Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarveston Draft EIR - Technical Appendices e AM Harveston Environmental A Lennar community with a lake at its heart Draft • . Report Technical Appendices City of November 2000 1 1 APPENDIX A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW 1. INITIAL STUDY / NOP 2. WRITTEN COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO I NOP AND UTILITY QUESTIONNAIRES 1 ' NOTICE OF PREPARATION CITY OF TEMECULA WINCHESTER HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR Contents Notice of Preparation (NOP) Initial Study 1 APRIL 1, 1999 Notice of Preparation ' To: State, County, Lead Agencies, and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency Consulting Firm Agency Name: City of Temecula Firm Name: EDAW, Inc. Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive Mailing Address: 17875 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400 ' Mailing Address: PO Box 9033 City/State /Zip: Irvine, California 92614 City /State /Zip: Temecula, California 92589 -9033 Telephone: 949.660.8044 Telephone: 909.694.6400 Firm Contact: Ms. Jayna Morgan City Contact: Ms. Patty Anders ' Request for Agency Input Regarding the Scope of the EIR �• The City of Temecula will be the Lead Agency for the proposed project described in the attachments to this Notice of Preparation (NOP). The City of Temecula will be overseeing the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for this project. The City needs to know the views of your agency regarding the scope and content of the environmental information which will be included in the EIR. The document to be prepared by the City of ' Temecula should include any information necessary for your agency to meet any statutory responsibilities related to the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Temecula when considering any permit or other approvals necessary to implement the project. The project description, location, and a brief description of the potential effects of the undertaking as they are presently understood are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent to the City at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Ms. Patty Anders, City of Temecula, PO Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 -9033. Agency responses to this NOP should include the name of a contact person within the commenting agency. Project Title: Winchester Hills Specific Plan and EIR ' Project Location: Refer to the attached description and exhibits. Project Description: A complete Project Description is attached. r Date: April 1. 1999 Signature Ms. Debbie Ubnoske ie Senior Planner Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEOA Guidelines) Section 15082(e), 15103, 15375. Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Winchester Hills Specific Plan and EIR 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive. PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92598 -9033 3. Contact person and phone number: Pattv Anders Telephone: 909.694.6400 4. Project location: The site is situated in the western section of the Citv of Temecula. northwest of 1 Winchester Road and northeast of I -15. Please refer to Attachment 41. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Lennar Communities, Bill Storm, Project Director 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Vieio. CA 92691 6. General Plan designation: LM (Low Medium Residential): M (Medium Residential): H (High Residential) CC (Community Commercial): OS (Open Space); SC (Service Commercial); NC (Neighborhood Commercial); BP (Business Park): P (Public /Institutional Facilities) 7. Zoning: Specific Plan Overlav 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). The Winchester Hills Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 1.900 dwelling units. The project will consist ' of =18.2 acres of high density residential (avg. 165 du /acre). ±52.8 acres of medium density residential (avg. 95 du /acre). and ±236.2 acres of low - medium density residential (avg. 4.5 du /acre). Other components of the project include a ±109.4 -acre service commercial area. a ±223 -acre parks /community take /trails plan. a ±10.5 -acre arrovo park, and a ±12 -acre elementary school site on an overall 561.9 -acre site. The Specific Plan also allows for a±13 -acre mixed use district overlay. The ±13 -acre mixed use district is �. intended to function as the "Village Center" for the Specific Plan. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of the following uses adjacent to the lake /lake park: up to 20.000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office uses: a davcare facility: a worship site: a private club house with fitness center (±5,000 square feet) and park recreation, educational and residential uses. The residential uses that may occur within the mixed use district would not be in addition to nor would thev exceed the maximum 1.900 dwelling units referenced above. The "Village Center' uses are intended for retailing and service uses of a community nature that attract people from the immediate neighborhood. Attachment 92 depicts the proposed Conceptual Land Plan. which identities proposed land uses as well as a proposed circulation plan that would accommodate the City's regional transportation needs. The Date Street arterial connection (as shown on the proposed plan) is identified on the Citv's Circulation Element: however, it could potentially be removed during the Citv's Circulation Element Update, which is currently in progress. Although currently not designated on the Citv's Circulation Element, a Chem Avenue extension alternative may be included with the update to the Circulation Element. The Chem' Avenue extension alternative will be evaluated in the Traffic and Alternatives Sections of the EIR. Attachment 92 I Final Text - April I, 1999 1 reflects the Conceptual Land Plan that would be developed along with implementation of the Date Street ®, co nnection as identified in the City's current Circulation Element A summary of th p roposed land uses and associated acreage is provided as Attachment 93. 9. Surrounding land use and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: 1 Commercial, open space and low- medium residential uses occur north of the site. Commercial uses occur south of the site. Business park. commercial and public facility uses occur southeast of the site. Commercial uses occur southwest of the site Medium densitv residential business park and commercial uses occur east of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation t agreement). US Armv Corps of En ineers California Regional Water Quality Control Bo ard State Department of Fish and Game US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 1 2 Final Text - April 1, 1999 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑x Air Quality ❑x Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑x Geology / Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology / Water Quality ❑% Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise ❑X Population/Housing ❑x Public Services ❑x Recreation ❑x Transport / Traffic ' R Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ' ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards. and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date OE081C, ✓ SA(US kC-- • Printed name For Final Text - April I, 1999 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on ' a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant ' Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact ". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses ", may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review: b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached. and other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 4 Final Text - April 1, 1999 C.9 - ,• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ �X within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: The General Plan does not ident fi any scenic vistas as being located within the project site. The site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. The project's development ' could potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The EIR evaluation will include consideration of the overall grading plan for Specific Plan development and the Residential Planned Development conceptual landscaping plans and other site design proposals which will minimize the aesthetic impacts ' ofthe project. The project will result in the addition of exterior night lighting and sources of glare in the vicinity. The City is within proximity to the Palomar Observatory, which requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. Although the site is not located within the Palomar Observatory Lighting Lnpact Zone, the project will alter the current night lighting situation. This issue will be fitrther evaluated in the EIR (Source 1,4). �• iL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: ' a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ ❑ �X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? ' c) involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X Farmland, to non - agricultural use? ' DISCUSSION: According to the General Plan, the project site is considered farmland of local importance; however, it is not considered prime or unique farmland, orfarmland of Statewide Importance as shown on prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site currently is not zoned for agricultural use, is not under a Williamson Act Contract, nor is it located within an Agricultural Preserve. None of the surrounding properties support long -terns productive agricultural activities. (Source: 1,4) IiI. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the • following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? Final Text - April 1, 1999 r Less Than 1 Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to 19 ❑ ❑ ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard QX ❑ ❑ ❑ (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ' d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? r DISCUSSION: Pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District's Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Analysis the proposed project will have the potential to impact air quality. Air quality emissions are , anticipated from the construction of 1,900 new dwelling units as well as the 110 -acre commercial /business park. The EIR will contain an analvsis of the air quality impacts of the project and detail mitigation for both short and long -term effects. No sensitive receptors in the immediate project vicinity have been identified. Objectionable odors are generally associated with major industrial and agricultural uses and no significant odor generation is expected to occur as a result of this project (Sources: 2 &4). IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: , a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, Q ❑ ❑ ❑ policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) QX ❑ ❑ ❑ through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or r-y r•- other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation U Ll ❑ VIN plan? r • 6 Final Text - April 1, 1999 r ,• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ' Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, the project site lies within the range of the Stephens' Kangaroo rat on the County of Riverside Map of Endangered, Rare and Threatened Wildlife Ranges and Habitats and therefore may result it? conflicts with the County ' of Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan. Surveys of biological resources on the site have been conducted. A peer review of these reports will be conducted, the ' EIR will incorporate the biological survevs and determine if significant impacts will occur to the onsite resources. The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean {rater Act. A wetlands delineation report has been prepared for the proposed project. The findings of this ' report will be summarized within the EIR and significant impacts that may occur will be addressed (Sources: 11 through 14). ' V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ' archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? '• d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ ❑ of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not result in a ' substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical or archaeological resource, however, it may directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. According to the General Plan, the project site does not contain areas of sensitivity for archaeological resources, but it does contain areas considered to ' be high in sensitivity for paleontological resources. RMW Paleo Associates prepared a cultural resource study for the Specific Plan area, which consisted of a literature review and records search and a walkover survey. According to the study, no archaeological sites were found on the project site. Although paleontological sites were not found on the site, according to the study, project implementation could expose fossils through grading and other development activities. Implementation of mitigation measures to be provided in the EIR will ensure that exposure of cultural resources during grading /construction does not occur. (Sources: 4,9 &10). Vl. GEOLOGY. AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ f ' Final Text - April 1, 1999 I Less Than Significant • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ' c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially ❑ ❑ L) ❑ result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ' d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to ❑ ❑ ❑ life or property. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where M ❑ ❑ L) sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, the proposed development may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- , related ground failure, landslides, soil erosion, etc. The site lies within a region of generally high seismicity. According to the General Plan, the Count) of Riverside established Groundshaking Zones, which indicate the level of risk from groundshaking based on distance from faults and geologic characteristics of an area. The project site (along with the remainder of the Temecula General Plan Study Area) is located in Groundshaking Zone 11. Groundshaking in Zone 11 is expected to vary from moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake, depending on the composition of underlying geologic formations, the earthquake's epicenter, and the order of magnitude of the seismic event. Additionally, according to the General Plan, the site contains areas designated as liquefaction hazard areas. An updated geolechnical study is currently being prepared, which will evaluate these above - mentioned issues. The report will address major geological hazards: subsidence, expansive soils, landslide potential, and other seismic activity hazards. The E1R will summarize the report and indicate whether the proposed Specific Plan will expose people or structures to major geological hazards, and major seismic hazards. Additionally, the EiR will evaluate the Specifi®' Plan's potential for modification to major landforms, and grading of hillside areas (Sources: d through 8). VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the , project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ' through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑% mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code'Section ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ' 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ' where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X working in the project area? 8 Final Text - April 1, 1999 '• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ ❑ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ' DISCUSSION: The project site is not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was conducted in March 1995. According to the Assessment, the potential far asbestos containing material to be found on- ' site is not likely. Additionally, the project site does not contain nor is it located within 1.5 -mile radius of a site, which has been reported as, contaminated or generates hazardous materials. The potential for the historical presence of hazardous material contamination on the project site is considered to be low, and the potential for the presence of hazardous materials on the project site that may have generated from adjacent properties is not readily indicated. No significant hazards or hazardous materials are known to exist within the project boundaries (Source: Q 16,17). ViiI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the ' project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? ,• b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g, the production rate of pre - existing �X ❑ ❑ ❑ ' nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ❑ ❑ ❑ or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation or- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface �X ❑ ❑ ❑ runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or �X ❑ ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ failure of a levee or dam? ' j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 Final Text - April 1, 1999 Less Than ' Significant • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: The net acreage of impermeable surface will be increased due to the creation of streets, public facilities, and homes. Drainage and runoff patterns also will be modified compared to existing conditions. Drainage ' may also affect downstream water quality. Additionally, the project site is located directly north of a 100 year foodplain (along the Santa Gertrudis Creek) and according to Figure 7 -4 of the City's General Plan, a portion of the project site is subject to dam inundation. A hydrology study is currently being prepared for the project site and it will be reviewed and evaluated in the EiR. It is not anticipated that the amount of surface runoff from the project will ' significantly alter water quality. Water quality effects related to surface runoff will be evaluated in the EIR. The project may alter the amount of surface water downstream from the site. It is anticipated that the domestic water supplies for the residential and recreational portions of the project will be obtained from locally available domestic water supplies serving the City. Both the project - specific and cumulative effects of this project's water use will be , analvzed in the EIR. The project will not modify ground water by diverting underground resources. Water quality effects related to surface runoff will be evaluated in the EIR. The amount of impervious surfaces is not significant enough to alter the groundwater recharge and effect ground water quality (Sources: 1,2,4,7). IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, , local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the ❑ ❑ ❑ purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ®, natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The project will require a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Zone Change. The significance of this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. The project will require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change prior , to development. The significance of potential land use effects will be determined once additional research on the physical effects of the project has been completed. The buildout of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan is accoutred for in the General Plan and future growth scenarios (or the City. The significance of this issue will be further evaluated hn the EIR (Sources: 2,4,5). X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ❑ ❑ ❑ state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: No mineral resource is known to occur within the project boundaries (Source: 4). ' XI. NOISE - Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 0X ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ , groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 10 Final Text - April 1, 1999 '• Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ' Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ' the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ' to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: Construction noise effects are anticipated to be potentially significant given the amount of development anticipated to occur. The effects of increased noise resulting from additional vehicle movements on streets in the area are anticipated to be significant. A noise analysis, including sample measurements of ambient noise, will be completed and included in the EIR. While the project site is located in close proximity to the French Valley Airport, it is not located within 2 miles of the airport (Sources. 1, I5). i X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in the area, either '• directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ ❑ or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure ?) ' b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ L) ' construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: The buildout of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan is accounted fo' in the General Plan and figure growth scenarios for the City. There will, however be extensions of infrastructure associated with this project. The significance of this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. The project will serve as an atiractor for additional growth in the local area or region. The EIR will consider both the direct and indirect beneficial and adverse population related effects of the project (Sources. 2 through 4). XHI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical ' impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could ' cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' Police Protection? L] L) ❑ • Schools? ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ Final Text - April 1, 1999 Less Than ' Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact Parks? ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Other Public Facilities? ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ DISCUSSION: The proposed project may generate significant additional demands on fire and police protection and other emergency .cervices, schools, library, and related facilities. The impacts on public services and infrastructure will be analyzed in the EIR (Source: 4). XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood t and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? , b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will generate additional demands on recreational facilities. This impact will be ' offset by the project's creation of new recreational opportunities. The City's subdivision ordinance requires 5 acres per 1, 000 persons be dedicated for park and recreation purposes under the Quimbv Act. The preferred project plan includes a community lakelpark site in addition to several trails and paseos. The E/R will also analyze community park and recreation needs (Source: 4). XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC - Would the project: ®' a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to xthe existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ' service standard established by the county congestion �X ❑ ❑ ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ '' (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ , g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 12 Final Text - April 1, 1999 i i Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant i Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: A traffic study will be prepared prior to completion of the Draft EIR. The results of this analysis will i be summarized and included in the EiR. The studv will evaluate the effects of the trips generated by project - related traffic and the addition of these trips to the local and regional street and highway system. Additionally, this study will include an analysis of the Cherry Avenue extension alternative, which may be included with the City's update to the Circulation Element that is currently taking place. The Specific Plan will either include parking development i regulations or will reference required compliance with existing city zoning regulations for proposed land uses (Sources: 2 through 4). i XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ' wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing 0 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? i c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainaee facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the L) L construction of which could cause significant environmental L.1 Ll i effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or 0 expanded entitlements needed? �• e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider existing commitments? i f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: The proposed project may generate significant additional demands on public services i including electrical, natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste facilities. Construction of residential units will generate additional population that will place demands on public services. The impacts on electrical, natural gas, communication systems, water, setrer, and solid waste facilities will be analyzed in the EIR (Sources: 2 through 4). 