be developed with a maximum of 302 single-family detached residential dwelling units. Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the latest version (7th Edition) of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Both daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed development are shown in Table 4-2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 2,890 trip-ends per day with 226 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 305 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Two other trip generation alternatives have also been evaluated. (The alternative which has been analyzed in this report is defined as Alternative 1). As shown on Table 4-2, Alternative 1 is the prior conceptual site design comprised of a total of 260 single-family detached and 90 attached residential dwelling units, while Alternative 2 is proposed to have 40 single-family detached residential dwelling units. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition), Alternative 1 is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,015 trip-ends per day with 234 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 309 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Alternative 2 is projected to generate a total of approximately 383 trip-ends per day with 30 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 40 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. 4-1 TABLE 4-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES' PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES ITE AM PM LAND USE CODE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Single Family Residential 210 260 DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 9.57 Attached Dwelling Units(Condos) 230 90 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 1 5.86 1 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers)Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003. ' DU = Dwelling Units U:\UcJobs\_03100\03129\Exce1\[03129-07.x1s]T 4-1 4-2 TABLE 4-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE 1 PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OU I TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Single Family Residential 260 DU 49 146 195 166 96 262 2,488 Attached Dwelling Units(Condos) 90 DU 6 33 39 32 15 47 527 SUBTOTAL 55 179 234 198 111 309 3,015 (Alternative 1 -This alternative has been used for the traffic analysis in this report.) PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR AM I PM LAND USE QUANTIT UNITS' IN I OUT ITOTALI IN IOUT TOTAL DAILY Single Family Residential I302 DU 57 169 226 193 112 305 2,890 SUBTOTAL 57 169 226 193 112 305 2,890 ALTERNATIVE 2 PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN I OUT I TOTALI IN I OUT ITOTAL DAILY Single Family Residential 40 DU 8 1 22 1 30 1 26 1 15 1 40 383 SUBTOTAL I 1 1 8 1 22 1 30 1 26 1 15 1 40 1 383 ' DU = Dwelling Units U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls]T 4-2 4-3 The project alternative analyzed in this report (Alternative 1) represents the most conservative alternative with the highest peak hour and daily trip generation. The Proposed Project or Alternative 2 will result in less impact to the roadway system. 2. Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, employment and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 4-A illustrates the Interim Year (Project Build-out Year) Canyon Hills Estates residential development trip distribution pattern. The trip distribution pattern for project-generated traffic was developed based on existing traffic patterns and available roadways, the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional arterial and freeway system. The trip distribution has been reviewed and approved by the City traffic engineer. As illustrated on Exhibit 4-A, 30 percent traffic will utilize the westerly project access point, and 70 percent will use the easterly access point. About 50% of the total project traffic will travel west along 'Railroad Canyon Road towards the interchange with 16% traveling on the 1-15 Freeway northbound, 27% on the 1-15 Freeway southbound towards the Bundy Canyon Road Interchange, and 11% traveling on the 1-15 Freeway southbound towards destinations south of Bundy Canyon Road. Approximately 32% will travel along Holland Road to the northeast and 12% , will travel along Railroad Canyon Road towards the east. Sensitivity analysis (presented later in the report) examines potential project impacts if some trips are distributed to the dirt roads south of the proposed project (Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road). Exhibit 4-13 illustrates the Long Range General Plan trip distribution pattern. The Lake Elsinore Traffic Model (LETM) was used to develop the project 4-4 EXHIBIT 4-A INTERIM YEAR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION o � tea. 5 �0 12 C` 6 50 V�P•� 36 30 r;::::::::::::..... ::::. 1:::.:::::� p- �NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. S� LEMON S ORANGE ST. —CHERRY ST. 10 BUNDY CANYON R 3 O z -q io m s�9O� LEGEND: 10=PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside CounV,California-03129:12-7-05\ 04 URBAN sa 4-5 EXHIBIT 4-B LONG RANGE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION f a � J �0 12 i 6 p pis 7) i h� 18 9 44 77 VMV RD. % �NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. �\ s � � /��AKEVIEW pR. 4 �1 4t*19 8 ORANGE ST. 16 9 CHERRY ST. 4 4 BUNDY CANYON R 6 Z O z -+ m S� e LEGEND: 10=PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside Count/ California-03129.12-7-05\ 03 URBAN 4-6 distribution pattern. The primary difference between the Interim Year and Long Range trip distributions is the expected completion of Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road south of the project site consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element. As illustrated on Exhibit 4-B, about 18% of the project traffic will travel west along Railroad Canyon Road towards the interchange with 10% traveling on the 1-15 Freeway northbound. A total of 10% traffic will travel on the 1-15 Freeway southbound through Bundy Canyon Road interchange. About 12% of traffic will travel along Railroad Canyon Road towards the east. A total of 28% of traffic will travel along Lost Road to the west with 17% towards Bundy Canyon Road. Approximately 19% will travel along Holland Road to the northeast and 17% of traffic will travel along Cottonwood Canyon Road. 3. Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system under Interim Year conditions has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, proposed arterial highway and the existing local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, the Interim Year project ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-C. The Interim Year project only AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-D and 4-E, respectively. The General Plan (Long Range) analysis based on the City General Plan Circulation Element roadway system. The Long Range General Plan project ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-F. The Long Range project only AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-G and 4-H, respectively. 4-7 EXHIBIT 4-C INTERIM YEAR PROJECT ONLY - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) N \� O o a p 0.7 O I NOM Qy NOM O 1 1 1 � O 7 LP ?0 !s i Oyu 09 '• i 7 : firro .:. J' j NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. i KEV1Ew OR• � SA, LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. 0.2 0.1 0.1CHERRY ST. 0.3 0.2 BUNDY CANYON RD 0.2 O z -I m i s� •9op LEGEND: 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) NOM=NOMINAL,LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129. 07 URBAN 4-R EXHIBIT 4-D INTERIM YEAR PROJECT ONLY o�o zo r A AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES oy r o s oo� o o„o o� �y 6 LP C,y �p•� i O'9s�y RpIIROAD yQ�s �0%' 0 i i I �57 f_04 0-jT... . 9, i...�::::.:. COTTO RD Dory L� ;o: NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. lf-0 r I/ D S� �O LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. 000 0 CHERRY ST.ST. 000 BLINDY CANYON 0; O z -1 m co— S J L ;o �6 �o 6� 1p! CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 05 URBAN �aossaoA s 4-9 EXHIBIT 4-E INTERIM YEAR PROJECT ONLY j to ooN �,00 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ow OR, ���tio t �°o O� LP Al OLM �`ri RAILROAD YOyy'! �O��P�O�� V rn 317 i-03 71 j ------_..... NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. f 0 �s ;00 �oo U� �i 11 1 AKEv1Ew OR �, LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. k_0 coo f0 ---CHERRY ST. � � 1 . 0 0- �t� BUNDY CANYON 0___* O z m rq J L f—o 90� —0 20 ' a� (� 'i Oc CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 06 URBAN 4-10 EXHIBIT 4-F LONG RANGE PROJECT ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) N \O ?off' 0.5 9 j 0O a 0.2 \l NOM I NOM 1 1 \ p y02J CrE I O 7L �- b CgNy pVp \ Oyu�4i 0 6 7� .. i A ::.. l �+ V �' / lid:isr':•i:?�`....................�::::.I •w�. =r� q_N_YOIV RD. / NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. l\ � lW�R• �o I 1.AKE Ev 0.1 1� 0.3 S~ o LO LEMON ST. 0.4 0.9 ORANGE ST. 0 0.3 CHERRY ST. 0.1 0.4 BUNDY CANYON RD 0.2 0.2 O z -i m i s�9O� LEGEND: 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) NOM=NOMINAL, LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County, California-03129: 63 URBAN ossaa.. d-11 EXHIBIT 4-G LONG RANGE PROTECT ONLY e AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ONO `0 r2° r 0 Q O� 61 p �� Opp• ,Lgo oa CqN �p.�i Oo 1 :. rd �p —22 // NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. 7 DR• 1 �O LEMON ST. —ORANGE ST. S ---CHERRY 5T. „1 1, f-o 2 oy BUNDY CANYON ONO 3 O Z m i S 0o ,«-7 �y e _1 IG 18 ___26 0-► 0 2� 2 CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129: 64 URBAN �aoss�o,. 4-12 EXHIBIT 4-H LONG RANGE PROJECT ONLY _zoo ooN PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES °_j f L �- r °y r O-� oo� ONo n�O O� o� �_1Z vP 18 09s�'L RAILROA ti��s O i a s ti �, I::�.::::::•::•::::.:::;:;•::;;•::;•:::•:::I Iry vA ti , ,;.. , goo iTE>::>:::..>.::.;:>. o ��'-'YON RD. �o �1f 4 / KEv1Ew DRN AVAJO SPRINGS RD. 19 0o 20-i tA �\ I 1— m SA, �.O LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. LnLn0 _0 ----CHERRY ST. � iLf-0 BUNDY CANYON 0� o000 O Z m i s� .J L f-12 9�4, �16 8 ' 0� `� ° 8 oN 11 CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County, California-03129: 65 URBAN onc>s_ 4-13 B. Interim Year Cumulative Development Traffic 1. Method of Projection To assess Interim Year traffic conditions, project traffic is combined with existing traffic, areawide background growth and other development projects nearby the study area. Projects which have been included as cumulative development in this study are illustrated on Exhibit 4-I. The cumulative projects which have been approved or are being processed concurrently with this project and will/may be constructed by 2010 are: • Pardee Homes Residential Development • PA4 General Commercial Development • PA3 Neighborhood Commercial Development • John Laing Homes • Mission Trail II • Back Basin (Phase 1 and Phase 2) • Tuscany Hills • Elsinore City Center Condos • TR 29032 • TR 30114 • TR 29400 • TT 29513 • TR 31345 • TR 32785 • PP 18751 • PP 18773 • PP 19918 • PP 20240 • Lake View Villas • KB Homes • Ramsgate Specific Plan (TT 25473) 4-14 EXHIBIT 4-1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LOCATION MAP © o o� �P '9J�2 RAILROAD O y/<<3` O .r0, i gyp• �, / OO ,:....:::ti.`i COTT z;:;;;:;;::a / NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. t\ SEW RR' i�pKEV 1 © O=TR 29032 LEMON ST. TR 30114 ORANGE ST. 1 Q = 11 =TR 29400 I 16 14 —CHERRY ST. =TT 29513 BUNDY CANYON RD. 13 =TR 31345 0 z LEGEND: 14 =TR32785 PA21A,PA21 B,PA22 AND PA24 15 =PP 18751 iJ A TOTAL OF 502 SINGLE FAMILY pl 1 Q 9 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 16 =PP 18773 11 100 (PARDEE HOMES) — 19 O=PA4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL —PP 19918 DEVELOPMENT O=PA3 HEIGHBORHOOD 1$ =PP 20240 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ®=JOHN LAING HOMES 19 =LAKE VIEW VILLAS O=MISSION TRAIL 11 =KB HOMES ©= BACK BASIN (PHASE 1&11) =RAMSGATE SP (TT 25473) O=TUSCANY HILLS ®=ELSINORE CITY CENTER CONDOS CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 08 URBAN ca RBA 4-15 2. Interim Year Cumulative Traffic for Study Area Table 4-3 indicates the trip generation rates for the cumulative projects based on the latest version (7t" Edition) of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 4-4 shows the land use types and the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the cumulative projects for the study area. As indicated, a total of 21 cumulative projects are projected to generate a total of approximately 73,881 trip-ends per day with 5,368 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 7,534 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The exhibits of the detailed directional distributions for each cumulative project are included in Appendix C. The distributions for the cumulative projects are generated based on surrounding traffic patterns and land uses and previously published traffic impact studies by Urban Crossroads, Inc. The total cumulative project volumes are generated based on the trip generations and distributions described above. The total cumulative development ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-J. Total cumulative development AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-K and 4-L, respectively. 3. Interim Year Without and With Proiect Total Traffic The traffic growth anticipated for the development of all cumulative projects in the study area is described above. In addition, 1 percent annual background growth has been applied to the existing traffic volumes to account for additional development outside the study area for interim year conditions, based on direction from City staff. Exhibit 4-M shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for Interim Year Without Project traffic conditions. Exhibit 4-N shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for Interim Year With Project traffic conditions. 4-16 TABLE 4-3 CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES' PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES ITE AM PM LAND USE CODE UNITS' IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Single Family Residential 210 DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 9.57 Commercial Retail 50 TSF 820 TSF 1.26 0.81 2.07 3.8 4.12 7.92 86.56 Commercial Retail 85.1 TSF 820 TSF 1.02 0.65 1.67 3.17 3.44 6.61 71.86 General Light Industrial 110 AC 6.23 1.28 7.51 1.60 5.66 7.26 51.8 Multi-Family Attached Residential 220 DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.72 Neighborhood Park 412 AC 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 2.28 Regional Park 417 AC 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.2 4.57 Golf Course 430 HOLE 1.75 0.47 2.22 1.21 1.53 2.74 35.74 Restaurant 932 TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.66 4.26 10.92 127.15 Commercial Retail 250 TSF 820 TSF 1 0.66 1 0.42 1.08 2.20 2.38 4.58 49.28 1 Source: ITE(Institute of Transportation Engineers)Trip Generation Manual,7th Edition,2003. 2 DU=dwelling units;AC=Acres;TSF=Thousand Square Feet U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls]T 4-3 4-17 TABLE 4-4 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION PEAK HOUR AM PM TAZ PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY' IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Pardee Homes Residential Single-Family Residential 502 SFDR2 95 281 376 321 186 507 4,804 Development Commercial Retail 50 Retail 63 41 104 190 206 396 4,328 2 General Commercial -"Pass-By"Trips(25%) -16 -10 -26 -48 -52 -99 -1,082 Development SUBTOTAL 47 31 78 143 155 297 3,246 Commercial Retail 85.1 Retail 87 55 142 270 293 563 6,115 3 Neighborhood Commercial "Pass-By"Trips(25%) -22 -14 -36 -68 -73 -141 -1,529 Development SUBTOTAL 65 41 107 203 1 220 422 4,586 Single-Family Residential 929 DU 177 520 697 595 344 939 8,891 Multi-Family Residential 308 DU 31 126 157 123 68 191 2,070 Golf Course 18 HOLE 32 8 40 22 28 50 643 4 John Laing Homes Single-Family Residential 387 DU 74 217 291 248 143 391 3,704 Elementary School 800 STU 184 152 336 24 48 72 1,032 Neighborhood Park 5 AC - - - - - - 11 SUBTOTAL 498 1023 1521 1012 631 1643 16,351 5 East Lake Specific Plan General Light Industrial 89 AC 554 114 668 142 504 646 4,610 Mission Trails II) 6 Back Basin(Phase I& Residential 1,210 DU 175 581 756 627 362 989 10,208 Phase II 7 Tuscany Hills Single-Family Residential 868 DU 165 486 651 556 321 877 8,307 8 Elsinore City Center Multi-Family Residential 144 DU 14 59 73 58 32 90 968 Condos 9 Tentative Tract 29032 Single-Family Residential 148 DU 28 83 111 95 55 150 1,416 10 Tentative Tract 30114 Multi-Family Residential 40 DU 4 16 20 16 9 25 269 11 Tentative Tract 29400 Single-Family Residential 18 DU 3 10 13 12 7 1 19 172 12 Tentative Tract 29513 Single-Family Residential 98 DU 19 55 74 63 36 99 938 13 Tentative Tract 31345 Single-Family Residential 53 DU 10 30 40 34 20 54 507 14 Tentative Tract 32785 Single-Family Residential 101 DU 19 57 76 65 37 102 967 15 PP18751 Restaurant 7 TSF 42 39 81 47 30 77 890 16 PP18773 Multi-Family Residential 96 DU 10 39 49 38 21 59 645 17 PP19918 General Light Industrial 6 AC 37 8 45 10 34 44 311 Commercial Retail 250 TSF 165 1 105 270 550 595 1145 12,320 18 PP20240 -"Pass-By"Trips(25%) 3 -41 -26 -68 -138 -149 -286 -32080 SUBTOTAL 124 79 203 413 446 859 9,240 19 Lake View Condos Single-Family Residential 155 1 DU 29 87 116 99 57 156 1,483 20 KB Homes Single-Family Residential 250 DU 48 140 188 160 93 253 2,393 21 Ramsgate SP(TR 25473) Sin le-Famil Residential 164 1 DU 31 92 123 105 61 166 1 569 TOTAL 2,017 3,351 5,368 4,217 3,316 7,534 73,881 DU=dwelling units;AC=Acres;TSF=Thousand Square Feet;STU=Student TSF=Thousand Square Feet 2 SFDR=Single Family Detached Residential 3 "Pass-By'reduction has been used to account for traffic that will access the site as intermediate stop on the way to the primary destination. Pass-by rate used in lake Elsinore and other Riverside County jurisdictions is a standard 25%,although pass-by traffic can account for over half the traffic at smaller retail centers. U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls]T 4-4 4-18 EXHIBIT 4-J INTERIM YEAR CUMULATIVE ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) i 14.1 rn \ n S0 ?.6 r, 10.2 ! Sl I p�Q 11.8 I O' 3.0 u O> 1 \ v V O 3,g GP �- CgNy RAILROAD /�� O I f :-- ..t::.a:::`:`a COTTp2 i 9A h: i:•:iii { \Op J ::.';i ��NYON Rn NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. i\ j SEW DR � ,AKEV 2.3 1.6 � n OS o LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. 2.6 9.2 2.3CHERRY ST. 11.2 I 8.2 BUNDY CANYON RD �3.3 3.7 Z m i LEGEND: 10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 41 URBAN ossHOAos 4-19 EXHIBIT 4-K CUMULATIVE ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Sr Z4 3IN, L� ro �Jiy RAILROAD �i��s ��� O® r h�d 0 1 .......... -:fir�:° 71 tTG:: ::;;:':::;:; 2 �r J i�::" r;`j'. 4J :A ��q ^� �62 o00 —0 j/ NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. �\ 16 f 032 s i L f-0 -4 I R, I S~ LEMON ST. ---ORANGE ST. 000 —45 —CHERRY ST. J + L f—o 0 0 23— }0 BUNDY CANYON � O z m b s� oo� � .