1 1 1 1� 1� Final Text - April 1, 1999 1 i XVII. EARLIERANALYSIS ®' Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis. i Reference # Document Title Available for Review at: , 1 Project Vicinity Map See attachment #1 2 Conceptual Land Use Plan See attachment #2 ' 3 Land Use Summary See attachment 93 4 City of Temecula General Plan City of Temecula Prepared by: The Planning Center Community Dev. Dept. ' Date: November 9, 1993 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 5 City of Temecula Development Code City of Temecula Prepared by: The Planning Center Community Dev. Dept. Date: January 25, 1995 43200 Business Park Drive ®' Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 6 Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report City of Temecula Prepared by: ICG Incorporated Community Dev. Dept. ' Date: October 6, 1989 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 7 Preliminary Environmental Property City of Temecula Investigation* Community Dev. Dept. Prepared by: Hydrotech Consultants, Inc. 43200 Business Park Drive Date: February 9, 1989 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 8 Geotechnical Investigations Tentative Tracts City of Temecula 25321 — 25324 & 25464 Winchester Hills Community Dev. Dept. Development* 43200 Business Park Drive Prepared by: Converse Consultants Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 Date: October 8, 1990 9 Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaelo- City of Temecula i gical Assessment of the Winchester Hills Spec- Community Dev. Dept. ific Plan* 43200 Business Park Drive Prepared by: Christopher E. Drover Ph.D Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 Date: October 21, 1989 , Included as part of Appendix to original Winchester Hills Screencheck Specific Plan /EIR. 14 Final Text - April 1, 1999 ,• 10 Paleontological Resources Assessment Winche- City of Temecula ster Hills Rancho California* Community Dev. Dept. Prepared by: RMW Paleo Associates 43200 Business Park Drive Date: October 19, 1989 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 ' 11 Field Reconnaissance and Trapping Survey for City of Temecula Stephens kangaroo rat on the Winchester Community Dev. Dept. ' Business Park Property 43200 Business Park Drive Prepared by: SJM Biological Consultants Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 Date: May 20, 1988 12 Biological Survey for Rancho California Parcel City of Temecula BP7 -1* Community Dev. Dept. ' Prepared by: The Planning Center 43200 Business Park Drive Date: May, 1988 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 13 Site Check for Stephen's kangaroo rat on the City of Temecula 1,049 -acre Rancho California Commerce Center Community Dev. Dept. Property* 43200 Business Park Drive ' Prepared by: SJM Biological Consultants Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 Date: March 28, 1989 14 404 and 1603 Jurisdictional Delineation for City of Temecula '• Winchester Hills Community Dev. Dept. Prepared by: Tom Dodson & Associates 43200 Business Park Drive Date: September 14, 1998 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 ' 15 Noise Assessment for the Winchester Hills EIR, City of Temecula County of Riverside* Community Dev. Dept. ' Prepared by Mestre Greve Associates 43200 Business Park Drive Date: October 19, 1989 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 16 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Winch- City of Temecula ester Hills — Residential Parcels, 438.3 acres Community Dev. Dept. Prepared by: REIF 43200 Business Park Drive Date: March 6, 1995 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 ' 17 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Win- City of Temecula chester Hills — Business Park Parcel, 129.6 acres Community Dev. Dept. ' Prepared by: RBF 43200 Business Park Drive Date: March 6, 1995 Temecula, Ca 92589 -9033 1 '• Included as part of Appendix to original Winchester Hills Screencheck Specific Plan /EIR. ' IS Final Text -April 1, 1999 _Santa Rosa y '` alke asln� �a —• �+—"_ "'� ! n � G6� � �� x rte+ �`., '"` S 3 _, d s3 a :` ^'{ �.3 `y.#.."" r ""� ' z ,r t F "Y _ •i �S .x { fit"' � f is a � :y �3�}gL* ✓�'K�' i1. >`,•QL' � ffi"''�,',s.A,r a_ s' j t '`_ �' °r.�� c 'teg" 1 �• Attachment #2 1 1 1 q1! aim `. PARK - 1 LOW -MED. - DENSITY -- - 45DU /AC' ��C\ y I i ♦ �srwc -����A � PASPA i WINCFffSTER III�I'1 1 ,,U V I Low -nom. -- 1 ; - DENSITY ✓ 4.5 DU /AC 1 . RESmENTL4I. = COLLECTOR 1 1 1 1 #onceptual Land L 1 Winchester Hills U 2 W *PI aw 1 Lennar Communities ®7LI - 7 DATE: APRIL. 1, 1999 ATTACHMENT #3 WINCHESTER HILLS LAND USE SUMMARY ' April 1, 1999 1 AND E TOTALAVG DENSTIY��sACRES NDUSE 1� .e4 4 ' UNTl'S r; S DU /AC « ' RESIDENTIAL 1, 900 du's. 307.2 Residential — High Density 300 16.5 18.2 Residential — Medium 300 9.5 52.8 Residential — Low Medium 1,300 4.5 236.2 SCHOOL 12.0 ' VILLAGE CENTER AND TOWN SQUARE 0.01 1 ARROYO PARK 10.5 LAKE PARK/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION 22.3 SERVICE COMMERCIAL 109.4 ' TOTAL LAND „USES Mr 461 4 OUTPARCELS 3.7 SLOPES AND ARTERIALS 96.8 , TOTAL PROJECT'SITE ' : 1 1 The overall Plan allows for a t13 - acre mixed use zone overlaying area designated for low- medium residential, which would include a Village Center and Town Square. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of ' the following uses adjacent to the lake /lake park: up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office uses: a daycare facility; a worship site; a private club house with fitness center ( =5,000square feet); and park, recreation, educational ' and residential uses. Ultimate development of mixed use within this zone would be taken out of the original acreage designated for low- medium residential. P: \8NIQ01\PHASINGPLAN3.DOC ' The Gas Company- April 21, 1999 ' City of Temecula 432 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Somhem Califamia Temecula, CA 92598 -9033 G"Comp,,,y Attn' Patty Anders R�dk ;, CJ Re: Winchester Hills Specific Plan and EIR f i00 Located at the western section of the City of Temecula, k ed �d,,,,w., c.a northwest of Winchester Road and northeast of 1 -15 92373-0;(M Gas Company Reference No. 99- 091 -OM Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above - referenced item. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can-also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for. a. Residential (System Area Average /Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 4 or less units 482 therms /year dwelling unit Multi - Family 5 or more units 483 therms /year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. , ' b. Commercial • Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of ' construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial /Industrial Support Center at 1- 800 - GAS -2000. Sincerely, John DeWitt Technical Supervisor 1 I, ST 'OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPO,._. TION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Gowf" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' DISTRICT 8 464 W Fourth Street, 6" Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 -1400 PHONE (909) 383 -6327 FAX (909) 383 -6890 April 21, 1999 ' 08- Riv- 79- R2.498/R3.410 Ms. Patty Anders City of Temecula P.O. Sox 9033 Temecula, Ca 925 -9033 Dear Ms. Anders: Notice of Preparation for initial Study of Winchester Hills Specific Plan Thank you for the opportunity to review and com-ment an the above , referenced proposal. A development of this magnitude will require cooperation and coordination between our two agencies to the extent that a solution to the various items of concern can be m_tigated to the mutual satisfaction of both. Without question, the adverse traffic impacts generated by this proposal are of the highest concern to Caltrans. Therefore, please send copies of the rollowing to this office at the earliest opportunity: • Any and all CEQA documents • Plot /Site Plan (full size) • Street Improvement Plans • Traffic Impact Study -this document shall address the impacts to both State facilities (I -13 and Rte 79) as well as the City's transportation infrastructure and shall propose miticatien, �V which is agreed upon by both agencies. In addition, it shall also be noted that any work perforated within, adjacent to, or otherwise impacting the State Ri()ht Of Way will require an encroachment permit from the dist -rice office. Their address and phone number are listed below: i 1 Ms. Patty Anders April 21, 1999 Page 2 • Office of Permits California Department of Transportation 464 W. Fourth Street, 6" Floor, MS 619 San Bernardino, CA 92401 -1400 (909) 383 -4336 I` you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mike Sim, District Development Reviewer, at (909) 3 -4808 or FAX (909) 383 - 59.16. sincerely, a l NDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Forecasting/ r IGR /CEQA Review cc: Mosie Boyd, State Clearinghouse Debbie Ubnoske, City of Temecula Hideo Sugita, RCTC 1 r i r� DAVID P. ZAPPE �uunrr ��c 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager -Chief Engineer . °� °D n o RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 v 909/955 -1200 909/788 -9965 FAX rON de'RVenaW RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: EDAW, Inc. DATE: April 28, 1999 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Winchester Hills Specific Plan EIR ATTN: Khara Covington LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We are forwarding _ attached X under separate cover the following items: Prints _ Plans _ Specifications _ Copy of Letter X Other r Attachment No 4 and a copy of a map showing the existing facilities in the area. 1 These are transmitted as checked below: _ For approval _ Approved as submitted _ Resubmit _ copies For your use _ Approved as noted for approval X As requested _ Returned for corrections _ Submit _ copies for X For review and _ Return _ corrected distribution comment prints REMARKS: If you have any questions or need additional information please give me a call at �I 909/955-1233 BY: 'ZULLY SM H Senior Cis' Engineer ZS:lib PC \56926 • r r Attachment #4 •a TO: Riverside County Flood Control District Flood Control 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 1. What types of services do you provide to the project site? No existing facilities are servicing the project site. District facilities exist upstream, downstream and east of the proposed project. 2. List the names and location of facilities, which would serve the project site and their distance from the project site. Provide their capacity and the level at which they are presently operating. 7 -0 -0181 Torrey Pines Road Storm Drain — 42" C.I.P.P. which is located approximately 900' upstream of project site. 7 -0 -0061 Santa Gertrudis Laterals A and B Lateral A is 66" — 96' RCP located downstream of the project and freeway. Lateral A is approximately 400' downstream of the project. Lateral B is 84' — 96" RCP located approximately 1275' southeast of Lateral A. 7 -0 -0060 Santa Gertrudis Channel — Santa Gertrudis Channel is east of the project and would not serve the site. 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? The proposed project should be designed as not to adversely impact the downstream facilities. Appropriate hydrology/hydraulic studies should be prepared 1 Attachment #4 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? None. 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Appropriate hydrology and hydraulic studies of the site will determine if and what storm drain facilities need to be expanded through the proposed project. These are considered "Developer Convenient' facilities, which are not constructed by the District, therefore no additional staff ' is required. 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? 1 N /A. Attachment #4 1 7. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerns. If the District chooses to accept any proposed storm drain systems for maintenance, the developer will need to enter in an agreement to cover the plan check and inspection of the construction of such facilities. 8. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above? N /A. v 1 9. If possible, please provide a map showing the service boundaries in relationship to the project site. See attached. Prepared By: Terry Decker /ZUIIY Smith Title: Enaineeriny Tech. II/Senior Civil Engineer Date: April 27, 1999 Phone: 909/955 -1233 i '• \L p\ CE ORN + pi Jj°n[[DTs LAS f P r.A` • I , . VIA CfE ERis`O S/O ZUR TA ,�° ' 0 4E " d RD Il 39100 U) SEE C f5 or \C\ 04 \ \ VwEPERIN° YINR (i �°} qL 1 NNl(OV IN CARD °p _Z l (NPOL VPRO (! ♦ ' y I F �' tim�CAILE'OEl�7� NO J q / 3 ryUL CHESTE V OAD . 7 -0181 SUGRf ERR TORREY PI \ L ROAD S.D. AV ' LO I � \ \\ /`;°• \ J °y roxRrr r° �r y . • o s �•'� � �° N ICO SAN/' \\ \♦ /; °° 7 -0061 �o R� ry�A4�T TA GERTRUDIS 7 -0060 SANTA GERTRUDI Q o WARM O SPRGS. \` p\�O CHANNEL oR Q � °sf \ \ ADASS D AVE. v� 7_r SP`c' \P� �r 7 -0061 r� °4 r aw AR P ��` l SANTA GERTRUDIS °° r r s :RSOo \ 9� CH e� 9 LA .8 fouLr ra OQQOQ,P \`l S °S °° L n uM1� e.. ` l� 9 t, �\ 9� �� oo �F aN r o• cF ° GENEP N \ -- DISTRICT Attachment #4 • 1 TO: Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection 43200 Business Park Dr. ' Temecula, CA 92589 1. What types of services do you provide to the project site and adjacent area? ' Wildland and structural fire protection. All 911 medical aid calls, traffic accidents, and hazardous materials. 2. List the names and locations of stations which would serve the project site, their distance and response times from each location to the project site and the size and type of company responding. r Primary Response: Station 73 5 Minutes Engine and 27415 Enterprise Circle West Truck 2nd In Unit: Station 12 5 Minutes Engine 28330 Mercedes Street ' 3rd In Unit: Station 83 5 Minutes Engine 37500 Sky Canyon Drive 3. What level of service, if anv, do you provide to the project site at this time? The same level as the entire city. r 1 Attachment 94 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to ' secure capital revenue? N/A r 1 r 8. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular r concerns. None 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above? N/A 1 Prepared By: Norm Davidson r Title: Fire Safety Specialist Date: 4 -22 -99 ' Phone: 909 -506 -5155 r� r • Fes 4- I• _ � I G tl! •' 49 t- or t r�i J�►�l � J � IYV r r+ '�� , �•..✓��'`� fit` � � �• Ymcbester Hills Specific Plan E.m=nmentai�T ,act Report 1 1. What types of services do you provide to the project site and adjacent area? Off mad vehicle code enforcement which includes patrol on 4x4 police vehicles and police ATVs. Enforcement ,includes writing of citations for off road violations. Adjacent Areas: Respond to all 9-1 -1 calls for police, traffic collisions, medical and other types of emergencies. 2. List the names and locations of stations which would serve the project site, their distance and responsr 'times from each location to the project site and the size and type of unit responding. Southwest Sheriff Station 30755 -A Auld Road, Temecula, CA Approx. 8 miles 8 minutes (Patrol units within the City City limits Driving time 5 -6 minutes ' 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project site at this time? Random off -road vehicle code violation enforcement and call- for - service when needed. 1 4. Will the proposed land uses adversely impact the level of services you presently provide? YES S. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include location and completion dates)? Identify any of these which may specifically serve the project site. ■None at this time. 1 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs and how the increase is determined (Le., personnel to population ratio). YES on staff expansion. 'The following formula is used in the estimation for additional staff personnel: � auo of 1 officer per .1000 2 bedroom unit - 2.5 occupants @ 300 units = 750 residents atio of 1 office assistant per .5000 3 bedroom unit - 4 occupants @ 300 units = 1,200 residents 4 bedroom unit - 5 occupants @ 1,300 units = 6,500 residents ' Total: 8,450 residents The following additional personnel will be required when this project is completed: t sworn patrol officcrs (1 of which would be an (SRO) School Resource Officer)) 3 non -swom patrol officers '1 office assistant 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secn>�� capital revenue? No, unknown at this time. ' S. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify and particular concerns. , From the residential impact, typical calls for service would include but not limited to: 9 -1 -1 calls Traffic Collisions Residential Burglary Graffiti Vandalism , Petty Theft Grand Theft Disturbing the Peace Vehicle Code Violations City Ordinance Violations Alarm Calls Robbery , Other violations of the Penal Code, Health & Safety, Business and Professional Code and Welfare and Institution Code. , With the addition of the lake area, the addition of an elementary school, a park, village center and town square, and service commercial areas, many unforeseen problems could be projected for this project. Also, with the "Promen Mall opening in October 1999, and the current residential traffic from Winchester Creek. traffic on Margarita Roa could pose a traffic problem. 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts Identified above? Real surveillance in which both the potential criminal and potential witness can see each other. Vulnerable ar*P the project could benefit by being located near activities (safe zones) that create real surveillance. A traffic study , regarding projected traffic flow onto Margarita Road and the Date Street extension. 1 T0: COVER 'PAGE ' ' FAX: 6941999 FROM: TEMECULA POLICE ' FAX: 9095862838 TEL: 9895862626 1 ' COMMENT: CONFIDENTIAL 1 Attachment #44 ' TO: County of Riverside Sheriff Law Enforcement ' P.O. Box 892050 Temecula, CA 92589 1, what types of services do you provide to the project site and adjacent area? The Temecula Police Depatttnent, through contract with the Riverside County Sheriff s Department provides general patrol and response to calls for service. In addition, illegal off - road vehicle enforcement is conducted on a monthly basis, utilizing officers on ATM's and horseback. List the names and locations of stations which, would serve the project site, their distance and response times from each location to the project site and size and type of unit responding. ' The Southwest Station is located at 30755 -A Auld Road, Murrieta. The station is approximately six (6) miles from the project site. Response times to the project site are variable depending upon the nature of the incident and proximity of a patrol unit to the area. Currently, average response times for priority one calls (immediate, life threatening incidents) is six minutes. Other calls of lower priority will .vary in response time up to approximately 20 minutes or more. ' A patrol unit with one officer is typical for response to non -life threatening calls for service while multiple units may respond to calls requiring.additional personnel. Responding units do, not typically respond directly from the station, but fxom somewhere within the city. t 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide the project site at this time? ' Occasional enforcement of illegal off road riding and response to calls for service. Currently, calls for service to this site are minimal, as it is vacant land. ' 4, Will the proposed land uses adversely impact the level of service you preseatly provide? Yes. See item #6 for additional information. ' 5, What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include location and completion dates)? identify any of these which may specifically serve the project site. There are no current plans for facility expansion at this time. • i 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff?. If so, give i a brief description of anticipated needs and how the increase is determined (i -e., personnel to, population ratio). With the increase in residential population, additional staffing would be. required to deal with , the additional calls for service. Currently, the Temecula City Council has committed to an officer to population ratio of 1 per 1000: Estimating the populations increase as the result of this project at 6,367 residents, an increase in police staffing of roughly six officers would be required to maintain this ratio. 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such,an expansion? If not, who methods would be used to secure capital revenue? There is no revenue budgeted for at this time. Additional capital to fund these personnel would , come from the city's General Fund through funding requests during the annual budget process. S. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerns. Increases in population result in additional calls for police spice. This includes itrvestigation of theft, burglary, robbery, vandalism, assaults, disturbances and city ordinance violations. In addition, increases in vehicular traffic result in roadway congestion and additional traffic 40 collisions. With the inclusion of an elementary school, community park, village center and service i com mer elal areas, additional calls for service can be expected. 9. What measures call you recOm mead for mitigating project impacts identified above? Mitigation of some criminal activity can be accomplished by.the addition of swom and non i sworn police staff which, by their presenee, act as deterrents to this activity. Other activity e an inevitable outcome of population increases as a result of the project. Businesses and recreational opportunities also present additional requests for police intervention; which in many cases cannot be mitigated. The completion of traffic flow studies within and surrounding the•proposed project can suggest methods that can mitigate negative effects of the additional vehicular traffic created. �t 1. BOARD OF EDUCATION ' Patti Smith • TEMECULA VALLEY P Sh a fer gicnarC Shafer ' Unified School District C1e,k Ed Elder Member ' SU PERINTENDENT Jerry Hobbs David B. Allmen Member Barbara Tooker Member April 9, 1999 Ms. Sally Mirabella ' EDAW Inc 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 SUBJECT: Winchester Hiiis Specific Play: Eli. Dear Ms. Mirabella: ' This letter is in response to your survey regarding the impact of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan upon the Temecula Valley Unified School District. ' 1. List the names and locations of the District's schools which would serve the project site, their capacity, current enrollment, and their distance from the project site. Elementary Nicolas Valley Elementary Enrollment on 4/1/99: 1102 Permanent Capacity: 525 Interim Capacity: 625 Distance from site: Approximately 2 miles Middle: James L. Day Middle (under construction) Projected Opening Enrollment 8/99: 894 Permanent Capacity: 864 Interim Capacity: 297 Distance from site: Approximately I mile High School: Chaparral High School Enrollment on 4/1/99: 1425 (9 -11 grade only) Capacity: 1944 (9 -12 capacity) Distance from site: Approximately'/ mile 2. What are the student generation factors at the elementary, intermediate, and secondar} levels that you would use for this project'? Student generation rates for Temecula Valley Unified School District. calculated in accordance with the regulations set forth in SB50 are as follows: HOUSING TYPE ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY 0.4258 0.1804 0.1893 0.7955 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY NA NA NA NA ATTACHED MULTI FAMILY UNIT 0.3529 0.1647 0.1177 0.6353 ' 31350 Rancho Vista Road /Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676 -2661 Winchester Hills FIR ®' April 9, 1999 ' Page 2 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Without any mitigation, the project would severely impact school facilities. , 4. Will the project create a need for the expansion of educational facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of the anticipated needs. Assuming that the proposed 300 High Density units are attached units, the project is anticipated to add the following number of students: , Elementary: 787 Middle: 337 ' High: 244 A new elementary school site would be needed since the school currently serving the area is no longer able to expand on the existing site. Expansions to Day Middle School, and Chaparral High School would be required , to house the new students. Additional staff would also be required to serve the students. 