� L 162 q4� �161 328 131 396—� 241-► t� N N I CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129. 18 URBAN 4-20 EXHIBIT 4-L CUMULATIVE ONLY zo8 w� k_A 5 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ic-3S y �► 19� /►MIN 0 1 0� � 1✓� a'x'p �3L0'I O ��i ro ), ;Jwo ,r p, LP i ��`ri RAiI.ROP`D y/! `�•�� O / ---.... - j0 v6, t y Z ,ri'J.t ` COTI i �00 t::;; ::Y ::';:>:;::::� �o ..........g ::, r. `:,•;� `cgM'ON RD. (000 �197 ooa �O NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. 54�! �010 s .� �. �0 // 1 73,6 .! I DF" coo o—i i SA, LEMON ST. --ORANGE ST. 000 0 —CHERRY ST. L i-02 0 BUNDY CANYON ` -i Co `r O Z m G Ln -4 xrj roc- f �893 94�, �3470 396-i 332—J -r Darn �t 'r CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 19 URBAN 4-21 EXHIBIT 4-M INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) i 53.6 N \ 7)� 37.8 (,4 37.3 1 j y�0 43.4 b 724 S� 77,g N ' .9 �qN s Y � 02 i RAtLROpR S i 0.2 i 1 �O \e T 7 NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. y- � N pR. a� ��` 17.0 I S� 17.1 06 LEMON ST. .7 1.9 —ORANGE ST. M 9.0\ 33.0 7.9CHERRY ST. 35.4 30.2 BLI Y CANYON RD 11.7 ~11.2 00 z m 4- LEGEND: 10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129. 42 URBAN 4-22 EXHIBIT 4-N INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT -m AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 54.9 nn N i .4 39.4 (9 37.4 T, 44.1 S ,f, H 1 \ w 40 1 I �hy0 .6 �yQ� �°��• i l °yam y y 77s d ��2•l 0.9 1 J} I Xi* ��gNyON RD --_----- NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. I\ 1EW DR' v' CAKtrV 17.0 1 17.1 � N SOS p.6 LEMON ST. 7 1.9 ORANGE ST. i 9.3 �933.1 CHERRY ST. 8035.70.4 BUNDY CANYON RD 11.09 11.8 Z m s� 9O� LEGEND: 10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) CANYON HILLS ESTATE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 43 URBAN 4-23 The land uses within the primary model analysis area are primarily known tentative tract developments with a few unknown areas represented by the original General Plan land use data. Table 4-5 presents a summary and comparison of the land use data for the primary study area. The data in the TAZ containing the project site has been adjusted to maintain the same total dwelling unit count, while reflecting the existing and proposed project mix of single family and multi-family dwelling units. As indicated in the above tables, the land use data in the Currently Adopted Post 2025 General Plan database represent substantially higher land use intensities (particularly for residential development and general commercial) compared to the actual proposed development in the area considered. The Post 2025 scenario evaluated in this study includes all known cumulative projects previously identified on Table 4-4. The roadway functional classifications based on the LETM Post 2025 General Plan model are also illustrated on Exhibit 4-0. As illustrated, the General Plan Buildout network within the model study area has been replaced with the proposed deletion of segments of Rosetta Canyon Drive (formerly Ramsgate Drive), Wasson Canyon Road, and portions of Malaga Road. These roadways have been effectively precluded from future construction by recently approved development projects This vv approved �.+Iv 111VI It projects. ! I1 approach eliminates roadways that would be difficult or impossible to build due to environmental or other constraints and provides the basis for a conservative worst case analysis. This is also consistent with the recommendations of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update traffic study. The City proposed Camino Del Norte Extension Roadway Network is also included. The proposed John Laing homes and Back Basin roadway network features have also been incorporated. Although these roadway improvements are included in the long range model per City direction, no project traffic is expected to use these roadways. Table 4-6 summarized the funding source for all roadway improvements in the study area included in the traffic model. The primary funding sources for study area roadway improvements include the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) program and the countywide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. 4-26 TABLE 4-5 ANALYSIS AREA OVERALL SUMMARY LAND USE DATA COMPARISON UPDATED POST 2025 GP MODEL CURRENTLY ADOPTED GP MODEL 2025 MODEL 2000 MODEL LAND USE CATEGORY' DU TSF I STU I AC DU I TSF STU AC DU I TSF STU AC DU TSF STU AC Project Zone•Trumark Canyon Hills SP Residential Development Single-Family Residential 726 1 3181 175 73 Multi-Family Attached 252 '11 11 162 Sin le-Famil Residential-Rural 59 708 399 59 School 1 78 1,037 1,0371 585 294 78 Rams ate SP Primary Model Area Single FamilyDetached 6,413 8,8441 7,686 870 Single Family Detached-Rural 74 291 284 12 Mobile Home 54 Multifamily/Apartment 1,746 1018 1018 Light Industrial 92 Industrial 22 22 14 34 Freeway Business 970 3,206 1,511 0 Commercial Office 8581 547 1 1 533 24 Neighborhood Commercial 510 510 390 0 Tourist Commercial 0 General Commercial 588 1,812 1,412 26 School 600 11,682 5,544 Public and Institutional Water 27 27 27 Recreation 42 155 155 10 8,233 2,948 600 69 10,153 6,097 11,682 182 8,9881 3,8601 5,544 182 936 176 1 10 Back Basin SP Primary Model Area Single Family Housing 4,355 3,6341 1,881 1,241 Single Family Housing, -Rural 146 146 82 Multi-Family Housing 2,126 3,047 2,317 916 Industrial/Business Park 1,063 1,063 650 118 Commerical Office 0 14 Tourist Commercial 0 221 General Commercial 5,735 6,882 5,066 926 School 840 840 6 318 Public and instutional 775 775 633 53 Stadium 4 4 4 4 6,6271 7,5731 8401 4 6,827 8,720 01 4 4,2801 6,3491 8401 4 2,1571 1,3321 6,318 4 Canyon Hills Specific Plan Area Single-Family Residential 682 681 334 Multi-Family Residential 272 109 53 12 School 17 111 11 Single-Family Residential 503 496 243 Multi-Family Residential 22 11 School 11 Single-Family Residential 974 1,057 518 210 School 12 11 11 Single-Family Residential 20 10 Multi-Family Residential 168 24 Multi-Family Residential 802 758 371 General Commerical 50 151 103 Multi-Family Residential 216 194 95 Neighborhood Commercial 85 405 282 Single-Family Residential 253 374 183 Multi-Family Residential 564 276 School 401 1 11 Nei hborhood Commercial 62 1 3 3,870 135 1 69 4,275 618 0 33 2,0941 428 33 246 TOTAL 19,767 10,656 1,440 142 22,292 15,435 11,682 219 15,947 10,637 6,384 219 3,633 1,508 6,318 92 DU=dwelling units;AC=Acres;TSF=Thousand Square Feet;STU=Student U:\UCJobs\_03100-03500\03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xis]T 4-5 4-27 V :2 :L N d M N N N K .O Z .00C C f00 N N d a?v a O LL > > O!� n 0 0 (L O C m T c y y C)U N C O W d 3 N N N Oi Ol N O > C C L E J m N N O•N y Y N E ° O V Wit.. d LL C ,E N O « 15 m -2u o a a01i 02 L� n; o o i a a'p a a C.° E � ° c� o3 w � O W z ao 7s 7s 7s 7�y 2 7s 7s N N 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7S h a OOO O O O NO N N O O O OOO OOO O 000 W ZZZ Z z SF zz T T Z Z ZZZ ZZZ ZZ Z Z Z Z Z c Z =Z c c Z Z zlz N Y Y Z Y Y Y ry N Y Y U :DD 7 D S _ _ Z) 7 a 7 7 a OZ w a c w a p, co � w ❑c-o U _ v av•o Z LL LL LL LL 0 LL LL f- N W N cn lL N O > . y C= (DN O O O Z E ❑ d ❑❑❑ ❑is❑ d G- P \ \ LL LL LL LL LL _ __ F F N W W W UNW .2 N N N a) LL N =F- >O c c c c m ❑ 2 ❑❑❑ 00 2 2 t0 m m m m •p O N = N N N m N N = < a. LL LL LL LL LL m Z O .�'L' Ly;.Z` O O LL LL 7 C > > > J C C J�, O ❑O O O LL lL LL_Z LL LL O LL m O O O U O O m m VEIN QI Q F- F-F- E- F- F- F- F- f- F- U 1- U U U U F- U U U U F-F- 0 C E O � o. U E E `o c o m o m O dE m - J X C E U U o N K 10 ° $ o Z U O d W Z m O O 3 y .N H y - (7 = LL O N m 2' O ` N > J N l0- J ❑ LL U ='O C C C O L 0 •NyN 0.omc ._o mo mc = O O U O uo`' 'oo oo• f>0 F-ce m) wK Uo E m o U m U o 0 o m o p z Oo o am Ecod v0 o ` cU° o 00 mo 0o m0 0 m m m m m m 0 0 m on ° m o � 2 0M m U z 0 c c 0 N COm � N t� m W uw Z c rn w 4 o rn a _ m W '�5 a N p U LL U L o W T d U E u ° H c = v m z U o 5 o n oM 'o w 'ovv v c c c c m'o� a m o W K aDa U0_m U�m_0mc Um_�cm Um_mc rGN= QoUcm oUQmC rnamN UNsm =+ vvA v 'd 0ayi c•� 'p��°o ca, cU U O0 �T o 0 O O O N ao 00 U o [c2 FUNua-o m cn ul c _ v m o3US it d> 0D0 O pN L 0 'm_ LLm O O j ❑ 66 -I m 2 jo�oo � U U z wm 4-28 3. Post 20251General Plan With Project Total Traffic A LETM model run was conducted for Post 2025 General Plan With Project conditions. The peak hour directional roadway segment volume forecasts have been determined using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Circular 255 (NCHRP-255) approach based on the City traffic model Post 2025 General Plan With Project peak hour volumes. The model output of peak hour intersection approach/ departure data is a necessary input to this approach. The interim year with project traffic volumes serve as the starting point for the refinement process, and also provides important insight into the travel patterns and the relationship between peak hour and daily traffic conditions. The initial turning movement proportions are estimated based upon the relationship of each approach leg's forecast traffic volume to the other legs forecast volumes at the intersection. The initial estimate of turning movement proportions is then entered into a spreadsheet program consistent with the NCHRP 255. A linear programming algorithm is used to calculate individual turning movements which match the known directional roadway segment volumes computed in the previous step. This program computes a likely set of intersection turning movements from intersection approach counts and the initial turning proportions from each approach leg. Appendix "E" includes the ADT and intersection turning volume post processing worksheets for the Post 2025 General Plan With Project Conditions. The final Post 2025 data has also been examined for reasonable flow conservation to ensure no loss of vehicle flows between closely spaced intersections with no intervening access points/driveways. Since the Railroad Canyon Road interchange is proposed to be improved/reconfigured by the City of Lake Elsinore under the auspices of 4-29 the Citywide Fee Program, the future traffic volumes have also been generated for the new interchange configuration based on a separate model run. Exhibit 4-P shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for Post 2025 General Plan With Project traffic conditions. Exhibit 4-Q illustrated the ADTs for the new Railroad Canyon interchange configuration. 4. Post 2025 General Plan Without Proiect Total Traffic The Post 2025 General Plan Without Project traffic volumes are generated by subtracting the project only volumes from the refined Post 2025 General Plan With Project traffic volumes. Exhibit 4-R shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for Post 2025 General Plan Without Project traffic conditions while Exhibit 4-S illustrated the Post 2025 General Plan Without Project ADTs for the proposed Railroad interchange configuration. In addition, traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted and the analysis indicates that traffic signals are warranted under Post 2025 General Plan without and with Project conditions at the following additional intersections: Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) Orange Street (NS) at: • Lemon Street (EW) 4-30 EXHIBIT 4-P POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 78.5 M \ 2 3 64.6 r9 52.5 � 77 �OQ 65.9 b zz.a � Ts w ., R�\ 1 � i i r ,•.. � RpIIROpO bb 34? O��j�` /''Oi 3310 i 0.2 3 .0 —a c:' rii:;r':;:•i.�.�.;i:i• •:is•i:i:;:,i,� ry / NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. f I SEW OR• 4AK�V 46.4 68.0 5 N 21.7 06 LEMON ST. 29.8 ORANGE ST. 13.4\ 59.0 125HERRYST. 55.1 54.7 BUNDY CANYON RD -19.5 � 22.9 Z m i 9O� LEGEND: 10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) i CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County California-03129: 48 URBAN osBAN 4-31 EXHIBIT 4-Q POST 2025 GENERAL (PLAN WITH PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) D � w O c m Z m -i r � c v r TURN TURN 77 v N � N ONLY �� L97 ONLY 61.8 67.1 RAILROAD 52.8 CANYON RD. 74.0 68.7 o� m Ln `n D z G O z v D z m m Ln NOT TO SCALE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County, California-03129. 47 UFMAN 4-32 EXHIBIT 4-R POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) i 78.2 m \ 27?52.4 64.1 C,9 � 65.7 o ��? cp b^ ' zz.s �O(o P� ILROAD b�D 33�rp�'Sj i Yip RA `p 0.2 � �� t�:�c:�;;�..t::.�:..'�;•:7 LOTTO 2iI1.e,i v:::iii::•i:.'w' Xc?:ii:r:• --- ��2 r�( ••i It �NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. lAK 46.2 ,167.7 N 21\.3 0S 1 06 LEMON ST. 28.8 ORANGE ST. 13.4 58.7 HERRY ST. 54.9 54.3 BUNDY CANYON RD �-19.3 � 22.7 Z -.I m i sT 9O� LEGEND: 10.0=VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) :ANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County, California-03129: 46 URBAN ossaoAos 4-33 EXHIBIT 4-S POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT I-IS AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AVERAGE AILY TRAFFIC (AD ) n � m Z m m � 2 N N N TVNN ` TURN m ONLY �• Lo ONLY y 61.7 67.0 RAILROAD 52.7 CANYON RD. 73.7 68.2 N LD M Vi T r) N_ Z O G) o D m m Ln NOT'I O SCALE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County, California-03129: 49 URBAN ossaoA�s 4-34 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A. Site Access One of the project access points is located at the west border of the property to Lost Road via Navajo Springs Road. Another access point is located at the east border of the property to Cottonwood Canyon Road. There is also an emergency access point designated at the south-east border of the project site. The emergency access would be controlled by a gate that can only be opened by emergency personnel. Under typical daily conditions, no vehicular access to Turtle Creek Road would be available to the residents of the proposed project. B. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis 1. Level of Service for Interim Year Without Proiect Interim Year Without Project intersection levels of service for the existing roadway network with other developments and areawide growth are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 also shows HCM calculations based on the required improvements at the intersections. Interim Year Without Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-A and 5-13, respectively. As indicated in Table 5-1, the following intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" and will require improvements: 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: • Diamond Drive (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) 5-1 TABLE 5.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT (EXISTING+AMBIENT GROWTH+CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITION) INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R I L T R L T R AM PM I AM PM Diamond Dr.(NS)at: Mission Tr.(EW) TS' 1 2 6 16 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 40.6 48.2 1 D D Casino Dr.(EW) TS' 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 23.1 25.2 C C 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Diamond Dr.(EW) without improvements TS' 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 -^ F F with improvements TS' 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 28.8 48.2 C D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS' 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 -" -° F F with improvements TS' 1 0.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 2 25.1 1 30.81 C C Summerhill Dr.(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TSS 2 2 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 1 3 0 -" 2 F F with improvements TSS 2 26 1>6 1 1 1>> 2 3 1> 1 3 0 39.3 45.2 D D Orange St.(NS)at: •Lemon St.(EW) AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.9 8.9 A A 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: • Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 46.0 1 48.4 D D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 45.5 74.3 D E with improvements TS 1.5 1 1.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 27.2 30.5 C C Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) TS6 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 51.2 40.2 D D Lost Rd. EW TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 27.5 20.2 C C Lost Rd.(NS)at: •Navajo Springs Road EW CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.7 8.5 A A Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: Project Easterly Access(EW) Intersection does not exist Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 31.1 65.7 DJFwith im rovements CSS Traffic si nal is not warranted. Deficienc onl occurs on minor road.No other im rovements can rovide acce table LOS. 31,1 65.7 D ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;»=Free Right Turn ' Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffiz,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. ' TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS All Way Stop ° •- =Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service"F". s Intersections are analyzed with minimum green time calculated based on the latest MUTCD pedestrian crossing time. s Pedestrians may not be accomodated by every cycle. UAUcJobs\_03100-035001_03100\031291E.ell(03129-08..IsIT 5.1 5-2 EXHIBIT 5-A INTERIM YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT �N z83 0 r� 6 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES z 3 2� i� s y �► r 84 no 70a rS9 3s acp 3ti `'ha O� a3� CgNyOy ��0�0�� O9•t�2 RA11 vkOAD i O l f 4- L2g6 \ � �66 // NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. 359 �s ,� - �24 f 9 166--4 6 4 I DR 4 1� �► 3-► � AKgV1Ew 1 76—� o / SA, �O LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. n1Oi.-v +-646 CHERRY ST. 477- BUNDY CANYON 23—� `V `- O Z 1 m G o N l`!J. moN — .� �. f-4129 94� �922 808 755—� 680- t cn �- CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 21 URBAN oss�o,. 5-3 EXHIBIT 5-B INTERIM YEAR !WITHOUT PROJECT ao PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES NON ! 164 N a, 1035 R 9 11�•� � r/� 776� �'�n s dos Al 6a$ CqN 1 vp RAILROAD YO�yi� �O__r / al o , �:.�;•:::;:SATE::;:;;:;::::::;;.::; �o 50 / NAVAJO SPRINGS RD, �\ 1 7 /' 58� f f �AKEv�E`N°R i cno� 1n1-, t r-. S~ LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. r. �. '-36 .J —672 CHERRY ST. f- 710— BUNDY CANYON 55-* v �- O Z m b o L �1351 9® -321 -� 880 836-► 712-- 986� f rr o CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 20 URBAN � nos 5-4 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) As also indicated in Table 5-1, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the required improvements except the intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road. Interim Year Without Project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "F". The intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road does not warrant a traffic signal under Interim Year Without Project conditions. No other physical improvements will provide LOS "D" operations for the minor street movements. However, the major street movements at the intersection experience LOS "A" operations. 2. Level of Service for Interim Year With Project Interim Year With Project intersection levels of service for the existing network and with other development and areawide growth are shown in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 also shows HCM calculations based on the required improvements at the intersections. Interim Year With Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-C and 5-D, respectively. The HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "G". Compared to Interim Year Without Project conditions, no additional intersections operate at LOS "E" or "F" with existing roadway geometric (lane) conditions. 5-5 TABLE 5-2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (EXISTING+AMBIENT GROWTH+PROJECT+CUMULATIVE PROJECTS CONDITION) INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY 2 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND CE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R J L T R L T R AM EI PM AMRVIPM Diamond Dr.(NS)at: Mission Tr,(EW) TS' 1 26 16 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 40.6 48.3 D D Casino Dr.(EW) TS' 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 23.1 25.2 C C 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Diamond Dr.(EW) without improvements TS' 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 _4 _4 F F with improvements TS' 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 33.6 50.5 C D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS' 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 -4 -4 F F with improvements TS' 0.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 2 25.4 32.3 C C Summerhill Dr.(NS)at: - - Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS' 2 2 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 1 3 0 -4 -4 F F with improvements TS' 2 26 1>6 1 1 1>> 2 3 1> 1 3 0 40.1 46.2 D D Orange St.(NS)at: •Lemon St. EW AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.9 8.9 A A 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at • Bundy Cyn Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 49.0 51.0 D D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 47.1 75.2 D E with improvements TS 1.5 1 1.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 27.1 1 30.7 1 C C Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) TS' 2 1' 0 1 16 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 36.3 34.2 D C Lost Rd. EW TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 28.6 20.6 C C Lost Rd.(NS)at: • Navajo Springs Road EW CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.9 8.7 A A Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: Project Easterly Access(EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9.6 9.7 A A Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 31.1 65.7 D F with improvements CSS Traffic signal is not warranted. Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements can be provided. 31.1 65.7 D F ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L= Left;T=Through;R= Right;»=Free Right Turn ` Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are showm. ' TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS =All Way Stop ° - =Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service"F". ° Intersections are analyzed with minimum green time calculated based on the latest MUTCD pedestrian crossing time. e Pedestrians may not be accomodated by every cycle U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excel\[03129-08.xls)T 5-2 5-6 EXHIBIT 5-C INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT �y �-83 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES b _/ `y —65 ,A 3 '�1A6 2 N b tiv g5�g� hJ � ti�`o� gyp• 3y i� �s �0 p3� Q� G p`9s�2 RA1LROp`D �j�`s ��%' i 3 �-04 oh �ti�o gNYON RD. L3$2 \ °ro �66 NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. i\ 6�! 42- � r - 43� If� AK�vI6w �j he h 76-� o / �pS LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. —646 —CHERRY ST. 477� BUNDY CANYON 9 23-i N O z m N Ln MON t J L �--41029 9��, �922 808 346-1 (` 761-� 691— rn`-� a CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 22 URBAN ossaoA 5-7 EXHIBIT 5-D INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT M PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 8 94 � �1V 4112 � 79 s'a�s � 610 � s✓i��/tip^ � � �'0 6 s kp ^�yC'o P� o L O• �sj20 RpILR®Afl y/��S ��i� �✓�339 0LM �-33 c� 09 v is 1=:::;:•:;:;' 't ..... 7-COTT\2 ::::. 1 �O �574 :`AO -_50 // NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. 262-1 ..� d L f-19 // \, q roams 158 i ? (' �,/i�RK w OR S��p LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. roN �-36 72 —CHERRY ST. Lf-9 322 710 � BUNDY CANYON '- O Z m 0 0o it J L f-2821 9p� �880 836-+ 732-� 993- t r•. o CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County California•03129. 23 URBAN 5-8 As indicated in Table 5-2 for Interim Year With Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed except the intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road. The intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road does not warrant a traffic signal under Interim Year With Project conditions. No other physical improvements will provide LOS "D" operations for the minor street movements. However, the major street movements at the intersection experience LOS "A" operations. It is therefore recommended that traffic volumes at this location be monitored, and a traffic signal should be installed when it is warranted. For Interim Year With Project conditions, the project contributes no traffic to this location. Compared to Interim Year Without Project conditions, no additional improvements are required for Interim Year With Project conditions. 3. Level of Service for Post 2025 General Plan Without Project Condition Post 2025 General Plan Without Project intersection levels of service for the existing network are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 also shows HCM calculations based on the required improvements at the study area intersections. Post 2025 General Plan Without Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-E and 5-F, respectively. Furthermore, Exhibits 5-G and 5-H illustrate the 1-15 and Railroad Canyon Road Interchange (improved) AM and PM peak hour volumes. As indicated in Table 5-3, all intersections will operate at LOS "E" or "F" under existing roadway network conditions. As also shown in Table 5-3, the study area intersections for Post 2025 General Plan Without Project 5-9 TABLE 5.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUNDSECE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AME I PM AMRVI PM Diamond Dr.(NS)at: Mission Tr.(EW) without improvements TS' 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 F F with improvements TS' 1 3 6 1 6 1-5 2_5 1» 2_5 2_5 1 1 2 1>> 36.6 47.3 D D Casino Dr.(EW) without improvements TS' 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 -" -° F F with improvements TS' 2 3 6 1 6 2 36 1 6 2 26 1»e 2 26 1>>6 33.7 48.1 C D 1.15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Diamond Dr.(EW) without improvements TS' 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 ." -° F F -with improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 3 0 0.0 0.0 A A 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) •without improvements TS' 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 --" -° F F with improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0.0 0.0 A A Summerhill Dr.(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS' 2 2 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 1 3 0 -° ° F F with improvements TS 2 3 6 1>>6 2 1 6 1>>e 2 46 1>6 1 4 6 1>6 30.8 53.1 C D Orange St.(NS)at: •Lemon St.(EW) without improvements AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -° -° F F - withimprovements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 30.2 148.01 C D 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn.Rd.(EW) without improvements TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 80.9 ° F F -with improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 28.0 40.6 C D with improvements(Alternative 2) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 3 0 25.0 38.9 C D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 -° F F with improvements TS 2 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 40.0 42.2 D D Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS' 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 79.5 -° E F with improvements TS 2 1 6 1>>6 1 26 1>6 1 3 6 1 6 2 36 1 6 33.5 51.1 C D Lost Rd.(EW) -without improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -° F F -with improvements TS 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 0.5 1.5 1 1 0 35.4 51.0 D D Lost Rd.(NS)at: •Navajo Springs Road(EW) without improvements CSS 0 1 G I 0.5 GS G j 0 it 0 I 0 1 U 26.4 79.3I D I F with improvements CSS Traffic signal is not warranted.Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements can provide acce table LOS.1 26.4 179.3 D I F Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: Project Easterly Access(EW) Intersection does not exist Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -" -° F F with improvements TS 1 1 1>> 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 25.7 47.4 C D ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;»=Free Right Turn 2 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 3 TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS =Ali Way Stop ° - =Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service-F'. ° Intersections are analyzed with minimum green time calculated based on the latest MUTCD pedestrian crossing time. s Pedestrians may not be accomodated by every cycle LIAUciobs\03100-03500\_03100\03129\Excee103129-08.x1s]T 5-3 5-10 EXHIBIT 5-E POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT _ 2212 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES w �209 56 � 173 23g� 279, 0) 0 0 �o�o �O ti Q� C Q,O•�� �J j2 RAILROAD S � OO f`r 1p SITE . o �a::::: gNYpN RD. � � I ...`......:. Ate" -40 ���. �637 i� NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. t\ j ---35g �.r .� � 476 3 22� �g 6--' I t f- I VIEW DR' \ 46� 29179-* NON �i SAKE 1 vOS� LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. morn 4-111 —1740 —CHERRY ST. f-632 -�19 10244 BUNDY CANYON � z m i s 502 f-6291 �9��, �1515 810-► 346 740-* 875-► 00 0 o I� CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129: 50 URBAN 5-11 EXHIBIT 5-F POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT N z j�W M PEAL( HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 40� 1116,Z � 499 3,Z N~ "116t,110 ti9$6�, �J`s� u� o��,�/` tea• �616? s���� L �Q))�* LP O• �O '.; SITE::::.... ..::... °O Qlv � 'm ?� G_: :�:. ..•::::t:._: :::a�� �153 i '''^� __553 / NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. j S576 s �. -497 \ 5Z22�A �� �' I DF ��~ 'nrno;� 221~ m�r00. O /4AK�v16W \I N Ln 5~ �o LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. Ncn� �-170 --�--CHERRY ST. .� �. f-9463 2267-! r BUNDY CANYON O Z m m w- � LiJ mo- J L f-7900 9� �1994 1530 891-1 2050- L 4 n r, CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129. 51 URBAN 5-12 EXHIBIT 5-G POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION. VOLUMES 0 c ,l —2278 �1978 i N O 969-+ 1639 C n � m � I � m = v � v HIGH HIGH TURN TURN ONLY ONLY RAILROAD CANYON RD. c�v hm '--157 "' 000� �390 f-561 (�J_ �.- f--2244 290 18 386—f ?r L-- /� � 687 n D _N LA N N) O D v m Ln I � Fl oli NOT TO SCALE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129: 52 URBAN 5-13 EXHIBIT 5-H POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITHOUT PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES D �-2401 -1696 C -�-2102 00 3673 4028-�- � m L Z m m Imo = v � A r v HIGH !IGH TURN TURN ONLY ONLY RAILROAD CANYON RD. N NNo�o551 oNia {-677 .� v �. F-410 raN- -1792 - L f-154 320; o 4 1003-J 1086-i Ncoo-o - 2226 +- ID N 790 tA D Z O v D z m m ILA �I NOT TO SCALE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Riverside County,California-03129. 53 URBAN 5-14 traffic conditions are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-3 with the exception of the intersection of Lost Road (NS) at Navajo Springs Road (EW). The Post 2025 General Plan Without Project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "H". The intersection of Lost Road at Navajo Spring Road does not warrant a traffic signal. For Post 2025 the high major street traffic volumes will cause delays exceeding the City LOS standard, when Lost Road is constructed/upgraded according to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. No other physical improvements will provide LOS "D" operations for the minor street movements. However, the major street movements at the intersection experience LOS "A" operations. Adequate capacity for the minor street movements will be provided, even though minor street delays will exceed the City of Lake Elsinore LOS standard. The recommended improvements at the interchange of the 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road differ slightly compared to the previously recommended improvements included in the traffic study for the Back Basin project (Back Basin Traffic Phasing Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., June 25, 2005). The difference is caused by updated long range modeling assumptions regarding the extension of Malaga Road to Railroad Canyon Drive. Per the Pardee Canyon Hills Specific Plan data provided by City staff specifically for this current work effort, the connection of Malaga Road to Railroad Canyon Drive is no longer possible. This caused additional traffic previously using the Malaga Road interchange to access the 1-15 Freeway to the south to divert to the Bundy Canyon Road interchange. The same number of westbound lanes will provide acceptable levels of service, however the third westbound through lane should be converted at this intersection to provide a second westbound left turn lane. Alternately, the ultimate design at this location could provide two left turn lanes and three westbound through lanes, however, the isolated intersection operations analysis indicates that only two through lanes are required. 5-15 4. Level of Service for Post 2025 General Plan With Proiect Condition Post 2025 General Plan With Project intersection levels of service for the existing network are shown in Table 5-4. Table 5-4 also shows HCM calculations based on the required improvements at the study area intersections. Post 2025 General Plan With Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-1 and 5-J, respectively. Furthermore, Exhibits 5-K and 5-1- illustrate the 1-15 Freeway and Railroad Canyon Road Interchange (improved) AM and PM peak hour volumes based on a separate model run for the interchange improvements. As indicated in Table 5-4, all intersections will operate at LOS "E" or "F" under existing roadway network conditions except the intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at the Project Easterly Driveway (EW). As also shown in Table 5-4, the study area intersections for Post 2025 General Plan With Project traffic conditions are projected to operate at Level of r Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-4, except the intersection of Lost Road at Navajo Spring Road (the Westerly Driveway). The Post 2025 General Plan With Project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "I". Post 2025 General Plan With Project conditions include the same improvements as the Post 2025 General Plan Without Project conditions. The intersection of Lost Road at Navajo Spring Road does not warrant a traffic signal. For Post 2025 the high major street traffic volumes will cause delays exceeding the City LOS standard, when Lost Road is constructed/upgraded according to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. No other physical improvements will provide LOS "Y operations for the minor street movements. However, the major street movements at the intersection experience LOS "A" operations. Adequate capacity for the minor street movements will be provided, even though minor street delays will exceed the City of Lake Elsinore LOS standard. 5-16 TABLE 5-4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE FINTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM Diamond Dr.(NS)at: Mission Tr.(EW) -without improvements TS' 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 -- -- F F -with improvements TS' 1 36 16 2_5 L. 1» 2_5 2_5 1 1 2 1>> 36.6 51.3 D D • Casino Dr.(EW) without improvements TS' 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 --4 -° F F with improvements TS' 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1>> 2 2 1>> 33.7 48.2 C D 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Diamond Dr.(EW) without improvements TS' 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 --° -4 F F with improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 3 0 0.0 0.0 A A 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: • Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) -without improvements TS' 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 -4 -° F F with improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0.0 0.0 A A Summerhill Dr.(NS)at: Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) without improvements TS' 2 2 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 1 3 0 -° -° F F -with improvements TS 2 3 6 1»e 2 1 6 1>>6 2 46 1>6 1 46 1>6 30.8 53.8 C D Orange St.(NS)at: •Lemon St.(EW) - withoutimprovements AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -4 -4 F F - withimprovements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 30.5 52.9 C D 1-15 SB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn.Rd.(EW) -without improvements TS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 69.7 2 E F -with improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 28.2 41.1 C D -with im rovements(Altemative 2) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 3 0 25.1 39.5 C D 1-15 NB Ramps(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) -without improvements TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 -- -- F F - withimprovements TS 2 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 40.6 43 D D Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: •Railroad Cyn Rd.(EW) -without improvements TS' 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 -4 -° F F -with improvements TS 2 1 6 1>>6 1 26 1>6 1 36 16 2 36 16 34.1 54.1 C D Lost Rd.(EW) -without improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -- -- F F - withimprovements TS 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 0.5 1.5 1 1 0 35.7 53.8 D D Lost Rd.(NS)at: •Navajo Springs Road(EW) - withoutimprovements CSS 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 67.5 -- F F -with improvements CSS Traffic signal is not warranted eficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements can provide acceptable LOS. 67.5 4 F F Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: •Project Easterly Access(EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12.1 13.6 B B •Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) -without improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -4 -4 F F - withimprovements TS 1 1 1>> 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 26.6 148.61 D ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;»=Free Right Turn ' Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. ' TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS =Ali Way Stop ° - =Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service"F". s Intersections are analyzed with minimum green time calculated based on the latest MUTCD pedestrian crossing time. s Pedestrians may not be accomodated by every cycle U:\UcJobs\_03100.03500\03100\03129\Excel\10 31 2 9-0 8.xls)T 5-4 5-17 EXHIBIT 5-1 POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT NNE z,z, 1ij33 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ss669 � y4i g4a W h� 111 a �3 N16LIlr g6a� ..py'• ,Q� 7-y�� L CgNYO� �O�p•�� RAILROAp s OQ'p Q �✓�pti1 r Qy � ♦ 9 SQ �? ®, 4 29 ,-, rnLn co— Ln ;:;, : 1 t �i ::"::;::;: ^A L4'0 �659 NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. j Sg �s L f--505 �i 2 . I 46� h`r'n 298 cn f Q �\-P, to � h O/ LEMON ST. ORANGE ST, omo '�116 1D1D`' 1740 --CHERRY ST. .� L f-632 1024-J If f BUNDY CANYON 126—i :°v0000 U5 O z m L Ln 0 i Ln -1 Im `-6478 9� --1541 812— 346--J -� f [- 740—t 877—e- r>m�n 00 w r to Kr r 7 CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County,California-03129: 54 URBAN caossnoa 5-18 EXHIBIT 5-J POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT NNry top, PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 9 8s 6� �N� ����► NWT 4 N 6'�� Q� C. i RAILROAD O i �- Al L 38 r.un ;•::;� �GL ON Nor l / t \ .-u+o -567 /. `NAVAJO SPRINGS RD. �\ I 1.718 �s .� L f�-516 252� 17 W pR. 22 221 m o i�AKE�1E 1 N lD �pS LEMON ST. ORANGE ST. nj rlm� l-188 3 ---CHERRY ST. L '946 2267— t BLINDY CANYON 314-i �wo O Z m N G Lo s 470 J L i 8025 �0�, �20110 1538 539 891-i 2058- �? rr m r. tD _r I� =ANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS,Riverside County, California-03129: 55 URBAN AN 5-19 EXHIBIT 5-K POST 202S GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT I-IS AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 0 C ,, -•-2280 :A1381 O 970 1645 m Z A m - m v r HIGH RIGH TURN TURN ONLY ONLY RAILROAD CANYON RD. 00 " NNn�iomi �-157 vi 329 n nw� 401 f-561 -gi-2254 .,,� Y' L f-224 298- � T n )977---�92�oov� rjoD 386rwN uoiNNv Ln Ln o „ p D m rn LA �I NOT TO SCALE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129. 56 URBAN 5-20 EXHIBIT 5-L POST 2025 GENERAL PLAN WITH PROJECT 1-15 AND RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES �-1708 c +2402T(12 O 3675-* c n � m Z m' m 2 p r � p RIGH TURN ONLY RAILROAD CANYON ® RD. • mNa k-551 "' rn�c �-684 NNoo —260 r'N� �--1805. �► f-410 154 440 1003-} `� (` 320-+ T 2248 1086-i 4N- 790-i �v o n D Z G1 O F v � m 6 -I NOT TO SCALE CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Riverside County,California-03129: 57 URBAN ssao,.o� 5-21 The recommended improvements at the interchange of the 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps at Bundy Canyon Road differ slightly compared to the previously recommended improvements included in the traffic study for the Back Basin project (Back Basin Traffic Phasing Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., June 25, 2005). The difference is caused by updated long range modeling assumptions regarding the extension of Malaga Road to Railroad Canyon Drive. Per the Pardee Canyon Hills Specific Plan data provided by City staff specifically for this current work effort, the connection of Malaga Road to Railroad Canyon Drive is no longer possible. This caused additional traffic previously using the Malaga Road interchange to access the 1-15 Freeway to the south to divert to the Bundy Canyon Road interchange. The same number of westbound lanes will provide acceptable levels of service, however the third westbound through lane should be converted at this intersection to provide a second westbound left turn lane. Alternately, the ultimate design at this location could provide two left turn lanes and three westbound through lanes, however, the isolated intersection operations analysis indicates that only two through lanes are required. 5. Sensitivity Analysis for Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road As shown on the site plan (Exhibit 2-A presented previously), the project site has access to Lost Road towards the south-west and to Cottonwood Canyon Road towards the south-east. However, since both roadway segments are currently dirt roads, no project traffic has been assigned to the roadway for the Interim Year With Project conditions (as shown in previous sections of the analysis). This section of the report evaluates traffic conditions on Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road assuming up to 5 percent of the total project traffic will use the dirt roads as an alternate route under Interim Year With Project conditions. 5-22 Urban Crossroads, Inc. conducted 24-hour traffic counts at Lost Road on both the north and south ends of Lost Road where the dirt road begins. The tube count for the north end is located north of Navajo Road, while the south end is located about 20 to 25 feet south of Lake View Road. The count sheets are included in Appendix "J". As shown in Appendix "J", the daily traffic volume at Lost Road north of Navajo Springs Road is about 670 VPD, while the daily traffic volume south of Lakeview Drive is about 880 VPD. Cottonwood Canyon Road currently carries an estimated 1,300 VPD just north of Bundy Canyon Road. The following 2 intersections were analyzed to evaluate the potential impacts of traffic from the project traveling directly to the south under near term conditions: Orange Street (NS) • Lost Road/Lemon Street (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) A maximum of 3.5% of project trips are assumed to be distributed to Lost Road and 1.5% on Cottonwood Canyon Road. For the intersection of Lost Road at Orange Street, about 2% of the project trips will travel through the intersection towards Lemon Street, while 1.5% will make a left turn to Orange Street in order to access the 1-15 Freeway southbound on-ramp. For the intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road, it is assumed that about 1% of the project traffic will make a right turn towards the 1-15/Bundy Canyon Road interchange, while 0.5% will travel along Bundy Canyon Road towards east. 5-23 The added project volumes for both intersections during the AM and PM peak hours are less than 7 vehicles per turning movement. Table 5-5 indicates the level of service analysis summary for the above 2 intersections with the potential project volumes. The analysis sheets are included in Appendix "J". As indicated on Table 5-5, the level of service results are the same as shown on Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 presented previously. The intersection of Orange Street at Lost Road will operate at LOS "A" for both AM and PM peak hours, while Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road will still operate at LOS "F" during the PM peak hour. As indicated in previous section of the report, this intersection does not warrant a traffic signal. In conclusion, there will be no additional impact for the intersections along Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road assuming that up to 5 percent of the project traffic will utilize the dirt portions of Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road to provide access to the 1-15 Freeway and other areas to the south. 5-24 TABLE 5.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR LOST ROAD AND COTTONWOOD CANYON ROAD (INTERIM YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS) INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Orange St.(NS)at: •Lost Rd./Lemon St.(EW) AWS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.9 9.0 A A Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: Bundy Cyn Rd.(EW) -without improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 31.1 66.9 D F -with improvements CSS Traffic signal is not warranted. Deficiency only occurs on minor road. No other improvements can provide acce table LOS. 31.1 66.9 1 D F ' When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;»=Free Right Turn s Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.6.0.38(2003).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for worst Individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 3 TS =Traffic Signal CSS =Cross Street Stop AWS =All Way Stop — =Delay High,Intersection Unstable,Level of Service"F". U:\UcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\Exce RI03129-08.xis]T5-5 5-25 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-26 6.0 FINDINGS AND PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION A. Site Accessibility The project is located east of Lost Road and west of Cottonwood Canyon Road in the County of Riverside. The project northern boundary borders the City of Lake Elsinore. The project is in the process of being annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. The project site will have access located at the west border of the property to Lost Road via Navajo Spring Road. The project primary access and main entry is at the east border of the property to Cottonwood Canyon Road. Emergency access that would be controlled by a gate that can only be opened by emergency personnel would also be provided via Turtle Creek Road. Under typical daily conditions, no vehicular access to Turtle Creek Road would be available to the residents of the proposed project. B. Traffic Impacts The project site is proposed to be developed with a maximum of 302 single- family detached residential dwelling units. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 2,890 trip-ends per day with 226 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 305 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. For existing traffic conditions, the study area intersections operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours except the following intersections: Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) 6-1 The intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at Bundy Canyon Road is currently controlled by side street stop-sign control on Cottonwood Canyon Road. The intersection doesn't warrant a traffic signal under the existing conditions. It is also noted by our field observation that although the 1-15 Freeway/Railroad Canyon Road interchange apparently operates at acceptable levels of service when analyzed as isolated intersections, the progression of traffic and lack of vehicle storage through the 1-15 Freeway/Railroad Canyon Road interchange creates lengthy vehicle queues. This is confirmed by the queuing analysis previously presented in Chapter 3 of the report. For Interim Year (both With and Without Project) conditions, no traffic signal is projected to be warranted for the study intersections. For Interim Year With and Without Project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" and will require improvements: 1-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps (NS) at: • Diamond Drive (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) Summerhill Drive (NS) at: • Railroad Canyon Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) PM Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) 6-2 For Post 2025 General Plan (both Without and With Project conditions), traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the following additional study area intersections: Cottonwood Canyon Road (NS) at: • Bundy Canyon Road (EW) Orange Street (NS) at: Lemon Street (EW) For both Post 2025 Without and With Project traffic conditions, all intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours and will require improvements, except the intersection of Cottonwood Canyon Road at the Project Easterly Access under With Project conditions. The intersection analysis results for all scenarios are shown on Table 1-1. The intersection improvements for all scenarios are indicated on Table 1-2. C. Proiect Fair Share Analysis Project fair share contributions have been calculated for Post 2025 General Plan With Project improvement measures. The project fair share analysis has been based on the proportion of project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour Post 2025 traffic volume. Table 6-1 presents a summary of the project contribution calculations under Post 2025 General Plan With Project conditions. The intersection fair share traffic contribution calculations are based on the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. As shown in Table 6-1, the project traffic contributions range from 0.04 percent to 31 percent at the study area intersections. 6-3 L TABLE 6-1 PROJECT FAIR SHARE FOR IMPROVEMENTS POST 2025 GP PROJECT% PEAK EXISTING w/PROJECT PROJECT TOTAL NEW OF NEW INTERSECTION HOUR TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC Orange St.(NS)at: • Lemon St.(EW) AM 345 2,104 67 1,759 3.81% PM 487 3,112 89 2,625 3.39% Canyon Hills Rd.(NS)at: • Railroad Cyn. Rd. (EW) AM 2,775 5,502 77 2,727 2.82% PM 2,532 7,865 101 5,333 1.89% Lost Rd.(EW) AM 1,197 3,057 81 1,860 4.35% PM 425 4,576 108 4,151 2.60% Lost Rd.(NS)at: Navajo Springs Road(Project • Westerly Access)(EW) AM 138 1,811 105 1,673 6.27% PM 91 2,669 140 2,578 5.43% Cottonwood Cyn Rd.(NS)at: • Bundy Cyn. Rd.(EW) AM 1,112 5,161 39 4,049 0.96% PM 1,269 6,838 54 5,569 0.97% UAUcJobs\_03100-03500\_03100\03129\ExceA[03129-08.x1s]T 6-1 P � a2 6 ym & /Y131-5 2/ 2 5,8'o 577K 5 /3 co 3205 P Spa's !11 -sir-o y ��-��"0$'4' � /i � •' 1 6-4 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The traffic study is based upon two horizon years: Interim Year (project opening year) and post 2025 (horizon year for General Plan traffic modeling). A. On-Site On-Site circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Exhibit 7-A and are described below: • Construct Lost Road from Navajo Springs Road Northerly to Existing Improvement of Lost Road as a non-adjacent off-site improvement at a width o 32 et in conjunction with the development. The transition to the 64-foot section at the south boundary of Tract 29811 can be accomplished via striping on the paved section north of the transition; • Construct Navajo Springs Road as a non-adjacent off-site 47� improvement with a 8-'foot width to connect to Lost Road; • Construct Cottonwood Canyon Road through the project at its ultimate full section width in conjunction with development or conforming with the neighboring development proposed cross-section. Based on the findings of this traffic study, it is recommended that Cottonwood Canyon Road from the northerly project boundary to Bundy Canyon Road be downgraded to a Collector road (48 feet curb-to-curb in a 68- foot right-of-way). This curb-to-curb width is consistent with City of Lake Elsinore standards and the adjacent property. Provide stop control at the project access points to the arterial roadway system for project build-out conditions; • Provide stop control at two project access points. For Post-2025 with project conditions, the intersection of Navajo Springs Road at Lost 7-1 EXHIBIT 7-A CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDE STOP CONTROL AT THE PROJECT ACCESS POINT FOR PROJECT BUILDOUT CONDITIONS. SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION CONSTRUCT LOST ROAD FROM NAVAJO WHEN WARRANTED,OR THEACCESS COULD BE RESTRICTED PROVIDE STOP SPRING ROAD NORTHERLY TO EXISTING AS LEFT AND RIGHT-IN AND --- CONTROL AT IMPROVEMENT OF LOST ROAD,AT A RIGHT-OUT ONLY IF/WHEN THE CONSTRUCT COTTONWOOD CANYON ROAD THE PROJECT WIDTH OF 32 FEET IN CONJUNCTION INTERSECTION REACHES THROUGH THE PROJECT AS A COLLECTOR ACCESS POINT. WITH DEVELOPMENT. UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF ROAD CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING -- ----...-------..._..- — SERVICE. DEVELOPMENT. pr v _ '"`a r h � � � x �� ��'�w s �1� s 3§✓ '� rx y I� �x f •' -••`V'� t x - i ��.---� �°1 7�,.,.,1 rr'� �. �� � v, u..,---"ixs�,� .z �i' r'� `��`"`-s ff € '$O,IfO��E i. r Y ,] 5���a ^^c�',>•„ * i .,� 9 ✓3 -aPs r t .,, r F, nq l k N rx �" rFY c y r s,y }as j, ZiE 1ru `fit p zr 1 r a Sl P 4. � ��. s 2l /t`-.,1,�� c s i l- ri�^'�?'F c�ts�'���e •> S�-a�-y s. . I :, t�`t f. �a �� � _; 3 it•-' t - ¢ a t s Pd igg Y k r �r�r a�� �� ���w���r`•:%� x,--�� �'�`�> S �t�.�m � Y 7 x>od��S^.^X�R �t� tr`T� '�r � �- . CONSTRUCT NAVAJO SPRINGS CONSTRUCT FULL-SECTION OF GATED ROAD WITH A 24-FOOT WIDTH TURTLE CREEK ROAD AS AN EMERGENCY TO CONNECT TO LOST ROAD. EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY TO ACCESS ONLY PROTECT BOUNDARY. THE PROJECT SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PAYMENT OF ESTABLISHED CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FEES AND PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES(TUMF)PROGRAM,OR CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE FACILITIES UNDER APPROPRIATE FEE CREDIT AGREEMENTS. SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH PROJECT ENTRANCE SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CALTRANS/COUNTY/CITY SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF LEGEND: FINAL GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. —+— =STOP SIGN CANYON HILLS ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Lake Elsinore California-03129. 14 dwg URBAN 7-2 Road is projected to experience unacceptable operations for the minor street (westbound left turns) only. This location does not warrant a traffic signal under Post-2025 conditions, and no other physical improvements will provide acceptable operations for this one movement that serves a maximum of 51 vehicles during the AM peak hour when the unacceptable LOS for this one movement occurs. The analysis indicates that the available capacity for this movement is 96 vehicles per hour, which is more than adequate for the projected demand. All other movements at the intersection experience LOS "C" or better operations. • Construct full-section of Turtle Creek Road as an emergency access only to connect to the existing roadway. The emergency access would be controlled by a gate that can only be opened by emergency personnel. Under typical daily conditions, no access to Turtle Creek Road would be available to the residents of the proposed project; • Sight distance at each project(entrance should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/County/City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. B. Off-Site Improvement Recommendations The project shall contribute its fair share towards improvements by participating in the phased construction of off-site intersection improvements through payment of established city of Lake Elsinore fees and participation in the transportation uniform mitigation fees (TUMF) Program, or construction of off-site facilities under appropriate fee credit agreements. The recommended intersection improvements for all scenarios are summarized in Table 1-2. 7-3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 7-4 8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been prepared based on the efforts and input of the following individuals: Mr. Ed Basubas, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.: Mr. Carleton Waters — Principal in Charge Ms. Min Zhou — Project Manager Ms. Kyra Tao— Project Engineer Resumes of Urban Crossroads participants are provided as Appendix "K" of this report. 8-1