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilites (include use, location, capacities, and completion ' dates)? Identify any of these which may specifically serve the project site. Temecula Valley Unified anticipates the need to build an additional 18 school sites. and numerous expansions to existing sites over the next 15 -20 years. These construction schedules will be paced with the need for additional facilities, driven largely by the pace of residential development in the surrounding community. 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, does the school district implement any development ' fees'? How are these fees determined (e.g., per housing unit) and what is the cost? The District does not currently have funds budgeted to add or expand facilities to accommodate the proposed project. For the Winchester Hills Specific Plan, the District and the Developer have already entered into a ' school facilities mitigation agreement. The District anticipates funding the school facilities for the proposed project from the fees collected through the agreement, with half of the cost being funded by the State, so long as those funds are available. 7. What problems do you foresee in serving this project'? Identify any particular concerns. There will be a need to expand school facilities at all levels to accommodate students from this project. In ' particular, the District will need to be able to acquire and begin construction on the elementary school site within the project in time for the school facility to be completed when the first homes are occupied. If the elementary school site is not completed prior to the new student's arrival, those students may have to attend a , school site several miles away because the closest elementary school site is no longer able to expand. '• Winchester Hills EIR April 9, 1999 Page 3 Regarding the location of the elementary school site, the site is shown as being adjacent to a mixed use area, which includes retail and restaurant sites. The District would oppose the approval of a liquor license for any business located within 600 feet of the school site in keeping with the guidelines listed in the Business and Professions Code. The District would also oppose any business which by its nature would be considered to be ' incompatible with an educational setting. 8. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above? ' As mentioned earlier, the District and Developer have already entered into a school facilities mitigation agreement to pay for the needed facilities. In addition, the elementary school site must be made available to the school district to begin construction in sufficient time to allow the first phase of the school to be completed prior to occupancy of the first homes. Sincerely, ' Temecula Valley Unified School District e; ayni / e Dixon inator of Facilities Services cc: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services y Attachment • TO: City of Temecula Parks and Recreation ' P.O. Sox 9033 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 ' 1. What types of services and facilities do you provide? ' The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, recycling and refuse collection, and street and road maintenance services within the City of Temecula. ' Pursuant to an agreement with the City, the TCSD also administers the ongoing operations, maintenance and servicing of the City owned public park and recreation facilities, recreational and community service programs, median ' landscaping, arterial street lights and traffic signals. Property owners pay for these services through the levy of a citywide park tax and/or rates and charges on their annual property tax statements. ' 2. List the names and location of facilities that would serve the project site and their distance from the project site. The City of Temecula currently owns and operates 20 public parks and several additional recreation facilities. Local recreational opportunities are also made 1 available through joint use agreements between the City and the Temecula Valley Unified School District. ' Winchester Creek Park, 39950 Margarita Road, is a fully developed 4.5 acre neighborhood park located within the proposed Winchester Hills Specific Plan. Several other neighborhood parks are located approximately 2 miles from the ' project site, east of Winchester Road. Located approximately 3 miles from the project site are Margarita Community Park, the Temecula Elementary School Pool facility, and Veteran's Park. Additional facilities located south of Rancho California Road include the Rancho California Sports Park and Community Recreation Center, Paloma Del Sol Park Mary Phillips Senior Center, Temecula Community Center, Temecula Community Center/Rotary Park and Sam Hicks Monument Park. In addition, the City is expecting to open a local museum within Sam Hicks Monument Park ' sometime in late 1999. 3. Currently, what level of service do you provide to the project site and adjacent area? • Winchester Creek Park, located within the proposed Winchester Hills Specific ' Plan area, is owned and operated by the City of Temecula. In addition, the TCSD provides long term maintenance services for residential street lighting perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance and recycling and refuse collection services to ' numerous surrounding improved residential neighborhoods. 4. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently ®' provide? The proposed project would create additional demands on existing recreational facilities and service related programs. There is a need for additional large sports facilities within the City and the proposed project would exacerbate this situation. , 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location capacities and completion dates)? Identify any of these that may serve the project site. The City has identified a need for a large sports complex, approximately 20 -25 acres in size, in the northern portion of the City. However, a location and timing for such a facility has not been determined. The Winchester Hills Specific Plan provides an opportunity for the City to work with the developer to explore this , possibility. 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of , staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Please explain how you determine service demands (i.e., park acreage/population ratios, etc.). ' Implementation of the Winchester Bills Specific Plan will create a demand for parks and recreation facilities (Please refer to the answer to Question No. 5.) and expanded maintenance requirements for street lighting, perimeter slope and landscape maintenance, and refuse collection services. Additional staffing would be anticipated to fulfill these needs in concurrence with project development. ' The City currently requires the developer of residential development to provide 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Utilizing the City's current population generation factor for parkland of 2.59 persons per single family unit and 2.34 persons per multi- family unit the project is expected to generate a residential population of 4,846 persons. Based on this population figure, the project would be required to provide 24.23 acres of public park facilities. Winchester Creek Park partially mitigates this requirement by providing 4.5 acres of public parkland. The remaining parkland requirement for the project is 19.73 acres. 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? As stated above, the City mitigates park and recreational impacts resulting from , new residential development through the required payment of in -lieu fees or dedication of parkland. Park or in -lieu fee requirements are determined based upon a ratio of providing 5 acres of land per 1,000 persons. A park development , agreement between the developer and the City may further facilitate the construction of park facilities in behalf of the City in return for developer credits applied against the park component of the Development Impact Fees. In addition, the City may allocate certain funds for park acquisition and /or development through the Capital Improvement budgeting process. Such revenues 1 ' are provided through the collection of parkland dedication fees and/or the park • component of the City's development impact fees. Additional funding may be provided at the discretion of the City Council. What problems do you foresee in serving this project? Identify any particular ' concerns. Parkland dedication issues and long term maintenance responsibilities will be resolved through the City's review and approval process. Please be advised that qualifying park credits (public and private) are based upon land that is suitable for recreational purposes. Open space, trails, and drainage areas do not qualify for ' park credits. In addition, the TCSD will only consider acceptance of perimeter slopes, adjacent to residential development on roadways 66' or wider, for inclusion into its long -term perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance ' program. The proposed lake, paseos, arroyo park, village square and pocket parks would be conditioned for maintenance by the homeowners association. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above? ' Providing a location for a large community sports park facility, in conjunction with smaller neighborhood park use, would help to mitigate the demand for said facilities within the City. While existing development agreements in Paloma Del Sol and Temeku have components regarding park development, the City has not yet entered into a ' separate park agreement related to the park development activities within a . specific plan area. These prior development agreements contain provisions that are unique to that specific project and the provisions contained within those ' agreements would not necessarily be applicable to this project; i.e., there is no "boiler- plate" park agreement available. ' It is the City's desire to enter into a separate park agreement with Lennar to develop park facilities that will be unique to this development and not adapt to any existing agreements 1• ,• Attachment #4 TO: City of Temecula Library 43200 Business Park Road ' Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 ' 1. What types of library services do you provide? 1 G.b bit b p�ov�iLr c h oIV-4'L fie weok skAd 3Z krs lk-) , JJ { �-1' l�l�, V�� 4e.- 4�00r4A;Jw. 2. List the names and location of facilities which will serve the sites, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. ia. f 4;� 3. What level of service, if any, do you ( provide to the project area at this time? See # I . In. aJUA1'h 41t; S by hvJ se` & A ?q dAIVn 2jCthZcQu y 80 ,�aa„w�i�NO e'n.EV mewnicwiuSULLJ.+nax 1 1 Attachment #4 1 4. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide' 1 uQa.;�!►,. Udei', `k �Zr r i5 q�s� Cl� ia�f fO BGC�,t.wOcfa�i� 1 1 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, 1 and completion dates)? Indicate any of these which may serve the project site. Is there a library master plan for the community? , TMJ,&JO•- k r tw p,d {� '7 dA6 , vtd , soura lw 1 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Pp �6,do-e IA? `,you 1a�4.�, "id uA 4� ue C A&J 1 1 1 1 �1 WROMOt 211PPSV � me 1 Attachment 94 ' • 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? (c kh W -,d VC%f wf�L cr.Qwa Lo-a of S f arc, E3ardS redencAt Sotu'4! . What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerns. �i What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? _ t7a� I I� natif l Prepared By: l 4 M S Title: �XAIm- ►lAlu �lA�c�, _ Sf Date: _ kho ' Phone: 9�9 (,,94 _AS2 n�wirva.nrnom:s�invreni�:o iwsw.w.w.m 1 Winchester Hills Specific Plan o� 1. What type of services do you provide to the project site? ' Fixed Route bus and Dial -a -Ride services 2. List names and location of facilities which would serve the project site. Provide capacity and level of service. RTA Fixed Routes #23 and #24 operate along County Center Drive, Equity Drive and Ynez Road. The project site is also served by the current Murrieta /Temecula DAR which provide curb to curb service to seniors and , persons with disabilities. Rt 23 & 24 use three (3) 17- passenger mini -buses operating 6:OOAM- 7:OOPM Monday — Friday & from 9:OOAM- 5:OOPM on Saturdays. Murrieta /Temecula DAR uses three (3) 14- passenger vans and operates from &30AM — 6:3OPM on Weekdays and from 10:OOAM- 5:30PM on Saturdays. ' 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Demand for extended service to cover the project site is anticipated. 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities? No plans for expansion at this time. t 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or addition of staff'.' ' Yes. The project will create a need to expand coverage of the current Temecula / Murrieta routes. 6. is there revenue budgeted for such expansion? None at this time. 7. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project'? Additional buses are needed to meet demand for increased service. 1 8. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above? , Appropriate routing and bus stop locations can be determined when the anchor cottmterciai tenants are known and the site plan for the residential developments- has been completed. 1 Serving Inland Valley Reg, Medical Center, Murrieta, Chaparral High • . School, County Center Drive: ' 4 Time and/or Transfer Polyd * Point of Interest iii 1 Allemate Routing No service on Sundays or on the New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, ' following holidays: Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. N W B 5 ' Inland Valley Transfer to Regional R 7, $ 6ttnton Keith e s n Frlelipp Falconer Amanda 215 ig � q`P �, c Murriela 79 n Town Cts. g lig po /��` C�a eta Hot SPr /os Rd• ��a Heal rp to Mu n Mulligan's Q F9ulypr Costco o� Mu to NiI chol ?laze Me cou v T apwrat ' Pla:a Bison 215 Socla — , ua a H.S. Servic t Transfer to Rt.24 County Ctr. s at P we a 215 1 ' Routing and timetables subject to change. Check with RTA Talephone Information Center (Map not to scale) �• Page 92 t P4C Serving County Center Drive. Temecula Schools, Temecula Stage F -- / Slop & old Town Time aodlor Transfer Point * Point of Interest • Anemete noultnp , No service on Sundays or on the New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, following holidays'. Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day, t N W E 5 d t: 215 Kau > Business Court Ch Social Lib ry ' Sery Chaparral H.S. Transfer to Rt. 23, 37 To cull) is , Kma Pla e Palm �v _ "em Sco County Gtr. Plaza jj al I So�2ta 7 Ma Mladle 9 0 School TargellAlbertson's ' Town C1 r. TowePlaza _ Pao`�o�a�\ \oro�a Vlllape v� n11e1a t Ch `�0��5� Tametu ? H.S. Post Dnl Ra van" H.. : " Temeou pauba Stage Sto Q�MTpnl�la % WN Town gQ 6 \a School 2od� O >1� Ynez Rd, Community Ctr. Routing and timetables subject to change. Check with RTA Telephone Information Center (Map not to scale) ' Page 95 i I Rancho Water April 15, 1999 ' Hnnrd of Uu..cur� . N:dyh 11, 11!61c Khara Covington EDAW, Inc. 17875 Von Karman Avenue "' F. ' "' Suite 400 Al, ' " "" Irvine, CA 92614 ...It ." SUBJECT: WINCHESTER HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN 01 cr` Enclosed is: I .L.hn F - . Hcu nl A: ; :,..::,ul.::_,.: I P1 „11, 1'.mhe� NO. OF COPIES DESCRIPTION � ° ° "" 1 Questionnaire -Water i' ' Rnl!' In�nnnn 1 This data is submitted: Kerr �,_ �• "�� (x) At your request I "`' ho RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 1vi ;'6 - Z� �A--- Andrew L. Webster, P.E. Planning & Capital Projects Manager ' 99WW:mr0181ADM -110 Enclosure 1 I l 1 ,..,, W. .......:.:. :... ..: �• Attachment #4 ' TO: Rancho California Water District Water 42135 Winchester Road ' Temecula, CA 92590 1. What types of services do you provide to the project site? Water and reclaimed water service. 2. List the names and locations of facilities which would serve the project site and their distance from the project site. Provide their capacity and the level at which they are presently operating. Please see attached map and RCWD's 1997 Water Facilities Master Plan Update. Current maximum day water demand for the 1380 Pressure Zone is 9,700 GPM. ' Projected ultimate maximum day water demand for the 1380 Pressure Zone is 16,216 GPM. Water supply sources will be existing water production wells, MWD turn-outs, and the proposed EM -20 Turnout. 1 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently ' provide? No. 1• 1 Attachment #4 ®� 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, 1 capacities, and completion dates)? • Winchester Reservoir No. 2 (20 MG) - Approximately 2010 -2015 • Date Street Transmission Main (30 -inch diameter) from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Approximately 2000 • EM -20 Tum -Out and Transmission Main (100 CFS water supply) Approximately 2001 -2002 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? ' If so, give brief description of anticipated needs. Please provide the water consumption rates for the proposed land uses. No additional staff is projected to be required for this individual project. Construction of Winchester Reservoir No. 2 by RCWD will occur on an as- needed basis as water demands increase in the 1380 Pressure Zone. Specific water facilities required on -site for the Winchester Hills Specific Plan will be provided by the Developer. Water construction rates are identified in the Water Facilities Master ' Plan. 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be ' used to secure capital revenue? Financing for District - funded construction is typically provided by long -tern bond financing. 1 1 Attachment #4 ' 7. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerns. No anticipated problems are foreseen. If requested by the developer, reclaimed water service may be available for the lake and the landscape irrigation for the parks and school. 8. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified t above? As required for all Specific Plans, the Developer will be required to provide a ' hydraulic analysis for the proposed development in order to determine on -site and off - site water service requirements. M 9. If possible, please provide a map showing the service boundaries in relationship to the project site. See attached map. 1 Prepared By: Andrew Webster Title: Planning & Capital Projects Manager Date: April 15, 1999 Phone: (909) 676 -4101 1 I� • • Mill • . :■�r � 111 - �` ��■ �� � .r .� � �� fi r, ' �� — - _ ■.:�� •. ill • Ito Ile MI ♦� . *�♦ 3y, S� �i °.�..` . j�11� °q j��iii M �� �l r •� 1 r 4F �� at • r , f 1 • •i �� F ° y ''ai'3�a � ♦�t��.i� � � L 4'M a'dd. 'ir ••� s ♦ .`, `� 3 e Proposed 1380 Potable Water Transmission Mains RCWD Smice Area Existing h y� -� :1 Potable Water Transmission Mains : P ressure i�. Water Production Wells N Pump Stations Reservoirs 4 �® Attachment #4 TO: Eastern Municipal Water District Sewer 2270 Trumble Rd. ' Perris, CA 92570 1. What types of services do you provide to the project site? � S rl /Y"hr�/ S rw�/ S r /vile � 2. List the names and location of facilities which would serve the project site and their distance from the proje site. Provide their capacity and the level at which they are presently operating. � i Grt ✓�j tJCI.S LYCt°K � tr�tl��or / � C J - ! 5 A el ✓ e �li'5 / / 7 L T �2LGGr✓iUC�'S TC 7V Sri ' 17J 7 / / sew Y/ s�� tTr✓l ��e�w5 Gi5 Orc�! Y� iN 4 �� j Y/'1457'rr ,p /S _H / �G/ /LO A 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? Attachment #4 •� 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? �f / IS 1707 D�Sn/�Ld JrG ��CQ /Gv1�e ThG �ownS� /caM �1 /Y�c /o rl4 / ��SY 7`Y✓ �cc% /•✓Inc, �io .� / ac.�i �j w <�� 7 oe— .,oc�� 4 i � 'IlG /G�,SeS / ✓� s {w� � �� o uJ � l � 9 ✓ge f YU rv` G 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. Please provide the water consumption rates for the proposed land uses. L / / .+....a ' / w 6 rsvPr /rne. %fiG L �i �� v1U7 6C 1 G a �rir s.<e.� e�C pc. ✓IS /�✓1 G,�� 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? /I er ` / CiNC t / '�0. ✓ �I � ' [J L I / � C�KG ✓GJC /�Y(� /4✓1'1 5 clue %Prle-�4 Gort/(C�7S ✓ �r�yv /�� (1 l 1 1 Gl �v✓I ✓ECG �I GY\ - rc -c �j c�sc L�' dYl O /�C� -7 ✓S 4�j'� �• Attachment #4 7. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerns. 1 8. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts identified above? 9. If possible, please provide a map showing the service boundaries in relationship to the project site. �e,� r.c� ✓ i c 5 e'xkr✓� �s✓ d � � b � ... � Tom✓ ._Sc�wt ✓ Sr°✓ � t'�� r Prepared By: ' ✓/n �c Title: ( 1'y i / �i�g /n rt ✓ Date: Phone: 377 1 1� A ttschment #4 TO: So. CaU Gas Comp. Gas 1991 West Lugonia Redlands, CA 92374 -9720 1- What types of services do you provide to the project site? AT 114 tS , A10 SERUICCS Td PROJZCFI rJF, t 2. Llst the names and location of facilities which would serve the project site and their distance from the project site. Provide their capacity and the level at which they are presently operating. JE906FS WO6W 50 T'RMOE, F86M A Alinch 6-45 44h i / IIV �!) A/Y Z RD AIM A /-/ m o , 3. Will the proposed project adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? ND .1 Attachment#4 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, ca;+acitics, and completion dates)? 1VONE, 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. NO /VF�D'S , aF AP-) KIND 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, whet methods would be u;ed to secure capital revcmx? DFUi_ IO N2 VV II 1 S)�CUF ALL CJASTS I A trachment #4 7. What problems do you foresee in serving the proposed project? Identify any particular concerm. NO PR3 3�-ENI S /N 5F�2VING PRO: ,EGT $. What measures can you recommend for mitigatingprojeet impacts identified above? NONE AT 74G THE 9. If possible, please provide a map showing the service boundaries in relationship w the project site. iNC 05f , A (Las s Rr-:Tr Prepared By: A(ZEL G /�R Title: P1ANNW& A SSD IATE— Date: yz?7 / -yy Phone: s C. �,-L V •� nm / I N � / � b d F FQ � U n CD '.Tr- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON An EU6UN 1,\71-RA.-;T10,\ IL Compunp •� April 21, 1999 Sally Mirabella EDAW, Inc. 17875 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 Subject: Winchester Hills Specific Plan Dear Ms. Mirabella: We have been requested to advise you that the Southern California Edison Company stands ready to '! install electrical distribution facilities within the subdivision known as Winchester Hills Specific Plan, Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, in accordance with then applicable tariff schedules which are the effective rates and rules of the Southern California Edison Company on file with and �. approved by the California Public Utilities Commission and subject to the receipt of such permits or other authorizations from public agencies as may be required for such installation. Also, rules hereinafter referred to in this letter include such changes, modifications, and amendments that the Public Utilities Commission may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Should a shortage of energy and /or generating capacity ever occur, the Utility will apportion its available supply of electricity among its customers as set forth in Rule No. 14, Shortage of Supply and Interruption of Delivery. When requested by the developer, underground facilities within the tract or parcel require advances under provisions set forth in Rule No. 15.1 or Rule No. 15.2. Requirements for advances from the developer for underground lines to reach the subdivision is set forth in Rule No. 15. An underground service lateral from the installed underground distribution system within the development to individual parcels will be in accordance with Rule No. 16. Should an individ applicant rani lira service to his rarral nrinr fn the installation of an und end distribution system to and within the development, as may be installed at the expense of a developer, or within a development for which the developer has undertaken no obligation for the installation of an underground distribution system, an advance will be required from the individual as set for in Rule No. 15. Please do not hesitate to call me at (909) 928 -8272, should you have any questions. i Rudy Bargas Customer Service Planner ' 1 0100 Rumulund. CA L 58� J. HARLAN GLENN ENGINEERS 529 West 8lueridge 714.998.8338 a diviriaaat Orange, CA 92865 Fax 714.998.7842 & ASSOC C. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 24, 2000 TO: Nick Biro RBF Consulting FROM: J. Harlan Glenn, P.F. J. Harlan Glenn Engineers, a Division of Dudek & Associates RE: COMMENT 912 ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN r , The take water supply needs to be discussed in greater detail. Where is the water comingfrom and what about in a lime of drought? Will the water be recycled water? Are there any impacts with using recycled water relative to the "accidental" swimmer or fish? The use of recycled sewage treatment plant (STP) effluent does have some significant impacts on a lake in a park or residential development. Typical recycled effluent contains fairly high levels of nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates which can cause explosive "blooms" of algae or other aquatic plant growth. If irrigation water is withdrawn from the lake, the total loading of nutrients to the lake is extremely detrimental to the aquatic community in the lake. If the only addition of water to the lake is make -up to cover evaporation and any residual seepage, the effect is less severe, but it does increase the maintenance cost and the water quality may not be aesthetically acceptable to the lake users. Full body contact sports, i.e. swimming, is not a planned activity for the lake, and is almost universally banned in most man -made lakes. Incidental contact with the water, such as falling out of a boat or someone wading into the lake is not considered full body contact, so recycled water use for make -up is normally not considered bad practice except for aesthetic values. With regard to drought conditions, to our knowledge, water officials have never denied water to a lake with a live aquatic ecosystem such as that planned for Harveston. Decorative fountain shut- downs have been ordered because they are easily drained to prevent problems that would occur in a live ecosystem (dead fish and plants with odor problems, etc.). ' %ISRV ROR% D- P RI VL4 HC V1 LCS \JUGDO MCa A R1KO 0 7 4 Na. DOC August 24, 2000 Page 2 it is our recommendation that the water come from a non - recycled source to avoid the problems that could occur. Respectfully submitted, J. Harlan Glean Engineers a Division n( Dudek h AssociWes, Inc. J. Harlan Glenn, P.E. Division Manager \uKvKOnu) -DRI EO+cra..vacoocs\ciiaAMOKanb.&c APPENDIX B i r TRAFFIC STUDY BY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES DATED JULY 19 2000 Technical Appendices (i.e., modeling data) to the Traffic Study are bound separately and will be provided upon request from the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works r i WILBUR SMITH ,I• ASSOCIATES EN GINEERS • PLANNERS 2300E K.ATEL AVE. • SUITE 355 • ANAHEIM. C 92806 -6047 • (71 978 -8110 • F AX (7 978 -1109 May 4, 2000 Ms. Patty Anders Community Development Department City of Temecu!a 42300 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 RE: REVISED SITE PLAN FOR SWEETWATER SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Ms. Anders: Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has reviewed the revised site plan for Sweetwater Specific Plan. Based on our review WSA has assessed that the site plan revisions do not alter the traffic impact analysis findings and /or mitigation requirements presented in the traffic study report dated March 23, 2000. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. i Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 1 �1 Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Planner RAD /js RE��IVF� #337890 MAY ° 8 2000 1 tUAVV, ING., IRVINE, CA 1 T flq c ! Jw n .. _. .._i.r .r �-! ..,.. c..', -, _ - l:a ri ; ^. _ '•R ?.!I� .� ,. rr- tyr.S li;. ' EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY WILBUR SMITH �- ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS ' 2 ° G0E.K 4 ,iEiLA.AVE. •SUiie .- .NA.r.'Eliv':. Cr. 9FGo -o047 •i7id)i'i5 -2iiu iilgl4 -j1P? October 25, 2000 Mr. Ali S. Moghadam Traffic Engineer City of Temecula Public Works Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Publiic Works Comments on Proposed Intersection Improvements for the Harveston S. P. Dear Mr. Moghadam: WSA has reviewed the following four intersection improvements that you requested to be added to the list of improvements needed for development of the Harveston project: 1) The provision of two (2) northbound left -tum lanes at the new intersection of Margarita Road and the southeast project access road (to be implemented prior to Project Phase 1), 2) The provision of two (2) eastbound left -tum lanes at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road (to be implemented prior to Project Phase 1); 3) The provision of two (2) westbound right -turn lanes at the intersection of Winchester Road and the 1 -15 Northbound Ramps (to be implemented prior to Project Phase 1); and 4) The provision of two (2) eastbound left-tum lanes at the intersection of Winchester Road 1 and Jefferson Avenue (to be implemented prior to Project Build -Out year 2005). While Improvement 1 was not determined to be needed for Project Phase 1 or Project Build -Out conditions, it is agreed that this feature would improve access to the project over the longer term. As you know, Improvement 2 has been identified as a required improvement for Phase 2 of the ' project. While other improvements have been prioritized at this intersection for Project Phase 1, the left -tum lane improvement can be accelerated at the City's request. We are recommending that this be addressed in the Project Development Agreement. The traffic study recognizes that Improvement 3 is a programmed improvement. We understand that the City wants to insure that the identified improvement is in place prior to Project Phase 1. We are recommending that provisions for this improvement be addressed in the Project Development Agreement. , i ., • i � •' J� I / Xi ii EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY WILBUR SMITH Mr. Ali S. Moghadam ASSOCIATES October 25, 2000 Page 2 , As you know, the Traffic Study has projected the need for several improvement features at this intersection in order to accommodate cumulative 2005 traffic conditions. Based on our recent meeting, we understand that the planned Via Alvarado Creek crossing could re- prioritize improvement needs at this intersection. WSA recognizes that the provision of a double left-turn lane at the eastbound approach may "out- weigh" the need for a separate right turn lane and would support the re- definition of improvement needs at the intersection as warranted by future traffic conditions at the intersection. We are recommending that provisions for this improvement be , addressed in the project Development Agreement. We are recommending that provisions for this improvement be addressed in the Project Development Agreement. We are confident that these concems can be addressed to the City's satisfaction in the Project Development Agreement. Sincerely, Wilbur Smith Associates /��u��lLl/rti•' Robert Davis Principal Transportation Planner r . REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN EIR (Formerly known as Sweetwater) Temecula, California Prepared For: LENNAR COMMUNITIES Prepared By: i�.k'�4k ranalkil SUVWXX 1 %1" Frlv WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 355 Anaheim, CA 92806 Telephone: (714) 978 -8110 Fax: (714) 978 -1109 i • July 19, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS • Page Description Number 1, Introduction and Summary ....................................................... ............................... 1 1.1. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives ......................... ............................... 1 1 .2. Executive Summary ......................................................... ............................... 2 2. Proposed Project Development ............................................... ............................... 5 2 .1. Location ........................................................................... ............................... 5 2 .2. Proposed Land Use ......................................................... ............................... 5 2 .3. Site Plan Layout .............................................................. ............................... 5 2 .4. Phasing and Timing ......................................................... ............................... 6 3 . Area Conditions ........................................................................ ............................... 7 3 .1. Study Area ....................................................................... ............................... 7 3 .2. Study Area Land Use ....................................................... ............................... 8 3.3. Existing Regional Access ................................................. ............................... 9 3.4. Traffic Conditions ............................................................. ............................... 12 3 .5. Transit Service ................................................................. ............................... 13 3.6. Transportation System Management (TSM) Programs .... ............................... 13 4 . Projected Traffic ........................................................................ ............................... 14 4.1. Year 2002 Traffic Projections ........................................... ............................... 16 4.2. Year 2005 Cumulative Development Traffic Projections .. ............................... 17 4.3. Existing Plus Project Traffic Projections ........................... ............................... 19 4.4. City Build -Out Traffic Projections ..................................... ............................... 20 4 .5. Site Traffic ....................................................................... ............................... 20 5. Sweetwater Project Phase 1 Scenario ..................................... ............................... 22 5 .1. Background Traffic ........................................................... ............................... 22 5.2. Phase 1 Project Traffic .................................................... ............................... 22 5.3. Intersection Levels of Service.. ........... ........ ............... ................... .......... 22 5.4. Roadway Improvement Needs ......................................... ............................... 23 6. Sweetwater Project Build -Out Scenario - Year 2005 .............. ............................... 26 ' 6.1. Cumulative Background Traffic ........................................ ............................... 26 6.1.1 Level of Service Analysis ..................................... ............................... 27 6.2. Cumulative Background and Project Build -Out Traffic... ................................. 28 6 .2.1 Site Access .......................................................... ............................... 28 6.2.2 Cumulative Background and Project Build -Out Traffic ......................... 29 • 6.2.3 Level of Service Analysis ..................................... ............................... 30 6.2.4 Immediate Site Area Roadway Improvements ..... ............................... 31 Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Description Number 7. Existing Plus Project Analysis ................................................. ............................... 34 8. City Build -Out Traffic Analysis ................................................. ............................... 35 8.1. Circulation Element Build -Out Model ............................... ............................... 35 8.2. Build -Out Traffic Conditions ............................................. ............................... 36 8.3. City Build -Out Analysis Findings ...................................... ............................... 36 ri Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula. California i LIST OF FIGURES • Follows Description Page Figure 1 Project Location Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR ................... ............................... 5 Figure Land Use Plan ....................................................................... ............................... 5 1 Figure 3 Project Development Phases ............................................... ............................... 6 Figure 4 Existing Roadway Lane Characteristics ............................... ............................... 9 Figure 5 Existing Intersection Traffic Controls .................................... ............................... 11 Figure 6 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................. ............................... 12 Figure 7 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. ............................... 12 Figure 8 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. ............................... 12 Figure 8.5 Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........ ............................... 12 Figure 9 Other Area Development Projects for Year 2002 and 2005 Cumulative Impact Analysis .................................................. ............................... 16 ' Figure 10 2002 AM Peak Total Other Project Traffic Volumes ............ ............................... 22 Figure 11 2002 PM Peak Total Other Project Traffic Volumes ............ ............................... 22 Figure 11.5 2002 Saturday Midday Peak Total Other Project Traffic Volumes ..................... 22 Figure 12 2002 AM Peak Total Background Traffic Volumes .............. ............................... 22 Figure 13 2002 PM Peak Total Background Traffic Volumes .............. ............................... 22 Figure 13.5 2002 Saturday Midday Peak Total Background Traffic Volumes ....................... 22 Figure 14 2002 AM Peak Project Traffic Distribution ( Residential) ...... ............................... 22 Figure 15 2002 PM Peak Project Traffic Distribution ( Residential) ...... ............................... 22 Figure 16 2002 AM Peak Project Traffic Distribution (Commercial) .... ............................... 22 Figure 17 2002 PM Peak Project Traffic Distribution (Commercial) .... ............................... 22 Figure 18 2002 AM Peak Project Only Traffic Volumes ....................... ............................... 22 Figure 19 2002 PM Peak Project Only Traffic Volumes ...................... ............................... 22 Figure 19.5 2002 Saturday Midday Peak Project Only Traffic Volumes . ............................... 22 Figure 20 2002 AM Peak Total Traffic Volumes ................................... ............................... 22 ' Figure 21 2002 PM Peak Total Traffic Volumes ................................... ............................... 22 Figure 21.5 2002 Saturday Midday Peak Total Traffic Volumes ............. ............................... 22 Figure 22 Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2002 Scenario .............. 23 Figure 23 2005 Without Project Scenario AM Peak Total Traffic Volumes.. ................. .... 26 • Figure 24 2005 Without Project Scenario PM Peak Total Traffic Volumes ........................ 26 Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California LIST OF FIGURES Follows Description Page Figure 25 2005 Without Project Scenario 2 -Way Total Daily Traffic Volumes .................... 26 Figure 26 Assumed 2005 Roadway Lane Characteristics With and Without Project Scenario ............................................... ............................... 27 ' Figure 27 2005 Without Project Scenario Link Capacity Analysis ....... ............................... 28 Figure 28A 2005 Project Traffic Only AM Peak Service Commercial and Residential ......... 29 Figure 28B 2005 Project Traffic Only AM Peak Service Commercial and Residential at Project Driveways ................ 29 Figure 29A 2005 Project Traffic Only PM Peak Service Commercial and Residential ......... 29 Figure 29B 2005 Project Traffic Only PM Peak Service Commercial and Residential at Project Driveways ................ 29 Figure 29.5 Project Buildout Traffic Only Saturday Midday Peak Service Commercial and Residential ............................ 29 Figure 30A 2005 With Project Scenario AM Peak Total Traffic Volumes .............................. 29 Figure 30B 2005 With Project Scenario AM Peak Total Traffic Volumes at Project Driveways .......... ............................... 29 Figure 31A 2005 With Project Scenario PM Peak Total Traffic Volumes .............................. 29 , Figure 31 B 2005 With Project Scenario PM Peak Total Traffic Volumes at Project Driveways .......... ............................... 29 Figure 31.5 2002 With Project Scenario Saturday Midday Peak Total Traffic Volumes ...................... ............................... 29 Figure 32 Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario .............. 30 Figure 33 2005 With Project Scenario 2 -Way Total Daily Traffic Volumes ......................... 30 Figure 34 2005 With Project Scenario Link Capacity Analysis ............ ............................... 30 Figure 35 Existing Plus Project Buildout Traffic at Critical Intersections WeekdayAM Peak ............................................................... ............................... 34 Figure 36 Existing Plus Project Buildout Traffic at Critical Intersections WeekdayPM Peak ............................................................... ............................... 34 Figure 37 Existing Plus Project Buiidout Traffic at Critical Intersections SaturdayMidday Peak .......................................................... ............................... 34 Figure 38 Draft Proposed Temecula Circulation Plan .......................... ............................... 35 , Figure 39 Date Street Overcrossing Scenario Alternative City Circulation Plan ................. 36 • Figure 40 Cherry Street Overcrossing Scenario Alternative City Circulation Plan ............. 36 Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California LIST OF FIGURES Follows Description Page S Figure 41 Existing Circulation Plan Daily Traffic Volumes at City Buildout ......................... 36 Figure 42 Draft Proposed Circulation Plan Daily Traffic Volumes at City Buildout ............. 36 Figure 43 Date Street Overcrossing Scenario Daily Traffic Volumes at City Buildout........ 36 Figure 44 Cherry Street Overcrossing Scenario Daily Traffic Volumes at City Buildout.... 36 Figure 45 Existing Circulation Plan Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout ....................... 36 Figure 46 Draft Proposed Circulation Plan Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout........... 36 Figure 47 Date Street Overcrossing Scenario Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout...... 36 Figure 48 Cherry Street Overcrossing Scenario Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout .. 36 i 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California i LIST OF TABLES Follows Description Page Table 1. Detailed Land Use Summary .............................................. ............................... 5 Table 2. 1998 Existing Conditions Intersection Levels of Service ..... ............................... 12 Table 3. Other Projects Trip Generation Summary for Year 2001 and 2005 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................ ............................... 17 Table 4. Project Trip Generation .............................................:......... .........I..................... 20 Table 5. 2002 Intersection Levels of Service Without and With Project Phase 1 ............. 22 Table 6. 2005 Intersection Levels of Service Without and With Project Phase 1 ............. 27 Table 7. Intersection Level of Service and Improvement Needs 2005 Without Project Scenario ........................................... ............................... 27 Table 8. Directional Peak Hour Link Capacity Guidelines ................. ............................... 27 Table 9. Intersection Level of Service and Improvement Needs ' 2005 With Project Build -Out Scenario ................................. ............................... 30 Table 9.5. 2002 Saturday Intersection Levels of Service With Project Buildout ................... 31 Table 10. Analysis of Critical Intersection Existing Plus Project Buildout Scenario ............ 34 Table 11. Intersection Level of Service and Improvement Needs Existing Plus Project Buildout Scenario .............................. ............................... 34 Table 12. Daily Link Capacity Guidelines Circulation Element Roadways ......................... 36 .Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California , Traffic Impact Study • 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Lennar Communities plans to develop 561.9 -acres of land located east of Interstate 15 and north of Winchester Road. As planned, the 561.9 -acre Sweetwater development would include a mix of residential and service commercial uses (e.g. retail, office, and neighborhood commercial center). r 1.1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES The purpose of this report is to document the traffic impacts associated with the Sweetwater Specific Plan project. The study was performed for Lennar Communities by Wilbur Smith Associates. The objectives of the study include: • To review existing roadway and traffic conditions; ° To identify the probable traffic increase related to the proposed project and other development in the area; • To assess the ability of existing and planned roadways to accommodate projected post - project traffic; • To identify the project's "fair share" of improvements to the roadway network; and, • To provide traffic- related input to the Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR document. The scope of the study included: ° Collection and assembly of inventories of existing roadway conditions and current traffic flow. Evaluation of projected traffic impacts at Phase 1 project opening, partial project build out, and at full project build -out, including: (1) cumulative traffic from ongoing and planned projects in the study area; (2) projections of growth for other area background traffic; (3) anticipated project trip - generation; (4) assignment of project - related traffic to the area roadway network including network configuration alternatives; and (5) capacity analysis of primary access roadways and ' study -area intersections. Identification of appropriate measures to mitigate anticipated project - related traffic impacts and other area roadway deficiencies. ' a Evaluation of area build -out traffic conditions with the project and long- range transportation system needs to meet minimum level of service requirements. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 1 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT S TUDY 1.2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section presents an overview of the Sweetwater Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study. More specifically, it briefly summarizes the development proposal and the key findings, conclusions and recommendations from the traffic impact analysis. Site Location and Study Area — The proposed Sweetwater Site is located in the northern part of the Temecula urban core area. The project is generally bounded by Interstate 15 (to the west), and the northern Temecula City limits (to the north), Margarita Road (to the east), and Santa Gertrudis Creek (to the south). The area of primary impact was identified with the assistance of the City of Temecula Publics Works department staff to include: • The Margarita Road corridor from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Solana , Way; • The Ynez Road corridor from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Solana Way; • The future Date Street corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • The Winchester Road corridor from Diaz Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • The Jefferson Avenue corridor from Overland Drive to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • The Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Winchester Road; • The Overland Drive corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road; • A possible future Cherry Street corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road; and • The Interstate freeway corridor including the 1- 15/Winchester Road and the 1 -15 and 1- 215 / Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchanges. Develooment Description — The Sweetwater development was assumed to include the following approximate number of development units for each of the proposed land uses: Residential uses of various densities (totaling 1,921 dwelling units on 296.6 acres); ° Service Commercial (112.4 acres); Neighborhood Commercial (20,000 SF); ° Elementary School (700 students); ° Community Park (16.0 acres); ' ° Lake Park Facility (15.6 acres); and Other Parks (16:5 acres). Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 2 ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The distribution of assumed uses within the project site is provided in Table 1 (by project parcel). ' Principal Findings — The traffic impact assessment performed for the project resulted in the following findings: ° Access to and from the site is generally good and will change over time. The proposed project site plan would be traversed by three major roadway facilities; Ynez Road, Margarita Road, and Date Street. a While the Sweetwater project would have a measurable impact on travel patterns and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site, the level of impact is moderate compared to the cumulative future ' traffic flows. Furthermore, the redistribution of traffic flows resulting from the presence of project development was assessed to make somewhat better use of available circulation system capacity. ° The first phase of the proposed Sweetwater Specific Plan is planned for construction by the year 2002. This report presents an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the construction of the first phase, as well as the necessary roadway improvements to serve the project. Although forecasted traffic volumes (with Phase 1 of the project) on the existing and committed street network resulted in peak -hour service level 'E' or 'F' at two intersection locations, additional improvements have been identified which would achieve the minimum Level of Service D or better at these two intersections. Table 5 in this report identifies the significantly impacted intersections and Section 5.3 discusses the required improvements. Required project - related improvements also include: signalization at the intersection of Margarita Road and the south project access point; modifications to the signalized intersection of Margarita Road and Rustic Glen Drive; and the widening of Margarita Road adjacent to the project. Project build -out is projected to occur by year 2005. The traffic study ' presents the analysis of year 2005 conditions without and with project build -out traffic. While ten off -site intersections were evaluated to be impacted by cumulative traffic conditions with the project, six of these intersections would be impacted by 2005 background traffic alone. • Intersection improvements needed to maintain Level of Service D or better for year 2005 conditions have been identified and are presented ' in Tables 7 and 9. Additional on -site improvement needs are identified in Section 6.2.4. Results of the 2005 project buildout Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY scenario indicate that the Sweetwater project could be developed and cumulative traffic volumes adequately accommodated without the completion of the Date /Cherry Street overcrossing or interchange. These roadway system improvements are anticipated to be needed prior to 2010 and therefor every effort should be made to encourage and facilitate their eventual implementation. An analysis of existing plus project traffic conditions is discussed in Section 7. This analysis provides a more clear assessment of incremental impacts attributable to the project. The results of the r analysis indicate that there are identifiable project related impacts at two of the off -site critical intersections. These findings are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. Cumulative impacts reported in the year 2005 project build -out scenario at the remaining eight critical intersections can only be partially attributed to the project. t Conclusions — The Sweetwater project would add significant amounts of traffic to the adjacent street network above that amount of traffic which would be attributable to other ongoing approved and planned development projects. Assuming that recommended improvements are implemented, significant project traffic impacts identified in this study can be mitigated at all impacted intersections for the Phase 1 project analysis, and the 2005 project build -out analysis. Although the project site plan evaluated in this Traffic Impact Analysis proposes a circulation system which is consistent with the currently adopted Circulation Plan for , Temecula, the on -site circulation could be easily modified to accommodate and facilitate implementation of the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan if it is adopted. The modifications necessary to provide consistency with the Draft Proposal Circulation Plan would not measurably alter the off -site impacts and improvement needs that have been identified in this study. Development of the Sweetwater Specific Plan should provide a slightly more favorable balance of jobs and housing in the southwest part of Riverside County. This would have a beneficial effect on reducing total vehicle miles of travel for the region by providing more local employment and (for project residents) shopping opportunities. The project thereby results in decreased levels of air pollution and congestion that would otherwise be associated with a less 'balanced' land use proposal. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 4 ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • 2. PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT This section describes the proposed Sweetwater Specific Plan project in terms of ' location, land use, zoning, site plan and implementation schedule. 2.1. LOCATION As shown in Figure 1, the proposed Sweetwater site is generally located within the City of Temecula, north of Winchester Road and east of Interstate 15. 2.2. PROPOSED LAND USE As summarized in Table 1, the proposed Sweetwater project would consist of five different land uses in two principal development sub - areas. ' The first sub -area is primarily composed of the residential component of the project and is located north of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road. Additional land uses in this area include neighborhood commercial, ' elementary school, parks, and a lake park facility. The second sub -area is primarily composed of the service commercial element of the project and is located north of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the 1 -15. 2.3. SITE PLAN LAYOUT The proposed conceptual site plan for the Sweetwater project is presented in Figure 2. Primary off -site access for the Sweetwater project would be served by the following roadways: • Ynez Road; • Margarita Road; and ° Date Street. Ynez Road — a four -lane Major street which parallels the Interstate freeway and extends south from Date Street providing connection to Winchester Road and 1 -15 (to the south). Ynez Road also serves as a principal access route to and from developed areas south of Winchester Road and along the 1 -15 corridor. Ynez Road is planned as a four lane Arterial street north of Date Street extending to Whitewood Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 5. PROJECT LOCATION. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR NORTH h J S B O O I � h 1 \ S MURRIF�A � 5Q�\�GS RD 2 NOT ' D A Gl 7�1 � ✓ � F �F 5� w S U RUSTIC 2 GLEN DR 3 i NICOL RD RORIPAUGH RD t� NORTH GENERAL F KEARNY RD PALM PLAZA I PALM PLAZA 2 m SO ,pNA WAY N ' //I\\\ M A Yt./ Figure 1 Table 1 Detailed Land Use Summary Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR ' Designation Planning Area Acreage Density Range Dwelling Units Residential Low- Medium Density 1 37.8 3 -5 151 7 61.7 3 -5 247 11 28.9 3 -5 116 Medium Density 1 2 28.8 5 -7 173 ' 4 14.5 5 -7 84 5 10.0 5 -7 60 8 28.4 5 -7 172 10 24.8 5 -7 149 Medium Density 2 3 38.8 7 -13 388 ' 9 8.1 7 -13 81 High Density 6 15.2 13 -27 300 Residential Subtotal 296.6 1921 on- Residential Community Park 1 16.0 — ' Mini Parks 1/718 1.5 Paseo Park 2/3 2.5 ' Lake Park Facility 3 15.6 Neighborhood Commercial 3/4/6 Elementary School 4 12.0 ' Village Green 6 2.0 Arroyo Park 10 10.5 Service Commercial 12 112.4 Major Streets 2 and Slopes 1 81.0 =_ — Out Parcel 1.2 Non - Residential Subtotal 254.7 Project Totals 551.3 1921 Dwelling Units per Acre 2 Major streets are defined as those streets depicted on the Land Use Plan ' " The overall plan allows for a ± 13 acre mixed use zone overlaying area designated for lake park and medium and high density residential development, which would include a Village Center. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of: upto 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office, daycare facility, worship site, and a rivate club house with fitness center (± 15,000 square feet), and park, recreation, educational and residential uses. A portion of the lake park facility will include the Village Club. 1 @ � C4 / - ƒ cn | _ @ » g \� \ / —� »\ � @ \ r j CL �ul LU @ 'z12 2 § 2 k CC C. - � » ¥ »&55 �� Ito � ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • Margarita Road — a planned four -lane Arterial Street which runs along the eastern boundary of the site would provide access to and from Murrieta Hot Springs Road (to the north) and Winchester Road (to the south). Margarita Road would also provide access between the project and developed areas in the central and south eastern portions of Temecula. Margarita Road has generally been improved to its ultimate cross- section 1 except between Date Street and Santa Gertrudis Creek, where it currently provides only two lanes. Date Street — is a proposed six -lane access restricted Urban Arterial roadway between 1 -15 and Winchester Road. Date Street, as planned, ' would generally run parallel to Winchester Road between Washington Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road where it would join with Winchester Road. ' In addition to the three principal access roadways, on -site access would ' be provided by an internal loop road (see Figure 2). This loop road would provide for circulation between most residential uses and community oriented retail, institutional, and recreational uses. It would also serve as a collector roadway for project trips destined to the primary roadway network (e.g. Ynez Road, Margarita Road, and Date Street). ' 2.4. PHASING AND TIMING According to Lennar Communities, the entire Sweetwater site is planned ' to be developed in five phases and completed by the year 2005. Figure 3 provides a schematic of the phasing plan for each phase of development. For purposes of traffic impact analysis, both the first development phase and project build -out conditions have been evaluated. Phase I of the Sweetwater project is projected to include 822 residential units, an elementary school, 20 net acres of service commercial, the lake park facility and 8,000 square feet of neighborhood- oriented retail commercial. ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PHASES eetwater^ Specific Plan EIR NORTH 5� Z Li RES ,� ����• ID. �0 ' R S/ RESID. SCHOOL T Vii J O / COMM. COMM. RESID. REREM. j COMM. , ji % %�: RESID. RESID. /. COMM. CI /. COMM. / I' •�iS , � LEGEND t I Phase 1 COMM. Service Commercial RESID. Residential ILM ,►\\ Bulk 1102 ®II Figure 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STU • 3. AREA CONDITIONS This section describes the traffic impact study area for the Sweetwater project in terms of coverage, land use, and existing and planned transportation system. 3.1. STUDY AREA ' Under current City of Temecula guidelines, the area of potential traffic impact is defined to include all intersections which would experience an ' increase of five percent (5 %) or more in existing peak -hour traffic volumes as a result of the project. These 'typical case' guidelines were not practical for use in defining the Sweetwater study area for the following ' reasons: The addition of new planned area roadways will have a major ' influence on existing travel patterns (i.e. background traffic volumes will change); and ' ° Many new intersections will be formed by the expanded roadway network. ° Other factors, such as those listed below, result in the actual new trips which would be added to the adjacent off -site street system to be significantly less than the total number of vehicle trips generated by the project. ' ° The mixed -use development concept for the project is oriented towards 'internalizing' a significant portion of the trips which would be generated by the project; and ° The Sweetwater development would offer a significant number of new jobs to the area. A portion of these jobs would likely be filled by persons who reside in the Winchester Valley /French Valley area or other local residential areas in Temecula and Murrieta. Every job which is filled by a local resident or every employee filling a local job that relocated to the area results in fewer total vehicle trips on area roadways and less vehicle miles of travel in the region. It is clear, however, that the Sweetwater project would have a significant influence on area travel patterns and traffic conditions. For the purpose of ' this traffic impact assessment, the area of detailed study was defined • through discussions with the City Public Works Department staff. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT STU , The study area is essentially defined by the roadway corridors that would provide primary access to and from the project. The following primary ' access corridors were designated for detailed study: • Margarita Road corridor from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Solana Way; • Ynez Road corridor from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Solana Way; • Date Street corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • Winchester Road corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • Jefferson Avenue from Overland Drive to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Jefferson Avenue to Winchester Road; and, • Interstate freeway corridor including the 1- 15/Winchester Road and 1 -15 and 1- 215 /Murrieta Hot Springs Road Interchanges. • Overland Drive corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road; and • A possible future Cherry Street corridor from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez ' Road. 3.2. STUDY AREA LAND USE ' The project site is situated in the northern Temecula area, which is currently under development. Existing zoning for the project site is SP ' (specific plan overlay). Zoning in the immediate project vicinity is a combination of Service Commercial (SC), Light Industrial (LI), Business Park (BP), Public Institutional (PI), Community Commercial (CC), and Medium Density Residential (R). Existing land use development in the immediate area is limited with most ' nearby development occurring in the Ynez Road and Winchester Road corridors. The Margarita Road corridor has only a few existing residential , development projects between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek. South of the creek and Winchester Road, significant new development has been recently completed or is underway along t Margarita Road including the Temecula Mall /Power Center project, Campos Verdes Specific Plan (mixed use), and other single family and , multi - family residential projects. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ' Temecula, California TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • In anticipation of the Mall opening in late 1999, significant new commercial development has been recently completed along the north side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Roripaugh Road. ' Established development near the freeway includes a mix of light manufacturing, auto sales and service, office, and retail centers. Existing ' residential development in the area includes the already established communities of Winchester Creek, Roripaugh Hills and Woodcrest ' Country. These residential areas are located east and southeast of the Sweetwater site. Existing development along Murrieta Hot Springs Road is predominantly residential with some small commercial development occurring near Interstate 15. 3.3. EXISTING REGIONAL ACCESS The existing roadway network serving the project site is depicted in Figure 4. The roadway facilities providing access to and from the project ' site include: • Temecula Valley Freeway (1 -15) — The Temecula Valley Freeway is a major north -south freeway serving the Temecula /Murrieta area, linking it to Riverside and the Los Angeles metropolitan area (via Corona) and ' to Sand Diego (via Escondido). In the vicinity of the proposed project, 1 -15 has eight through travel lanes. The most direct project site access to and from 1 -15 is provided at Winchester Road via a 'modified diamond' type interchange with 'loop' ramps in the northwest and southeast quadrants. A second diamond -type interchange is located ' on Murrieta Hot Springs Road northwest of the project site. • Escondido Freeway (I -215) — The Escondido Freeway is a second ' regional north -south freeway that has a junction with 1 -15 in the vicinity of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 1 -215 provides access to Riverside and San Bernardino via Moreno Valley. From the site, 1 -215 can be t accessed via the 1 -15 interchange at Winchester Road or via a diamond -type interchange located on 1 -215, north of the project site, at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. • Winchester Road (State Route 79) — Winchester Road is a state ' highway which provides regional access to and from the • Hemet/Banning area (northeast of Temecula) as well as local access to and from 1 -15. Winchester Road is generally a four -lane Major ' highway west of Jefferson Avenue and a six to eight -lane Urban Arterial east of Jefferson Avenue. Winchester Road has generally ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 9 ; E XISTING ROADWAY LANE CHARACTERISTICS weetwater Specific Plan EIR i NORTH u� ' J Q O S O y IyV GS RD 2 Yl L /FTTA HOT 1 4L QL > a 0 sL F v ti 90 i s A O OP 2 ' 9�F Oti RUSTIC 2 9L �� GLEN DR 3 F I NICoL RD aL Gov ' MARGARITA RORIPAUGH RD MEADOWS DR j i ?l 1 9 ' v Yf 6 NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD LEGEND w st PALM PLAZA t 4L - Four Travel Lanes PALM PLAZA 2 6L - Six Travel Lanes ro "?- 4L Note: All roadways have two travel y av m C 50 0, A WAY lanes unless otherwise noted. N ,v > a. ' � 41, EM mai situ was 1 \` V V% Figure 4 TRAFFIC IMPAC STUDY • been improved to its ultimate planned cross - section within the City of ' Temecula. Northeast of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road narrows to four lanes for a distance and ten again to two lanes as it ' passes French Valley Airport. Ultimately, Winchester Road will be widened to six lanes all the say to State Route 74 (Florida Avenue) in the Hemet area. Most of the improvement of Winchester Road east of 1 -15, has been funded by Assessment District 161. The widening of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs ' Road was completed in 1997. • Ynez Road - Ynez Road, which will be extended into the western ' portion of the project site, is currently a four -lane Major Highway north of Winchester Road and a six -lane Urban Arterial Highway between ' Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. The General Plan Circulation Element currently designates Ynez Road as a four -lane Major Highway between its current terminus north of County Center ' Drive and Date Street and an Arterial Highway from Date Street to the City boundary. The City of Murrieta Circulation Plan currently designates Ynez Road as a Major Highway from the City boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. ' • Margarita Road - Margarita Road is currently a two to four -lane Arterial Highway between Solana Way and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The portion between Winchester Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek has already been widened to its ultimate four -lane cross - section. North of Santa Gertrudis Creek to approximately Date Street, Margarita Road has not been improved to its ultimate cross - section. North of Date Street, Margarita Road widens to four lanes and continues as a four - lane facility to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. ° Jefferson Avenue /Front Street — Within the City of Temecula, Jefferson Avenue, located west of 1 —15, is currently designated as a four -lane ' Major Street, south of Winchester Road and is proposed as a six -lane Urban Arterial north of Winchester Road. North of Cherry Street the City ' of Murrieta has designated Jefferson Avenue as a four -lane Major to Elm Street and a six -lane Arterial north of Elm Street. South of Cherry Street, Jefferson Avenue has been improved to its ultimate cross- ' section. The improvement of Jefferson Avenue to four -lanes between • Cherry Street and Murrieta Hot Springs Road is currently programmed by the City of Murrieta in their five -year capital improvement program. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • Nicolas Road - is a two -lane to four -lane east -west roadway which intersects with Winchester Road east of the project site and Santa Gertrudis Creek. Nicolas Road, a designated Arterial Highway, currently serves the developing residential areas located within the Nicolas Valley area. • Overland Drive — Overland Drive is an improved four -lane Secondary ' Highway between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road and an improved four -lane Major Highway between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. • Solana Way - Solana Way is an improved four -lane Major Highway which connects Ynez Road with Margarita Road. Immediately east of Margarita Road, Solana Way has been widened to its ultimate Secondary Highway cross - section. This portion of Solana Way serves the Woodcrest and Meadowview residential areas. • Murrieta Hot Springs Road — is a principal east -west arterial which services the City of Murrieta and Riverside County portions of the study area. West of 1 -15, Murrieta Hot Springs Road has been widened to an interim four -lane cross section which will ultimately provide six lanes west of Madison Avenue and eight lanes between Madison Avenue and 1 -15. Between 1 -15 and 1 -215, Murrieta Hot 1 Springs Road has been improved to ultimately accommodate eight traffic lanes, however, it is currently striped for only four traffic lanes. The interchanges at 1 -15 and 1 -215 are under construction and are , being improved to include loop -type on -ramps and widened bridges and diamond -type off and on- ramps. East of 1 -215, Murrieta Hot Springs Road provides an interim four -lane , cross - section within an ultimate six -lane Urban Arterial right -of -way. In the vicinity of Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road has already been widened to its ultimate six -lane cross - section. Intersection traffic controls within the study area are illustrated in Figure 5. The currently proposed Draft Circulation Plan for the City of Temecula is , provided later in Section 8 and the adopted Circulation Plan for the City of 1 Murrieta Circulation Plan is provided in the Appendix. Also, provided are typical cross - sections for the various street classifications designated in both circulation plans. ®' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ' Temecula, California 11 ; EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROLS weetwater Specific Plan EIR ' NORTH H /�S 000 RO 2 MURRiF�q 5Q�\�OS hbT 5; P � N 9s0� ygOiS A O O`� � 2 RUSTIC 2 q GLEN DR F 1 i i NIC OL As RD MARGARITA RORIPAUGH RD ' MEADOWS DR _ < ' NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD PALM PLAZA 1 LEGEND PALM PLAZA 2 ' • Traffic Signal m 50 pNA WAY ■ All -Way Stop ' ❑ One or Two -Way Stop R "A \ \\ aEea1111111k %usMEN PF \ " v v� Figure 5 1 t 3.4. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ' Estimated Year 2000 daily traffic volumes in the study area are depicted in Figure 6. Actual 1999 -2000 morning and evening weekday peak -hour ' traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 7 and 8 respectively. Saturday midday peak hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 8.5. Ten intersections were identified (and approved by City staff) for inclusion in ' the weekend analysis. Information on existing traffic conditions was prepared using recent traffic counts obtained from the Cities of Temecula ' and Murrieta, and Caltrans. Additional traffic counts were taken, where necessary to augment data from the local and regional agencies. The evaluation of 1999 -2000 peak -hour traffic volumes and roadway/ intersection geometrics in the project study area indicated that all existing roadway segments in the study area are currently operating at Level of ' Service C or better except for Jefferson Avenue (south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) which operates at Level of Service D during peak periods. Area intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operations Analysis method that is currently required by the City of Temecula traffic impact study preparation. This method of analysis estimates average vehicle delay during the peak -hour and relates this value to the Level of Service provided to traffic using the intersection. ' Based on the HCM analysis results summarized in Table 2 for existing conditions, all principal signalized intersections were found to have a ' weekday peak -hour Level of Service C or better except the following: Winchester Road /Jefferson Avenue (observed Level of Service D /E; ' AM and PM Level of Service D); ° Winchester Road /1 -15 SB Ramps (observed AM Level of Service D); ° Winchester Road/Ynez Road (AM and PM Level of Service D); and ' ° Winchester Road /Nicolas Road (AM Level of Service D): ' For the Saturday midday peak hour conditions, all of the study intersections in the vicinity of the Promenade Mall were found to operate at Level of Service C or better. While the analysis assumes optimal signal timing, City staff has indicated that actual Saturday peak hour conditions at the intersection of Winchester Road and West Mall Access result in cueues in the eastbound Winchester Road left turn lane which at times overflow the left turn bay storage. This condition could potentially be improved with relatively minor signal timing adjustments. Any timing 1 adjustments would have to be reviewed in the context of their potential impacts on the signal synchronization plan along Winchester Road. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 12 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR I ' NORTH N ^ P y J O O MU �r G RD 2 RRIE rr.O 4. 15.8 17.7 1 19.3 Tfq MOT 6P 11.9 ' ♦' 27a �g9 ~ J 9 A F D 2 90s P O OP S RUSTIC 2 9L r'•.? GLEN DR F 'O 1 C1 � v NID Is 14.4 RD MARGARITA k — RORIPAUGH RD l MEADOWS DR N ryrt. i 'O 5k 1 N NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD d `3� .6, PALM PLAZA 1 PALM PLAZA 2 LEGEND 10.1 v < 6.3 xx.x - Volumes in Thousands 2!s / S O PNA WA), �O m MEMOIRS SUIREM Figure 6 ti 4) �o z LL O a o v iAM �\ Q' 160. • K J � \ .. ` _ ' CO LU r � J Ste., J NVH z�a -• � i LL Ao � i L ' to \V � \ )/ � \ a,• CL a w •- wa co Z R cn X W co J � m® w m r lilt Mum m r m m m co CD L 0 0 z jL —� 9, dl � /ABA.• � i7� _IZ __��— MAR �'. o C - - -- _ 41 —9t Ina � Zia • oNbH LL ,s LL )l f22 0 CL 0. W Y c� W c 0 `m Z ca H Cl) /ii1 >C 3 i ii` W t/) % ANIL ■� v ice■ i iii 00 1 L O � CO 2 K i i W = J oti \, _- c7 Y � � ,�- • r 60 r� MARGA .� Q� ° cn 1N y r LL LL 3 b NbH I.I. O 2 Q \y Q W \' a Q 0 0 w cc a� H � Cl) cn a d Z a /ii\ 57< Pt 71mmom "MAN W�ml m m r Table 2 1999 -2000 Existing Conditions Intersection Levels of Service Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR 1999 -2000 Existin Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Midday Peak ID No. Intersection Delay [1] LOS Delay [1] LOS Delay [1] LOS 1 l Winchester Rd /Jefferson Ave 21.4 C[DIE] 32.3 D 24.5 C 2 Winchester Rd /1 -15 SS Rams 13.1 B[D]' 16.5 C 12.9 B 3 Winchester Rdl1-15 NB Rams 9.0 B 15.2 C 11.8 B 4 Winchester Rd/Ynez Rd 20.4 CID] 31.3 D 24.8 C 5 Winchester Rd /Margarita Rd 22.0 C 247 C 25.0 C 6-Ti Hot Springs Rd /1 -215 Sl Ramps 15.4 C 16.1 C - 7 iMurrieta Hot Spring Rd /1 -215 NB Ram 5 7.1 B 23.3 C 8 Imurrieta Hot Springs Rd /1 -15 SB Ramps 10.2 B 11.0 B g Murrieta Hat Sorin s Rely NB Ramps 9.6 B 14.4 B - 10 Murrieta Hot Sprin s Rd /Jefferson Ave - All-way Stop 18.3 C F [D /E1 11 Murrieta Hot Sonnet; Rd /Madison Ave 13.4 B 17.0 C - 12 Murrieta Hot Sorin s Rd /Jackson Ave (Alta Murrieta) 8.2 B 10.9 B 13 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd /Mar arita Rd 12.5 B 17.0 C 14 l Winchester Rd /Murrieta Hot Somas Rd 16.9 C 14.2 C - 15 1 Winchester Rd /Nicolas Rd 34.4 D 20.6 C - 6 IYnez Rd /Palm Plaza North 10.3 8 18.4 C Mq 7 lYnez Rd /Palm Plaza South 10.5 B 17.9 C 18 Jefferson Ave /Overland Dr 15.2 C 20.2 C 15.9 C ' ( 19 IYnez Rd/Overland Dr 15.2 C 16.3 C 13.6 C 20 IYnez Rd /Solana Way 15.5 C 14.9 B 21 Margarita Rd /Solana Way 15.0 B 24.1 C 22 Margarita Rd /General Kearny Rd 20.7 C - 23 Winchester Rd/Margarita Meadows 10.0 B i 17.3 C 20.4 C 25 Margarita Rd/North Mall Drwv - Minor Approach Stop 4.7 A 53.6 E 26 IMarqar,ta Rd /Overland Dr 9.3 B 17.8 C 10.3 B 27 Winchester Rd/West Mall Access Road 7.0 B 9.6 B 10.7 BID]' 28 Mar arita Rd /Rustic Glen Or L2 6 5.7 B - 39 Mar arad Rd /Date St. - Minor Aooroacn Stop 0.7 A 0. "b A - 01 Delay is Intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. 12] Estimated eoserved level-of- service. In some cases due to adverse Impact from m,f5c conditions at nearby iintersection(s). DfE - oenotes borderline conditions between LOS D and LOS E. ' Demand exceeds capacity, therefore values are unreliable and not rationed In the Highway Capcity Manual analysis software output. �I i TRAFFIC IMPAC S TUDY • The partial stop controlled intersection analysis results indicate that the intersection of Margarita Road and North Mall Driveway operates at Level of Service E during the weekday evening peak period. Based on field observations, the all -way stop controlled intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road /Jefferson Avenue currently operates at or approaching Level of Service E during peak periods. Both of these intersections are candidates for signalization in the near future. 3.5. TRANSIT SERVICE As of January 1998 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has been operating L two bus routes which serve the Temecula area. Local transit service is currently provided by Route 23, which circulates within the community. Route 24, which was recently implemented, provides a link from Temecula to Lake Elsinore and Inland Valley Medical Center. RTA plans to add a new commuter bus from Temecula and Murrieta to the transit node in Perris. This is intended, in part, to provide transportation for people who live in Hemet, San Jacinto and Perris to job locations in Temecula. Although area population /development at project build -out would likely warrant significant expansion of existing transit service, none has been ' assumed (in terms of mode split) for the purposes of reducing vehicular traffic in this analysis. This results in conservatively high traffic projections for future year traffic scenarios. 3.6. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) PROGRAMS At the present time, TSM programs in the Temecula area are limited to car pool incentive programs which have been implemented by a few of the major employers and City efforts to implement a community wide bike route system. Significant efforts are underway, however, by the City Council (via the Traffic and Public Safety Commission) to implement a flex time /staggered work hour program which would involve local employers. The goal of this program is to reduce the current severe peaking characteristics of commuter traffic. ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 13 T 4. PROJECTED TRAFFIC TRAFFIC IMPACT S This section describes the methodology and assumptions used for the projection of traffic generated by the proposed Sweetwater project (site traffic) and other non -site related traffic in the study area. For the purpose of the traffic impact assessment, morning peak hour, evening peak hour, and /or daily traffic volumes have been projected for the following study year /development phase scenarios: 1 a) Year 2002 Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 1 b) Year 2002 With Project Phase 1 - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 2a) Year 2005 Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 2b) Year 2005 With Project Build -out - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 3a) Existing Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 3b) Existing Plus Project Build -out - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 4a) City Build -out — Currently Adopted Circulation Element; 4b) City Build -out — Draft Proposed Circulation Element; 4c) City Build -out — Date Overcrossing; and 4d) City Build -out — Cherry Overcrossing. The first analysis grouping addresses project opening Conditions. The Year 2002 scenario has been designated to represent a reasonable implementation period for the first phase of the project. The roadway network assumed in the 2002 analysis essentially includes existing roadway facilities plus roadway facilities /improvements which are currently known to be funded and programmed to be constructed by the second quarter of 2002. The 2002 "with project Phase 1" scenario also includes those on -site roadways needed to serve Phase 1 project development. �ll The second analysis grouping addresses cumulative development conditions at build - out of the entire Sweetwater project. The Year 2005 projection year has been designated to represent the time frame within which the entire residential and non- residential portions of the project are expected to be built -out. The roadway network which has been assumed for the 2005 "without" project build -out development scenario includes existing roadway facilities plus roadway facilities /improvements which are currently known to be funded and programmed to be constructed. The 2005 "with" project build -out scenario also includes the construction of all on -site roadways. The Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WIIBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 14 TRAFFIC IMPA STUDY project build -out scenario does not assume any additional new off -site roadways or roadway extensions. Additional discussion of the 2005 roadway network is provided later in this section. The third analysis grouping addresses the direct impacts of the Sweetwater project on the existing plus committed area roadway network. This analysis scenario does not represent conditions for -a particular point in time in the future, but rather focuses on the incremental impact of project related traffic on the study area roadway network. This analysis is typically performed to assist in the definition of off -site roadway improvement needs which can be specifically related to the proposed project. The analysis results can also be used as the basis for estimating "fair share" project participation in the implementation of identified off -site roadway improvement needs. Traffic forecasts for this scenario are derived by merely superimposing project related traffic on existing traffic flows. Existing plus project traffic conditions have been derived for only the build- out project development condition. This scenario which include the project, also include all on -site project roadways. The final analysis grouping addresses potential project related traffic impacts at build- " out of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, and surrounding Riverside County areas. City build -out traffic forecasts have been performed for two circulation system alternatives which differ from the currently adopted Circulation Plan and the current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan that has been developed as part of the ongoing City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Update Study. In response to comments received from the City Public Works department staff, the traffic analysis was augmented to include a focused analysis of future Saturday midday peak hour traffic conditions at ten intersections in the vicinity of the Promenade Mall. Forecast scenarios which were defined for Saturday analysis include: 1 a) Year 2002 Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 1 b) Year 2002 With Project Phase 1 - Existing Plus Committed Roadway I� Improvements; 2a) Year 2002 Without Project Buildout - Existing Plus Committed Roadway ' Improvements; 2b) Year 2002 With Project Buildout - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; • 3a) Existing Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; and Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 15 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 3b) Existing Plus Project Build -out - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements. Since computer -based traffic forecasting models that have been developed for use in the SCAG region are limited to standard weekday conditions, it was not possible to use the same methodology to forecast Saturday midday peak hour conditions with buildout of the Sweetwater project. It was therefor agreed that the manually generated year 2002 Saturday midday peak hour conditions would be used to as the base for assessing the impacts of both Phase 1 project traffic and buildout project traffic. 4.1. YEAR 2002 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Since the first phase of the project is expected to be completed within a relatively short time frame, it was decided to use a manual method which first requires the estimation of 2002 background traffic conditions and then superimposes the Phase 1 project traffic to derive total year 2002 traffic volumes. 2002 background traffic was conservatively estimated through a two step process which not only accounts for cumulative traffic growth from ongoing and soon to be completed development projects in the vicinity, but also applies a general traffic growth factor to account for other more remote development which could impact roads in the study area by year 2002. To account for general growth in background traffic growth, a 3 percent yearly increase (compounded for two and a half years) was applied to end -of -year 1999 traffic volumes to derive base 2002 traffic. Recent traffic growth in this part of Temecula has been in the range of 5 to 7 percent, however much of this growth has come from the opening of the Promenade Mall and other nearby development projects which have been completed in anticipation or as a result of the Mall opening. Since the added traffic from several nearby development projects is already being taken into account in the estimation of total background traffic growth, a lower 3 percent per year growth rate was applied to current traffic volumes to specifically simulate that growth in traffic traveling through the area due to more remote development projects in the area. Current traffic counts are comprised of counts taken in November 1999, March 2000, and June 2000. The estimation of mid -year 2002 traffic conservatively applies a full 2 -year period of growth to all of the recent counts. Additionally, cumulative traffic generated by eight separate projects considered to be "probable projects" under SEQA, was superimposed on the base 2002 background traffic. These projects and their general location are shown in Figure 9. Additional details concerning land use Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ; Temecula, California 16 OTHER AREA DEVELOPMENT FOR YEAR 2002 AND 2005 CUMMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR NORTH HOT SP RING RO n v 0 —' p 5� ° _RUSTIC 1 GLEN DR i � 2 U% LaS RD •.� MARGARITA i i� RORIPAUGH RD W •` ;� MEADOS DR I NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD Q� 0 m �PNA WAV N p 0 ✓ LEGEND O r Solana Apartments 9 c' '?) Tuscany Ridge Apartments "Q° 3 Winchester Marketplace � Winchester Meadows Shopping Center s`. Fishouse Veracruz Restaurant Campos Verdes Roripaugh Ranch a. Castro Relocotion /Ezponsion 9 Promenade Mall h Promenade Residential Development ' '�� Warm Springs "I MM rr.uu •vffsi Figure 9 'TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • characteristics and trip generation for these projects are summarized in Table 3. The sum of these two background traffic components represents year 2002 conditions without the Sweetwater project. It is important to note that total Year 2002 background traffic volumes derived in this study generally reflect equivalent average annual traffic growth rates on study area roadways which are well above the 4 to 5 percent average annual ' growth rate which has been experienced over the past ten years. This is primarily due to the significant traffic increases resulting from the ongoing, recently approved, and planned development projects included in Table 3. Year 2002 conditions with the project are derived by simply superimposing the project traffic on the total cumulative background traffic volumes. It should be noted that this manual method of projecting future traffic tends to overestimate the cumulative effects of area development. Specifically, the simple addition of increments of traffic due to area development cannot fully and accurately reflect the more complex vehicle trip interactions which occur between the existing and new area land uses. Additionally, this approach inherently assumes that existing traffic patterns would, for the most part, not be influenced by the new development projects. However, given the relatively short (2 '/z -year) projection period from the year -end 1999 traffic counts and year 2002, the manual approach used for this short-range projection year is the most appropriate forecasting approach. Additionally, the relatively short projection period will limit, to within reasonable levels, the inherent overstatement of traffic impacts associated with this analysis approach. 4.2. YEAR 2005 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Build -out of the Sweetwater project is expected to occur by year 2005. Traffic projections for this medium -range analysis horizon were estimated using the TRANPLAN -based traffic forecasting model developed by Wilbur Smith Associates for the ongoing City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Update Study. The sub - regional forecasting model covers the entire Southwest Community Plan area of Riverside County and consists of approximately 1,000 transportation analysis zones (TAZ's) and over 7,500 street links. ' The updated Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model ( TCETM) • includes two traffic assignment scenarios: Existing Conditions -Year 1998 and City Build -out. The TCETM reflects various TAZ and roadway network refinements which are consistent with the most current area ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 17 �• r N t t O I H � O 2 m ry I I 1� N O N m p a a m c N N 0 O � F + N O N m n Y u = I L O m n Y o m O ° a N N Q C c :I ry mo m o ry° n n °a e m .• a Q v E 'c C-4 o y CD ' a` 3 z z z vl E u L d 1 I UI LL _ o i _m as c m a m _ `I o o a o O El y 2 • o I. I N ' ' I I m j v � E a Ni n I I N z z= F O jG b m O m b O O O Q1 O O Q O N a N ° a m n o n C p O O 0: q O b G � d O ` a m b O O C O m N M K > d v � L O 7 ry b O ry y Q ' V t'1 n v m O N a m y R a _ N V W C m m y y ry 1 m o r rv m I m v M C, CD i. Bi EL r g - L = V G N N a y UI -III VJ N w L o CD O d m ` C-4 L d I �j I j LL ul OI n O ry O L a u ! . EL u L b O O m r 3 i ! 31 v e of ni al 3 j I j j LL I j ml I I r TRAFFIC IMPAC STUDY development projects including but not limited to Sweetwater, Campos 1 Verdes, planned Temecula Mall, and Roripaugh Ranch. The area which comprises the Sweetwater Specific Plan is divided into ten TAZ's. r Year 2005 model land use /trip generation was essentially estimated using a straight line extrapolation method. Current SCAG forecasts developed for the Riverside County RTP reflect a compounded growth rate of approximately five percent per year between 1995 and 2015 for the area covered by the Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model. Total land use /trip generation reflected in the 1998 base year traffic model was first factored by a growth rate of five percent per year for the seven -year 1 period from 1998 to 2005. This defined the total growth in vehicle trips that is expected to occur by 2005. To be conservative, the 2005 forecast assumes that this growth in trips would occur apart from any additional trips which would be generated by the proposed Sweetwater project. Existing land use contained in the 1998 base model was first augmented with land use data for all on -going and planned development projects in the study area. This includes the cumulative trip generation for all projects (summarized in Table 3) discussed earlier in the derivation of 2002 background traffic. For the year 2005 analysis however, it is assumed that the Temecula Promenade Mall and Power Center are ' completely built out. Additionally, the Campos Verdes and Warm Springs projects are assumed to be build -out or nearly built -out. Vehicle trips which would be generated by the proposed Sweetwater project were assumed to be additional trips above those cumulative new project development trips reflected in the 5 percent per year traffic growth. The total growth in vehicle trips expected by 2005 was then compared to the amount of trips which had been added to the 1998 base model from ongoing and probable area projects. The remaining growth in vehicle trips expected between 1998 and City Build -out was calculated to derive a factor which could be applied to all traffic analysis zones that are not built out at this time and that will have additional traffic generation from planned projects. The five percent compounded growth factor results in the addition of approximately 11.7 percent of the growth remaining in the southwest portion of Riverside County between 1998 and City Build -out. ' The 2005 forecast model uses a modified 1998 roadway network which • has been augmented with planned /committed area improvements. The analysis of year 2005 conditions with the project assumes that the only additional roadway network improvements include those which occur Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 18 TR AFFIC IMP STUDY 1 within the boundaries of the project. This essentially includes the ®.. northerly extension of Ynez Road to the northern project boundary (at the City limit) and construction of Date Street between Ynez Road and - Margarita Road. To develop the traffic forecasts, vehicle trips generated by the year 2005 cumulative development conditions were distributed between the TAZ's using the "Gravity Model" trip distribution method. The Gravity Model estimates trips between TAZ's as a function of the trip production, trip attractions, and travel time (friction factors) between TAZ's. The friction factors included in the Gravity Model were obtained from the SCAG -based Riverside County Transportation Plan regional traffic forecasting model. The Gravity Model produces daily trip tables (for each trip purpose) with vehicle productions and attractions between each TAZ in the model. The production and attraction daily trip table is then factored down by trip purpose to convert to a daily vehicle trip origin /destination table. A morning and evening peak -hour vehicle trip table was developed by factoring the daily origin /destination trip table. The vehicle trip table was then assigned to the alternative street networks using an equilibrium traffic assignment model. The traffic volumes were assigned in up to ten iterations. For each iteration, the travel time on each street link was recomputed as a function of the volume- capacity ratio on that link. The vehicle trips were then reassigned to other travel paths based on the new travel time. The resulting traffic volumes on the network ' are therefore capacity restrained volumes. Vehicle trips were assigned for all -day and peak hours. Traffic assignments were also developed for the base network alternative without the Sweetwater project to simulate traffic conditions for the 2005 "no build" scenario. 4.3. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS As discussed earlier, the existing plus project analysis scenarios are used to address the direct impacts of the Sweetwater project on the existing plus committed area roadway network. Traffic forecasts for this scenario are ' derived by merely superimposing project related traffic on existing traffic flows. Existing plus project traffic conditions have been derived only for ' build -out project development conditions. This development scenario, which includes the project, also includes all on -site project roadways. • i Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 19 ' TRAFFIC IMPAC STUDY • 4.4. CITY BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS City build -out traffic projections were developed for two alternative roadway networks using the TCETM model. These traffic forecasts allow ' for the comparison of traffic conditions with the alternative roadway networks to conditions with both the currently adopted Circulation Plan and the current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. It should be noted that the land use proposed for Sweetwater in this study is consistent with that used in the derivation of build -out traffic projections for the City's Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. The only differences lie in the assumed transportation network. Two network alternatives have been defined for the City Build -out analysis scenario. The first alternative assumes that only an overcrossing is provided near Date Street. The second alternative assumes that only an overcrossing is provided near Cherry Street. The Cherry overcrossing alternative is generally consistent with the proposed street alignment shown in the current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan for the City, but differs in that an overpass is proposed along the Cherry Street alignment instead of an interchange. For the purpose of the City Build -out traffic analysis /comparison, daily ' traffic volumes are projected, then roadway volume- capacity ratios /LOS's -- are calculated and compared. ' 4.5. SITE TRAFFIC The estimation of peak -hour and daily traffic to and from the project site involved four different procedures: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, (3) modal split, and (4) trip assignment. r Trio Generation is the procedure used to estimate the number of vehicles trips entering and leaving the project site during peak periods and on a 1 daily basis. Vehicle trips generation estimates have been developed for the land use defined in Table 1. Daily and peak hour vehicle trip generation rates used for the Sweetwater land uses are based on information developed and published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trio Generation Manual 6`" Edition. Daily and peak hour vehicle trip rates applied to the Sweetwater land uses • are summarized in Table 4. Application of the trip generation rates to the Sweetwater land uses results in the total project daily and peak hour vehicle trip generation summarized in Table 4. Based on the assumed Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 20 1 • F N l7 17 d x o a a E a m - o - N N r d U O a = o x v a n o N m m T O a a p � N L a O N m m f7 ry d O U � y w v � d = I U A K E 0 a 3 m d Y m r N ul H Q � I o c _ o U O U j O U p d � d t N d n O a v ry U U m - o v m a r� a m n r p O �o n iO u o v m m d � a d q i ❑ O N N r d O A d N c W d x O n C d z I — O O m y IL ; y (1J = U U A O U >? m< e F y Q Q o y? o < q o❑❑ N z o i? z o ? < y ~ r N U _ � V C N !l ❑ L _a F Q R 9 J C O 0 I U Z to fA O N a d L a r r TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • land use mix, the entire project would generate approximately 41,767 daily vehicle trips. During the morning and evening peak hour, the project is estimated to generate a total of 2,824 and 3,844 vehicle trips respectively. For the Saturday midday peak hour scenario, the project is estimated to generate a total of 4,808 vehicle trips. The total project trip generation has been used in the 2005 (project buildout), existing plus project buildout, and City Buildout analysis scenarios. For the 2002 analysis scenario, only trip generation for the first phase of the project is used. Table 4 includes a summary of the project trip generation estimated for Phase 1 development. Project Phase 1 is ' estimated to generate 12,515 daily vehicle trips, 1,007 total trips during the morning peak hour, and 1,140 total trips during the evening peak hour. For the Saturday peak hour, the project is estimated to generate a total of 1,360 vehicle trips. Trio Distribution is the procedure used to identify roadways used in traveling to and from the project site, and the percentage of site - related travel that will use each roadway. The traffic forecasting methodology used in this study does not require assumptions to be made regarding the distribution of trips. The distribution of project trips for the 2002, 2005, and City Build -out was performed using the Gravity Model method which distributes trips between area traffic zones based on the magnitude of trip productions and trip attractions in each zone and the travel times between traffic zones. ' Modal Split is the procedure used to reduce the estimated number of site- ' related vehicle trips to reflect: (1) public transit access to the site; and (2) higher than normal carpool, bicycle or pedestrian access to the site. In the case of the Sweetwater project, standard ITE trip rates were used directly and no additional modal spit factors were applied. Trip Assignment is the procedure used to allocate the vehicle trips ' generated by the project to roadways within the study area based on the trip generation, trip distribution, and modal split procedures described above. The methodology for trip assignment used in the study is discussed earlier in this section. Sweewater Specific Plan BIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 21 5. SWEETWATER PROJECT PHASE 1 SCENARIO TRAFFIC IMPAC S TUDY Based on the Sweetwater phased development plan, this section of the report ' addresses the traffic impacts associated with the first phase of project development. 5.1. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC As previously mentioned in Section 4, the future background traffic volumes have been estimated for not only a general background annual growth of 3 %, but also the projects currently planned or under construction in the project vicinity. Figures 10, 11 and 11.5 present the r traffic volumes generated by the other projects during the AM and PM weekday and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. Figures 12, 13, '. and 13.5 present the total cumulative peak hour background traffic in the year 2002. 5.2. PHASE 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC Based on the projected Phase 1 project trip generation and estimated ' travel patterns in the project vicinity, a project trip distribution pattern has been developed for the residential and service commercial portion of the project. The residential trip distribution pattern, shown in Figures 14 and 15, for the AM and PM peak hours respectively, includes the ancillary uses in the residential portion of the project site. Figures 16 and 17 present the trip distribution pattern for the service commercial portion of the project during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. The weekday PM peak hour traffic distribution patterns for the project were used to approximate the Saturday midday peak hour travel patterns. Figures 18, 19, and 19.5 present the weekday AM and PM and Saturday , midday peak hour 2002 project traffic volumes respectively. Figures 20, 21 and 21.5 present the estimated total 2002 traffic volumes including , both background and project traffic volumes during the AM and PM weekday and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. 5.3. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 5 outlines the results of the HCM analyses of the principal intersections in the study area for the 2002 with and without Phase 1 project traffic volumes respectively. As shown, under the without project scenario, all of the intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory levels of service (City's goal of Level of Service D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES , Temecula. California 22 0 TM CD � 0 3 Z tm LL ` p� - ) / Ei a \P � `�'l :Y • •moo / \1 \ y av � /O ♦/ � �V E 1 3HJN s �°hr j�i,. air 1 j ( M C7 p 0 0 / 11 O w \ g:� °i. MARGARITA � �'\ ¢3 �� D ��CL[ — �� •. �� �� J .'1. �.O OI \ •Y 22 • b \ 0 d� \ O T9 9♦ • n I i O /. Ste., LL LL O NHH s e — , � W mg JW P, � v Y �v Q � W co a �o QA N cn \1%w r L LL 6 � 7 i o ff°_ o f � C magyrb•� ��_ 'O O �i N� -- / \ YA \ \ �••/ � ry � O NbH io r i N r i W 0 CL a F— 0 a �� H v CL t� W co a L a. CD 3 �':` N co §11% Y! r W Z A Z On. J,pN♦ �681� �Q la 1S3H JNIAA � JQ jK Q _ � $ Z d.. ¢z� O Oww a r� Y b � W P GAR \1 rA• e'�.; a 3 _ .n _'� /, \ a J MAR LL - W �o 0 Ste., IL �b w NbH W r O J P ,e O Q W a CL pw O � �a � o- Q � d co F- m LM Q a °0 3jo N N �w�� Ad mm� Mae mm='Wmm N r 7 �z LL C• SLL _., 1$3 HGNIAI K � � W Q� 0 C J MARGARITA 48 J Ste ./ O 1 �1 �n rr \, n 6ry sos —• AHH OL Pi} o L LL. � ® P O i 9 O CL CL H v Q m a Cl) Q� C e;I N N \��O �1 r K M r d L 2 � LL Ilk ��y• l�. <c�r� vz, "r�r�Ae� / �, � 1� ��� I /� , T zll ; (Y. i O w w Z (7 x IP i i g LA / RGARIS Lu tr A/ I > / -' -� 3, __' -- _ ". :' +fie ^,• , ., NbH 959 _• 1 I 1 — L P l / 1 M LL „h {� cc CL Y �(D W q N a. L cu a�j C14 a) ° 0 N (n ;v U) cri r d p L - Z � G / �- Oa Z tt CO 3HJ M x '�t��•. °�i/ � Anry C D �mz� g 0 2 0� a - ZOY 4 ,9 N W x ° �aj:•�A 'o�ic _— - C7 O LL ` ._ LL D aI �b �J v �NyH Y M Q W P J Pi e y �P y O � Y � Q W a Q W _ ev fl- � v O m CL D m Q a Cl) CM /ii\ 0 3 Now N (A Il m ® AW m m mon i ='9 r d z LL z (.9 M °� oo� �o6 �j � A � R A i� IA ♦ � \� 0�1 \ � � � t � Dp V/ �/, °� i W �_ 7 ! "stzy Z VH 0 p� V'� - /,.,•app N o V I r ) 1 29 LPL. v / PODS L W p \V uj CL Q W �- CL U) ° 0 3 �.1` N (n o,�'r LO r m S L F LL r 0 o- OE � 7091 i / /• -- r sa.�; Boa -- ,a -�� r i i •� e �.. I /m�•(��. i Fn o� � 0 _ �O f � %•�.o W w LL ' SLZ -� _' 1 -- s >Cro( L J NbN •.r 0 l .. . N 2? O P 1 4 LL / � LL O cc (; o; a Q fl. W to s a. o � = a a W N 10 N co w to r � � ® � r � � ■� � � � � ® � to iE r L LL 0- . o.., omo . \'�., _ •' / l\ 1 I 2K2 ui O w z 0 Y i�P i ce• ! - ol l �ro 2 i OO _Op� G n v VH 0 e oY - W LU r \. 0 � - 5 v� CL CL Y v e Q. U ^ W a. L Q � WI cm J � N N \1%� ® ■� r r r r r r r_® �w r r �■ r �r ti r- FE z � LL 1 ,0 Z lJ Y ir � o V SIZ-► _ -- / VH LL o EL o. Y v e LLI U) CL d a ca wl W C m J /ii\ goo N % U) 114O/ co r d c r o LL jz ;y o 10 l I ^ e ° � 4° � / � •� � one !.. rye_ / � `���' .° i � o ° V O "- � / `�- • 1. °1 N S l Z-► -- C w O y H !l N I ` I :10 J LL O ++ a E � w cn a V S. a�m cm ddbkL �;;o rn FE LL oe cr Q7 0 / Imo: \o°� co w op Of 0 < Z z (D y GARM, 3: oo MAR 0 00 22 A I 0_ cn Ste-, LU LL T LL z a w W m r 0 11• 0 L&. 0. E E CL cn 0 L) a. C*4 o" (D 3: C*4 CON ow m m LM - O� 0 L 01 Y. O ate, g r 0 3 U' O JT V A Q I N � a° 0 1 19 1 ' d s i ts rb 0 mi LU OJ NbH V o ?" Q �9 or ?� O � rP 3b O � o IL C Pa P' - W �y IL CC C W � � O O — ._ a � p � Q� o N N Nf v3i �ii� 0 N i . 1 Q y t N °It ja � Id b3is3 N�p� �!``��'� s, 1:��� I Q l 6 1 / _ O Q W � � nM1 Yf �49 _ O Ob Op �y� F `•3� . -.t52 ad, ji 9 LU _ I F qry affil 31 p . � _ - I iL b ° r v O � O. a c i C4 Jv as r. N Co H iii 4� N 0 7 i Q1 LL �Qr rfid -J • r �g'=` �l � /__..\ 3F/C) sRa� co ` t .. \\ 1 Z U' x ( p st6 7. • c{� •_6R�� �, � ^ I ,�(�- iF � / '\ A \\ f \ 35P _• � r J c o J ( - 02 O 5 LL LL Y a W to C a � a L as N v 1 ll§ ° o m 3 Mom% N Co N Ito.% L—;9, Admm� F N oc Z L LL cr oww 9 � / U ` � ° 3 ��c z as r��Z Oa qP v os O ♦e ^' \ : r i " N LU p stz -► U. �b J NbH UL P J P ,� O Y� Y � a W a a °- > a� p! . a = N L v d gill N m N \wo/ \�'/ Mk Z vm m i iii m is fA it m > o (7 7 > I I I rn m m I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I n vmi Z Z 1 U o a c o o Y m n O I I I ❑ V I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m a ¢ a t f n E O I I N N I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I m ry o tr I O I 1 m m I I I I I 1 I 1 t I 1 I I e Z Z 1 6 U ° ° o o c ❑ Y 8 1 O 1 1 1 U U I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I m m ¢ ¢ ¢ I N N V fp N r r N N 01 N e O Q O O N Q Q Q r N fD r m m r m N > f M Q O m O m r M m r Q Ol Q N m OI p r < N IQ m OI ((1 m m M N N N ry u) vl m m Q r u) m r N m o) m r m OI m I 1 I I Z U c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y N n O ❑ U U LL LL m m m m m V m U m U U U U V U ❑ m m m U m I I I I I ¢ � J a T Q e m N O Q N r m Y1 m M N f N > M M y Ol Yl M Cl ! 01 N O Q N QQ e m m I7 M N Q r M r OJ O r 01 N of m N M N Q M Q m Q 0� N N M M (p t0 m O h N I I I I Z d N V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (Q Y L R ct d o. o o u m❑❑ m¢ m m m o m❑ o o m m m m u m o m m m m I l l l l a M Q a r N •- Q m N e m N m N N � O m N m m M Oi m e 01 M N I I I I 1 M CL` r u r W � LLY O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I L d c n ^ •l• S .V c O d d m 3 d V to 1@ t s d r C U N y 3 Y w m O N n O I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I LD t9 $ g J d C � O m O) r N N m OI l7 O m r O Q N r m N m m N M U r w m m 6 m N a N N v N a n o mN N m N o M N rn m m CD e I I Z d V o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � S Y S C a O ❑ U m ❑ ❑ m m m m m U m U m U U U U U U U m m m U m m 1 I 1 I ¢ N n o co ri of m o of o e ro r` of ro vi e 6 of of �n I I 0 w e m m ry N o o r ry m e m r o M M ry rn o m o (p r r m Y r m Q N r N m N Q M M N Q O) N M M M (O b UI Q h Q M I 1 1 Z E $ 8 V O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O G O O G O O O O O O Q Y a ❑ U U m U U m a m m m U m m U❑ m m m m U m U m m m m f J O of ai of N � o tti m ao of ° o vi o ai m so of ti g S gt v y ❑ v $ e E A E E > 0 0 Z m m o z - C j f N m Z y 22 9 >2c ry LL IY IY L' c IY m N m V > E E ry� ❑ ¢ o o 0 0 y v °ryc m c c c c c c c c u a a C a7 a� `m VET c a 3i Si 3i rO ¢¢¢ ` S S S S S S S S .°'.. per. O❑ S r`m �o d w v v- b m 5 m m m m t m m c m m o o 'o `m .e u u u u u E E E c E O O d m m m m N 2 N M Q Vf m n m m O N M Q m m r m Oi O N M Y1 m N m 01 a m � M D! ` � M e = w� .� r � r� � � � � iii r a� r� � • r rn m d d a E � m N N d ❑ n U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N d a t i N IL 9 O U U m LL LL U U U U m a+ 3 U c f d o �� •� N R W N (D N N O O N N N d N � ❑ d O y.l U W Y y Y a cr a d d d LLI E T N C o > a O 6 r O 9 J a O is 3 a O d E m +•+ - N > N A z 2 U l N IC V T O c a o U m m ❑❑ U U U U m C O A N M (O Q (D O) M tp P J N N O Q O O tD v7 N v _ ❑ nv w o = V - 47 = a ` N " a @ N N N d m m Z @ ao @ m v u z N N N N N ❑ ❑ _ � d j a N✓1 D •A N � � ✓� @ N � y n_ 5_ L 2i o o • Q N ml ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • When project - related traffic is added to the 2002 background traffic, all of the study intersections are found to operate at Level of Service D or better except for the two intersections listed below: Winchester Road/Ynez Road Winchester Road /Margarita Road ' Intersection improvements were identified that would allow Level of Service D or better to be maintained at both intersections. A discussion of ' each intersection is presented below. 1. Winchester Road/Ynez Road — When project - related traffic is added, cumulative traffic conditions during the weekday evening peak hour worsen from Level of Service D to Level of Service F. Level of Service D or better could be maintained if the following intersection /signal system improvements are implemented: a) add eastbound through lane; and b) modify signal to provide northbound and southbound right turn overlap phasing. 2. Winchester Road /Margarita Road — When project - related traffic is added at this intersection, cumulative traffic conditions during the weekday evening peak hour worsen from Level of Service D to Level of Service E. Level of Service D or better could be maintained if the following intersections /signal system improvements are implemented: a) add a second left turn lane at the eastbound approach; and b) modify signal to provide southbound right turn overlap phasing. A summary of needed intersection improvements for the year 2002 scenario is illustrated in Figure 22. 5.4. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Off -Site Roadway Improvements - In addition to the improvements proposed at the two intersections listed above, the Phase 1 project traffic generated by the Sweetwater project Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 23 z C4 W i o d W W I N Of Q om* W c m LLI 111111 1�iiii = �i' Z Z ¢r W ICTO Z d mo o R —~ O= W 1. ~ p3 a ' o O_ W Z OC Z a z z z F- LU 1 O Z 2 m Z O Z Z W Lu W O O d CL 3 W Z Q :: LU d W V O. O N N Lu in 0 JIM MM L Or a 3 1 W� 111t' W ° g 0 O ^ � S � a O m V V V 0 0 0 CL z zz 2 N v N G G ` c ° O O W. '� W, z '�', z w a _ z 0 'O ~ tN C p' d' 6' Z 6' N p, N r N tW- Q Q a rn o LU H } = Q ap a Z ? V LM V:E N P O is J- z z N z z 3 z 3 z ' oc p p p m F v r Z v n W B y d W m y W N 3.' > Q 1 N l Q a n r 1 ` 0 rn 1� c o N ((r } }f C LLI Za v LLI O 3 o > 03 o z O o � Q a 2 O O LLI W V V W y F- a' w w w W v W 1.. O O O Z OC * 7 z Z Z W O p =_ p a C a 3 w a G Z W V LL. V G O a Q O :E ix 02 tff � N O cg LU Z w Z Z Z H LL. O O O K Z z z z WO Q W J O N � L � d O � [O C C H C d a w o E o V) o Z� N v m Z W V Z V V a V" 0 lwn V W V m a` C I C Q 0 7 Q O O Q d— 7 O) Qa cz oa o 'v h �-O a �0 0 �0 a o kn Q0 F �O F OOJ F Q W 0 Q Q = Q m 3 1 Q U Z H 4 Z m V z H O z Z �w a O H W W O N W O of Z Z Z v Z Z Z Q- r. Z N N W d W I W � O. m a O W IL E T UA 1 F O -y ° Z Za c W O= I LU .- ' 03 0 a � ' o W F Lu V z th H I W CL W m LU Z z W O O Z c O F W O a 3 W a V LAJ Z W d LL. V C p of a OW N Z a O O 1 0 �0 LU Z ♦ 1! W V z fA W O Z z W V W 3 W S O LM 1 C C N a 0(a oc o E ° o LJ C W N 00 Z r dGv 0 O 0 CL Q W K w V C E C C O OI C a o a t N O Oa .0 m 0 a H GC 1 F Q _ Q Z ro W u z* s a Q V H z Q _ TRAFFIC IMPAC STUDY • would require the following intersection and roadway improvements in ' order to achieve acceptable service levels. Intersections: ' . The newly formed intersection on Margarita Road at the South Project Residential Access Road should be signalized. The southbound approach should provide two through lanes and a separate right turn lane. The northbound approach should provide a separate left turn lane and two through lanes. At the south project access road approach to Margarita Road, a total of three lanes should be provided (one exclusive left turn lane and dual right turn lanes). The secondary project access, which connects to Margarita Road opposite Rustic Glen Drive, would require modifications to the current intersection geometry and existing signal systems to control the added project - related traffic movements. The southbound and northbound approaches should be improved to provide a separate left -turn lane, two through lanes and a separate right turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches should be improved to provide a separate left turn lane and a combination through and right turn lane. Roadways: Complete 4 -lane widening of Margarita Road to Arterial highway standards between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Date Street. On -Site Roadway Improvements The proposed South Residential Access Road and Loop Access Road will be constructed to provide adequate access to the first phase of the Sweetwater project. This will include at a minimum, the following key on- site circulation components: Intersections: • The following future intersections will need to be controlled as 1 indicated: - South Res. Access Road /Loop Access Road (traffic signal); and - East Res. Access Road /Loop Access Road (stop- sign). • Refer to Figure 22 for required lane configurations and intersection controls. ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula. California 24 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Roadways: • South Residential Access Road which provides two lanes in each direction with provisions for a median left -turn lane at the intersection with Margarita Road. • East Residential Access Road which provides one lane in each direction with provisions for a median left turn lane at Margarita Road and the internal Loop Access Road. • Loop Access Road which provides a single lane in each direction with a center two -way left -turn lane. Curbside parking should not generally be provided along the internal Loop Access Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking should consider sight distance limitations which may occur along the interior of the Loop Access Road. • Bike lanes should be provided on the three principal on -site roadways described above. i� r i i • Sweetwater Specific Plan El WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES , Temecuia. California 25 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • 6. SWEETWATER PROJECT BUILDOUT SCENARIO — YEAR 2005 As previously illustrated in Figure 2, access to the proposed project is provided for the residential areas via two access roads on Margarita Road and one access road on the future Date Street. In addition, access to the service- commercial portions of the project is proposed at three locations on Ynez Road and one location on Date Street. Traffic analyses were performed for the proposed project access roadways /driveways, on —site roadways, and at key locations along primary access routes (off -site) serving the project. It is anticipated that the Sweetwater project will be built out by the Year 2005. t The methodology used in the traffic operation analysis includes: (1) volume /capacity comparisons for key roadway segments; and (2) Level of Service analyses for ' intersections that would be used by site - related traffic. The analyses focus more on the evaluation of study area intersections since intersections are typically the limiting capacity factor when determining a roadway's traffic carrying ability. As discussed previously, the basic year 2005 roadway network consists of existing plus committed roadway improvements. This scenario is analyzed without the project and then with build -out of the project. The analysis of peak -hour operating conditions at study area intersections was performed using the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. HCM worksheets are provided in the separate Technical j Appendix. Improvements have been identified for each intersection that was found to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS E or F), under either conditions with and without project traffic. Comparison of with and without project conditions on area roadways provides a measure of the relative impact of the proposed project. 6.1. CUMULATIVE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Cumulative background 2005 AM and PM -Peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections are presented in Figures 23 and 24. Forecasted 2005 daily traffic volumes without the project are illustrated in Figure 25. 1� ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR `NILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, Califomia 26 N1 N d � h � J ' .,, n - f0 •l ev en 'lb ;� I \ W I r I / a o �C 1_ n \ I izs 'Jii 5 fo . �/ un� 1 f � � '�b�•: _A- 1 gbh .. o' 4 -- O W um E- Q � � v 00 0- L 3 W a ,n a .il o m low N /1 ® m m m d' N 0. d L _ LL V 1 °f9YT/ � � •� � Rf- u`F 1 I_l MA ROPRI P, JN 95. d Y 1 : UA Et LU P 5 0 � O 1 W 0 Ll > ; W Y' W LL■: I d CL V �a 00 fl. 3 W o C 0' N d �� r r® r so r s® so m r r m er Lo ' N z LL o � i ' Ob b31 a'3 FihiM ¢ i 8 04 _ } fOL � U S Q 2 � i 110 � S as � 3 p s 6 a e o a 0 bOY ` /Y3j HM 9 �T! L Yv s � Y 2 a Jrtz', � �b VJh � r V, C P� L Q > v W U U) LL Q W H W o } A OJ- a (L D J _ O U H Q Q R 0 u� N N U) ��j� i ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STU • 6.1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS As summarized in Table 6, HCM analyses of the principal intersections in the study area indicate that cumulative ' development year 2005 traffic conditions without the project would result in peak hour service level "F" at six intersections during one ' or both of the peak hours. The HCM analysis indicates that without the project, three intersections would operate at service level "F during the AM peak hour and five of the intersections would operate at service level "F" during the PM peak hour. The intersections operating at service levels "E" or worse under 2005 without- project traffic conditions are identified in Table 7, together with the improvements necessary to return these intersections to the minimum acceptable service level "D ". The resulting service levels with the identified intersection improvements are summarized in both Tables 6 and 7. Projected ' year 2005 background daily traffic volumes are presented in Figure 25. A roadway link capacity analysis was also performed for study area roadway segments to check for roadway widening needs between ' intersections. This analysis involves a comparison of projected peak hour directional traffic flows with the effective directional capacities of the respective roadway links. Peak hour directional volumes are derived from the peak hour intersection traffic movements and compared to the directional peak hour link ' capacity guidelines presented in Table S. The resulting volume to capacity ratio determines the Level of Service for the roadway segment. It is important to note that the directional link capacity 1 guidelines are not intended to reflect conditions at, and the effects of, signalized intersections along the roadway segment since these conditions are already addressed in the HCM intersection analysis. i The link analysis is intended to identify roadway link deficiencies between the principal signalized intersections. The assumed year 2005 roadway system lane configurations are illustrated in Figure 26. These roadway lane characteristics ' essentially reflect existing conditions and committed improvements. • Roadways within or adjacent to the proposed Sweetwater project are assumed to be constructed to their ultimate General Plan ' Circulation Element cross - sections. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 27 I I I I I I n ~ a 2 2 Z 2 Z 9 S2 t d d 6 0 0 0 0 z o D o D � o 0 0 � >❑ o 0 yy O p D O U I I I I U I U U I I I I m 0 I I I I I I U m m a< 6 m m m< a a m V J N E 8 3 u p o U 0 c 1 I 1 1 m 1 m o 1 1 1 I m p 1 I I 1 m m m a a a m a m m 6 a m m J a In e W S �r2 s LL LL U LL LL m m m m LL U LL LL V U m V LL p m U V p m m U U I I 1 1 i l l l l l _ N O O } o 1 ffi cn N S m m bi O n b 76 AS I I t I I 1 I I V O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M 7 u yy p ❑ LL m LL LL m m U m LL U m LL V U m U❑ LL m m V m m m LL m l l l t l l l l l l l i t m M U_ C N L « QQ � W « C L �• � p p U l p U I 1 1 1 U I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I m $ J a CL � m - [•-• j C e p p ry 1 r a 1 I I I pi I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I b I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I y p E g O 6 U d N w n� vi l n 0 y l l l l vi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c g LO 0 N n N N $ n m$$ m ss o m m o N }a n b tb f7. O n m dS n a r m v OI I 1 1 Z U O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J g 0 LL LL U LL LL m m m m LL m U O V U m V O U m m 0 m m U U a I I S F J F v n N b n o m n o b q O pj 0 0 N ry ry W m l•I m m N O N �' ry ry ry H W I Y j I 1 I I I 1 I i I I � g s g � o � r O N n$ o o $ F L � �n ffi � n a$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d 6 0 o d d d d c5 6 0 6 d o o U @$3 a Z 8 0 a w LL m m m m LL U m U U p m m p p m m U m m m LL m m I i I 1 1 I 1 I a J O n W W N N m N O O N O W m N N n b b N q l b e 8 SF '- m a C a i m m t' m ggg m gg m c a _� N N m Y R K J 2 LL 9 IX a a 5 a 'a a a a m _ a m - 5 ¢ a J c d � � � M tl • » tl P rc yy ¢ ryry .c z S E E LL Y a a z m ¢ $ a lz a m m m N N E E i f �� i m m m N N N m E Z? m h a a m a a a t '� li v; N. A� i� ` � N I•I Y N b h m W O_ � N M Y N m n m P_ Q N f� � Q N m ry m �1 � T n M1 C�' � 1f1 b N W OI V • R q E 0 0 E ° E ° ° c E c ~ L J C O E ° J c a 3 o m m m m m y E L c c n n c n cr ° m m m m y m > > L W O Qi o J J 0 0 0 'o p ; p '° L E E L E _° c` E v d ❑ J '- J J �� a � O E J fn m LL N G) ❑ O C E 7 O m m N p m J J L L Z O E m w w~ w d c LL N Y J J L J J J N N L O_ O OI L O J L OI cc C N QI °. E 01 VJ J O L J d E L J O O m J O J p m r lF � L Ol H N N J OI O O r m N O L L 1— L V N O L �0 N a L N 'L Z F a j ' V " m m °—' y J w L m OI _Orn ry m Orn J r m c m m m == m m o m m ' W W Z O O w 0 a w .Z W ' z Z d a s > c > c v a¢ v a c o v a s v o N a v 0 0 a v 0 v v 0 0 o a o 0 a L o n O U U U � U a 1 = a ❑ U U U U U fA d H ~ A C p o O = 3 E � 3 3 Q ❑ U U U U m N d O N C +�' C� LL LL LL LL LL U � � a m o O Q ❑ ❑ p LL LL LL 3 O � m n ` O y1 C VI 9 � F J C • J N p O ?� C � CJ N� N N Table 8 Directional Peak Hour Link Capacity Guidelines (Peak Hour - Peak Direction) Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR Level of Service (volumelcapacity ratio) ' A B C D E , Roadway Functional Classification 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2 -1-ane Residential Collector 300 350 400 450 500 2 -1-ane Principal Collector 900 1.050 1,200 1,350 1,500 4 -1-ane Secondary 1,710 1,995 2,290 2,565 2,850 , 4 -Lane Major 1,830 2,135 2.440 2.745 3,050 4 -1-ane Arterial 1,890 2.205 2,520 2.835 3,150 4 -Lane Arterial- Access Restricted 1,950 2.275 2,600 2,925 3,250 ' 6 -1-ane Urban Arterial 2,610 3.045 3,480 3,915 4,350 6 -Lane Urban Arterial - Access Restricted 2.790 3.255 3,720 4,185 4,650 8 -Lane Urban Arterial - Access Restricted 3,690 4.305 4.920 5,535 6.150 1 1 N s � • 0 07 � LL T d` db b3is3HONytl N'] N ¢ z � a i y> LL �s' s < UY a 2 V g IL y Y y J� P j i '� e LA < Y o W (n U) U s` P i N 5 I L O SP U Z eh w W W \ c' Z U il J N w Q W � � W a ; 04 CL �• G o El U) 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY '• Figure 27 presents the roadway segment volume /capacity service ' levels for 2005 conditions without the project. As shown in Figure 27, all of the area roadway segments would operate at Level of Service C or better without the project except for the following segments: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road between 1 -215 and Alta Murrieta Drive — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.84). • Margarita Road between Date Street and Rustic Glen Drive — ' Level of Service D (V /C = 0.81). • Margarita Road between Rustic Glen Drive and Santa Gertrudis Creek — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.88). Winchester Road between the 1 -15 Southbound and 1 -15 Northbound ramps — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.84). ' For the 2005 cumulative development conditions without the ' project, all study area roadway segments are expected to operate at acceptable service levels (D or better) during peak periods. 6.2. CUMULATIVE BACKGROUND AND PROJECT BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC The evaluation of year 2005 cumulative background and project build -out conditions includes a discussion of proposed project site access, projected traffic volumes, and service level analysis. 6.2.1 SITE ACCESS On -site access and circulation would be served by an extensive network of Arterial, Major, Secondary, Collector and Local streets. Primary on -site circulation and off -site access would be provided by ' Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Date Street. These Major and Arterial streets would not only comprise the basic framework of the project's roadway network, but would also serve as key roadway elements of the northern Temecula circulation system. As such, these on -site roadways are planned to carry a significant amount of non - project related "through traffic ". Development areas within the project would gain access to the primary street network via various secondary roadways that form intersections along these three principal streets. The core of the • residential development would be served by an incomplete loop road, which would consist of two lanes (within the predominantly residential area) with a two way left turn lane. Sweetwater Soecifc Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 28 1 N • �z 7 i LL a3 :53FJ N _ a u YY vu usa ��� a oe oc - d 6 CC. N y �b = ^ 1 S JE CA P o e =t 5 a w U U) H en � W J W Oz C w �, a a 2 w >= U n O U C o � C L Lo � o Y v J::\ z_ U N ' N J (A ���� ' TR AFF IC IM PAC T STUDY • Maior On -site Access Intersections Along Ynez Road would include: one driveway to the north of Date Street to serve the Service Commercial development north of Date Street and the ' residential development east of Ynez Road; and two driveways south of Date Street serving the Service Commercial development south of Date Street. The commercial driveway located immediately ' south of Date Street on Ynez Road is proposed as a "limited" access driveway which would only serve right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in traffic movements. Maior Access Intersections Along Margarita Road would include ' one driveway approximately midway between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Rustic Glen Drive. A second driveway on Margarita Road is assumed at the eastbound approach to the existing Rustic Glen Drive intersection. This existing intersection currently serves a residential development east of Margarita Road. ' 6.2.2 CUMULATIVE BACKGROUND AND PROJECT BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC Project - related weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at study -area intersections are presented in Figures 28A and 29A for ' the project build -out scenario. Figures 28B and 29B present weekday peak hour project traffic volumes at project driveway intersections and at immediate area project access intersections. Figure 29.5 illustrates buildout project traffic estimated at the specified study intersections for the Saturday midday peak hour scenario. Cumulative 2005 background and project weekday AM and PM ' peak hour traffic volumes at study -area intersections are presented in Figures 30A and 31A. Figures 30B and 31B present the cumulative weekday peak hour traffic volumes at intersections in the immediate project vicinity. These traffic volumes represent year 2005 total peak -hour traffic conditions. As discussed earlier, the combined future background and project buildout traffic volumes depicted in Figure 31.5 use the year 2002 as the basis for the Saturday peak hour analysis. 1 Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR 'WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula. California 29 Q ao N \� LL ..' T, • I � 1. 11 0 _ 0-1 l co cl � Q FF "• e p Opl � Q l d e b : I old 11 Z Lodi \,\ ' J � • o ,` ^,; i . . \ � ..\ psi -• i I °. •�, �s V ° 'v . ' . / : -� r w ? / i v Z om -- b o \/ U a F_ n N co OY d �Q c awl `n 0. N Q co ���� 2005 PROJECT TRAFFIC ONLY ' M PEAK SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS eetwater Specific Plan EIR ' NORTH g2 5 , $ 8 ' 7 1 l %•, h � ti O sZ ! 1 IV l9 0 1 o ' V V� Figure 28B a N LL ery.. . •�sc mac � - °;-� ar R�- C o g - Zz i � I ,ice l z a F ; _ryI •�� � .. � I t - 1 I I. Z1n A 0• r ;' , '�• -�� = nil r '. o I '�' � �) � �\ _° ✓ i(, _ i n° Y I {I I t •(` M1 F LU VH Z I .\`\ � � '... o `• �'. Vin^ .� �l. .. �M1 Q Ifil _, 1 n `n o ° ' - • • o W " P _ / i EL O w LL W a U � � U)j c1) OY d a w ` d /ii\ .::. cm CL v)i \.,% Adlbk 2005 PROJECT TRAFFIC ONLY PEAK SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS etwater Specific Plan EIR NORTH 19 7 q � o a J i � '� / � ✓ ` IV ; 22 ./ i ` �o 1 5 9 - t �o N O ' 0 ' V V� Figure 298 ai LL ZIP ON/Al go z uj tint = .' 0 ui VA Ste., fff L ) O 'VVH w LU .j UJ z 0 FL LU LL cn LU 0. 0 D F- Lu W 0 F- cn 'd a. u) J M MJW= M M M M M M IN M M M M M M Mlu M Q 0 a� � vs 1 9 Z '� �-- Kei�- az Grd 1p N,PRGAR ft I` 1 I \ �4• '- fet ' i 1y /A�$� \rp3�L;' \ I /, °'. v y <F r� t� b W O n a0 a a Z > V _l v ' N W Lli O� a= dp a _I-.� be L 3 W 3 � Ln /\ N a 3 1 m m m m 2005 WITH PROJECT SCENARIO AM PEAK TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS 0 eetwater Specific Plan EIR ' NORTH g2 5 1 5 '•� /�. o � 1�6 139 0V ' 5 5 ` 7 % 9 3^ 2 1 /• o Io �� ti n �• i ��� ; 525 ' �. IV N. �.•�'� 14 -'i�1 �O ¢— - wo \140 1 ' G 101 f 0 O ' B Sul MEN 'N3 FAF ' Figure 30B a d <_ Im Um 1 y 66 w . -iii � �., •- <_� ( g$�._rrr. �/ O l7 Q \ LZl -• Sm / aai - _' i I I urea I f i 52 s . lis LU Q �ry • . \��' l � O[ \may / Y QO .\_ -3 \ ��• I l / I � B9 �� � i M1O ,• Ac� / A 1 LI T ➢1 1 4 'V 'ham+/ /•' � .�� . - _ j % , . � � A �� Q �l w V cc V1 LL 3 W F 0 J a0��. �~ m LM a i� o a w::� mm 2005 WITH PROJECT SCENARIO PEAK TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS etwater Specific Plan EIR NORTH 0 0 ♦ aCS � 14 W r ti 5 s s ��, I i n D ' i 9 IV 1 •`��• � •` •�•,� � Tom^ ;v oro `83 •` '/ • f •�• •�• 79 - 'I I � i �Q 22.58 1 ' O ff \ • i 0 6 4 " ' 0 ' a Elk tumosm 4 W Firdr ' VA Figure 31 B T M 0 i LL Oa 1g�HONM = 11 I�r;`- ,,.,Merl a O �¢ a CO �` .(rZ g o ww O Y l Axc V) �:b c W 2 Ste -, - J O ` JNbN U U. P LL �P G L P O O r Y Q LL a W Lij Op =QN p Q 4) 110 1 C4 U) cn 11®% .s r � m! i i i dw i i i i i f m TRAFF IM PAC T S TUDY 6.2.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS As summarized in Table 6 (presented earlier), HCM analyses of the principal intersections in the study area indicate that year 2005 traffic with the project would result in peak hour service level "F" at ten off -site intersections during one or both of the peak hours. The HCM analysis indicates that with the project, seven of the intersections would operate at service level "F" during the AM peak hour and eight of the intersections would operate at service level '`F" during the PM peak hour. The intersections operating at service levels "E" or worse under 2005 with - project traffic conditions are identified in Table 9, along with the improvements necessary to return them to the minimum acceptable service level "D ". A summary of the needed intersection improvements for the year 2005 scenario is illustrated in Figure 32. The resulting service levels with the identified intersections improvements are summarized in Tables 6 and 9. go Projected year 2005 daily traffic volumes with build -out of the project are presented in Figure 33. Figure 34 presents the roadway segments volume /capacity ratios and levels of service for 2005 cumulative development conditions with the project. As shown in Figure 34, all of the area roadway segments would operate at Level of Service C or better with the project except for the following segment: Murrieta Hot Springs Road between 1 -215 and Alta Murrieta Drive — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.90). Winchester Road between the 1 -15 Southbound and 1 -15 Northbound ramps — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.87). The Margarita Road segment between Date Street and Santa Gertrudis Creek, which was found to operate at service level "D" without the project, is assumed to be improved from two lanes to four lanes during Phase I of the project. With this improvement, this segment would operate at service level "A" for the 2005 with �• project build -out scenario. If the immediate project vicinity roadways are constructed according to the assumptions depicted in Figure 26, then all study area roadway segments would operate at ' Sweetwater Soecific Plan EIR 'NILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 30 : 1 1 $ ) $ \ \ @ � - _ ! ) @' : _ - ! } \ \\ ] \\ \ \ \ \\ \00 \ } \ {{ \ {{ \ : -- - - -: ; / {{ ) �) $ E� _ ���\ / �§ \§ \ z3: \ \( 3: {\ §�})( { \( {/ / \ \ - \ //! u. 2 §§ | 0 / � /d `! $ ' \� , 1 1 J L � E _ a 'o a D E m m a o m ` a c r m o r m m ¢ N m o ¢ m m y m c v m m u y m m C O J o n p V m J v g m o J m .' c 3 A A m J n c m A J cS c c - H - •. _ J c a E m c J c c E J N c c m m m m m m N E 7 C W W Z Z 2 N N W Z Z 3 W W 3 3 L Z Z 3 3 ow n W W N Z 2 N N 3 9 a a ? z z 3 3:0W n 9 D 9 a 9 9 9 O 9 9 9 C 9 9 D 9 a 9 9 9 9 9 a a 9 9 p D 9 a 9 D 0 9 0 0 C D 9 9 a O 9 D a C 9 m C 9 9 C ¢ a a L D a D om9� ° aaaD asaas aaa 'a- a°aaaz° °aaaa °aa'3a = _ - a ° a ° aaa aaaa a ° a. N A P N 10 n m- N t�1 P N P N P N 10 n P N �O r m C. p ^ N^ P N b n O m p d d c m a ¢ ¢ d m d N O w " E d t n m max c o E C N 3 Q m a a a m a U d v. 1 `d E c E J 0 E 3 a I p ) m n J N a> a C Q a u o` E • u® _o t d' N- a N O¢ W O Y O N O Z N 7 O M ^ � 1 r r � E 'o E L F L ¢ a P R L Y E P P - C O f m O ` ~ c V- F O` F- ~ V F V 7 f- rn r {� f rn- 1- z O` H G~ F? 1- u 1' r J v rn r v a° 0 =- ? - a c � y o m- m � N o r y r rn N u '= - v� CL (A W m K N J 6 K m m r , m K 0 ' ll- m- o C m E 7 N W m m m m m> @ 0 0 m m� m m- 0 m 0 0@ m N m Z ©N N N m N Z N 0 N W W Z Z 2 N 5 O W W N N= W W Z Z S 3 W N Z N In - W W N Z Z S> N N a R D D 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 D D D 9 D g 9 O 9 9 D y ' a 9 D D D 9 D 0 D D¢ Q D N D D D D D = 9 D 9 D 9 Q C L D a a a a a¢ a¢ a o c_<¢¢ a¢ a 5 a a a a a a¢ a a Q °¢ N b n ry U . ... -. N n v V1 1O �_. ... Q 7 p � U QI G 1 m m m . E m ¢ a a m m N O A N 6 ~ ° a`; °e a C m Y d3 e J C o E U N 3 Q m m a ¢ m m C h n EO E 'o E ;a 0 ¢ ¢ K ° r - m • c u L o - n c N � Z Z= ) f7 a r fA Q ) N Q ° Z A C) C� ° I ry 1 • 1 1 o � E i a E c � � c 3 w F - m a atnw �m�aN �mmm_ rymm m E ry W W W Z' N N N Q d a a O O O O O Q Q Q C ❑ 7 as ° aaa ° aaa a __ O U m C m 2 U N i-`oa o d d m 3 N o - N 3 m u m m c C ° I E _ 'o E I 3a 1 I C O_ I N P • ' L l O Oi � a 1 ~ ~ " Z + d �O g LLI a L > J ^I I jI \\ a m W W ! 1 I I 1 \\ Rro F- z z �" z z J 1liiii� z p —•L o w -� �a w > pr O a a 5 ME a a z p O w F- p U w W 1_ - - -9r RTO W �J,J RTO za Jiil1 �- w z uj uj wo co p #RTO� 0 0 (L f0 �~ wEE a au CL wZ= Z w 'Z5 LL U as O�nU) Cn L O � z aN < Rro = w 3 Z� 1111 - ll� all<< U�� (nU- ; „ W 111' iii" 1i( O w ¢ J O N LL L m a o @ m c V V V 3 (D a �i Z �z a wN c 'o O O �� Z m a c c F- a �a �p m W - m U W O W 1 ° w 0 ~ o. U) H U) H F W o. a o Z Q CL n W W W W m W 2 tL 2 (n = aj Z Z W t� Z V 2 Z 1 Z Z Z 3 O O O m Z F- + Z � 2 O a 9 LLI m J 111 l� �RTO W / 1 LL CL Z ) X11111( z RTO�11ii z w Z w x RTO � L Oa > 2 Q a a a z + + O O � V Q Q U W 0 RTO W ` n �_ cn Za JIII�� ��� z W o LU Z Wog OF_ ��a a� W Zw Z W v m u. U a O N N Fn CDar CD Z Q N Arco CO Fy o W Q —/ RTO� U � W U Q 5 N J 0 N tl � - o L a o 0 � m v c in Ua y U ? r Z w 2 O 2 Z p 0 ° O O p 0 0 2 W W c E E W W F - W 0 W W—a, 0 L a O p U) y LU Ft Q U' tr w 0 j E¢ o! VJ W W p p Z W 7 Z F- 2 2 LL Q 0 c < IL Z Z_2 Nw U) j Z Q 1 O i Q Z Z p p p F V H d N W ' + d O v tm Zo 11�� 11� J 111r z O a UO IF W �s > a a W F O W V V W w W Z O Z a z z z rW- C9 Z Oz Z Z W O W 0 .2 a a 3 W Fe W Z Q w W Gl LL V C O {A in N L ' G ° o `a O �I LU 3 c� N W� Z 5 o m o 0 o N >> z o ? �? �� o O Z � Lu O W W Z N O LY v E C C 6~7 CQ G DD >v N W (r F Z CIC O O LU Lf) Fe e � O � N a- rn o C' Q Z C1e Q W E Q K N W D W Z .. I.- Fe m a er a >- v Z r a m Q W tL r W O w y O O O�' O O Z a Z Z Z $` Z� 0 0j w j( - $ �W z z° \° } ��� F ` LLI g� it 2 u \� . } § c § cl v gR \ zo & a zƒ ? + / F- w )§ ) \( ` 20\ o� ° 00� E� I ® § zE - o�\ erg% q ■ «(D z )( ]�$ z(D u 3 j \ ) \� k ` ) ) a. � $ » ® u 0. 9/ \\ 7\ \\\ \ /2 §» < r ƒ ®/ 0 < z� » � \\ /( }j o ® /) \� ) \� j )� �� z � $ z z @ ¥ @ g z F c W 2 r W 1'! m d Z a 7 p � ° rn d m � Zo N W Z d O a c LU O � W f' = 3 O Z 0 a a � z p O W r W u V W ' W Z O LU F C W W W LU Z a Z Z Z I-. Im W F Z Z 0 Z ? W 2 ' ox WOa D a 9 W Q �+ Z W w Ll- V C. O Vf �n Ix � L Z N LU V_ Z Z Z ' H W z Z Q Z W 0 W g ° s m o � N ' OC N OL G (.7` O; W Oa vi Z IA Z V7 N N N d W H W H W Z W Q O O ; ] a 1 Lu 7 Q W W � a a` C O ° y — 7 O u - y 0 CL 0 CL 6' C 0 O N N co 00 �� � a¢ � n 6u 0 p Q c Q a w Q Z ro N a s 11 N d z M W W O 0 s i 0 _ W Z p u Z D u Z p Q° z a a Z ~ N ell Im Q 0 G L LU flll( II 0 1111 am filly ` C 0 3 H N a LU O n0� LU > c= O ; a3 a Z o O LU u W W Z O Z 6 Z Z z W W F Z Z O Z OC G ? W G C 0 W Q 0 G O a � Zz W W V O� L i o w 40 a O Q v) >. z� z z z a 6 O O O X Z Z Z Z W 0 W g 0 cc O ^ LL L 'O a O O 0 C p1 C N 3 d o CL J E Q N N N (.�� V ~ ' Z LJ _ CN W O W\? N F CL c C \ Z Vl ~ N O N N N d a a ilih C W W w u v W� V E Q a Q Z M r M C Q M p Z Q p¢ a t Z Z N Z Z 0 Q � 2 0 G � O � a a om a m r 3 r 3 zo W Oa W S > cF O ° a Z c O 6u F W V V W W Z O H F GL w w w 0 Z a z z z F W H z z z ? W oS WOa Fe LU IL G W Z Z v W G! L u CL 0 w a C4 Z N C9 �LUka z c7 z z z y W O z O Z z W v W Z go a o 0 C 0) N 3 ° o J J O C — � Q Q N N Ol Z v u oa W Vl V c W c W d d ` O o Z Q N C W y c G v C E J O] S - M 1 Z i � ? G > - li F" N VVV O y a p 0 p O N 2 °CO �vN ��H o J ' u a C N J W V V W U V Z l'7 Z V lh ) W Q W Q O �w t p Q F O �n O of Z Z Z Z Z ' p O D $ Z� o $ 0\ a ) C w ® j @ 20- w E_ > k� § § . o § n o wn § Z w zE > > F 2\ z z w 0 0 q2) Ek w<¥ § zE\ 0U/ �m� z _ °� \j o \ m ¥m \Z z LLIo 0 k Go \ $ co 0 z a}ƒ a{ \00 § E LU® or - } \)j Lu \ \ \\ @ / /\8 2g 2 ` w` �� z` � @ ) ® B � � � M M � z � LL b31S3NGNIM oes � o J � v 7a Z< 3 o w o \ z a aQ2' z 1 148 ry �ti �W fl ry61 B9! 33 4 OZ N • \ -� ��?4, hi c RD MARGARITA \. a O / ��t o �G 284 Q 244 \ w a ♦,. 3ti � � / fr` nFF ,per b `L\ "V Z Y rn �J 6lI � ti 6 NbH o e, ry n a JE �P 5 0 P IAT Po O> �U aLL z LL L) cn H w LU a. a O H Q a 2 HN O d E r } ` > z� Ln CD N N N 1 "� a rn I� ab �� b3l S3wJ f o Y _ G > U 3 6 SPp < w 3 V �\ S y `w °� • Y 6 01 Y � L\ •.P au PNW+"� o' u8 P i s t a"y 0 \ 3 � y y a '1 i � 'lO$p 4 Pr< O Q z Cl) w-� W Q d z o w� y O } 1r J 7 aC)� ° L a ` U °o z N J cn HMO �u� TRAFFIC IMPACT STU • acceptable service levels (D or better) during peak periods with 2005 conditions including full build -out of the Sweetwater project. The analysis of future weekend (Saturday) peak hour conditions with full buildout of the Sweetwater project determined that Level of Service D or better could be maintained at the ten study -� intersections if the previously identified improvements are implemented (i.e. intersection improvements identified in Table 9 and Figure 32 for the weekday peak hour conditions with buildout of the project). The results of the Saturday peak hour analysis with buildout of the project are summarized in Table 9.5. 6.2.4 IMMEDIATE SITE AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS In addition to the off -site intersection improvements summarized in Table 9 and Figure 32, the 2005 with project build -out scenario will require the following intersection and roadway improvements in the immediate project vicinity to accommodate project traffic access and to achieve acceptable service levels. Intersections: The following future intersections will need to be signalized: - Date Street/Ynez Road - Date Street/Margarita Road Date Street/North Project Access Road Ynez Road /Service Commercial Access IV South Res. Access Road /Loop Access Road Note that the South Project Access Road /Margarita Road intersection would need to be signalized for project Phase I. The following future intersections will need to be stop -sign controlled: - Ynez Road /Service Commercial Access II - Date Street (or Cherry Street) /Service Commercial Access III - Ynez Road/ Service Commercial Access III - North Residential Access Road /Loop Access Road - All future defined residential collector streets, which intersect with the Loop Access Road (except South Access). Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 31 o o m m m �j o 6 0 0 0 0 0 ' � Y p is a a i 3 v o U U D U U U I U v � e d N r N O r ci @ N N N N N m N W QQ m r O U o 0 o m � LL CL A U N O a. o - w 3 L Q m U m j. V C o m 6 N A E y d N w Cn N V = n co w m @ o E CJ ry E Q� y fl. 0 U y N `c N � c 3 _ E o m v U 3 d N E E a v o m v N m - V o N E rn i Wi U C; N (Q N T] p N V C/) N t / y p N 5 C O E E N < m m v v y v N N Z \ 1 p p II 9 a N VI N N .�_ U U U U U rU N U L 0 N Z N (�1 @ m m � N N N O 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • Note that the future stop -sign controlled intersections on the Loop Access Road at the South and East Residential Access Roads are required for project Phase 1. Refer to Figure 32 for required intersection approach lane configurations and traffic controls at on- ,. site intersections. Roadways: Construct Date Street between the Service Commercial Access Driveway and Margarita Road as a 6 -lane restricted access Urban Arterial. The exact alignment of Date Street/Cherry Street needs to be coordinated with study efforts related to the proposed future Cherry Street interchange. Realign and extend Ynez Road from current terminus to just south of Date Street as a 4 -lane Major. • Construct Ynez Road from the northern project boundary to just ' south of Date Street as a 4 -lane Arterial. • Construct the North Residential Access Road between Date Street and the internal Loop Access Road as a 4 -lane road with provisions for a median left -turn lane at the intersection with Date Street. • Construct the internal Loop Access Road as a two -lane roadway with center two -way left turn lane. Curbside parking should not generally be provided along the Loop Access Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking should consider right distance limitations that may occur along the interior side of the Loop Access Road. • Bike lanes should be provided along the Loop Access Road and all three project access roads from Date Street and Margarita Road. Note that construction of the South and East Residential Access Roads is required for project Phase 1. Note that the widening of Margarita Road between Santa G8rtrudis • Creek and Date Street is required for Phase I of the Sweetwater project. It is also important to note that full improvement of principal circulation element roadways such as Date Street, Ynez Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula. California 32 TRA IM PACT S TUDY Road and Margarita Road will provide excess capacity which would ultimately serve substantial amounts of non - project traffic in the t future. Conversely, the ultimate implementation of the proposed Cherry Street would clearly serve significant amount of , Sweetwater project - related traffic. These factors all need to be considered in the final assessment of project - related mitigation. It is important to note however, that neither the proposed Date /Cherry Street overcrossing nor interchange is needed to accommodate the project buildout conditions evaluated in this study. It is anticipated that these regional- oriented improvements would be required prior to 2010. Traffic Demand and Systems Management Measures: • Coordinate both roadway design and urban design elements of the project with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to facilitate transit service. Provide bus pull -out in locations which are agreeable to RTA. • Explore the potential for providing a future transit transfer center and /or future park and ride facility with RTA, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and Caltrans. These types of facilities may be determined to be a desirable component of the long -range transportation plan which would include a new interchange at Date /Cherry Street. • Require major employers who locate their businesses within the project to prepare TDM plans in accordance with the RCTC/WRCOG guidelines. • Plan and design for future signal interconnect along Date /Cherry Street from the western project boundary to Margarita Road. Sweetwater Specific Plan EAR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 33 TR AFFI C IM PACT S TUDY • 7. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS As discussed in Section 4 of the traffic study, the existing plus project scenario has been evaluated to help identify and address the direct impacts of the proposed ' Sweewater project on the existing plus committed area roadway network. Existing plus project traffic conditions were derived by adding buildout Sweetwater project - related peak hour traffic (shown in Figures 28, 29 and 29.5) to the existing background traffic presented in Figures 7, 8, and 8.5. The combined existing plus project build -out traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 35, 36, and 37 for the weekday AM and PM and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. The analysis of direct project - related impacts focuses on the ten off -site intersections which were determined to need improvements to adequately accommodate year 2005 cumulative development conditions with build -out of the Sweetwater project. Table 10 summarizes the results of the existing plus project build -out scenario. Included in Table 10 are HCM intersection analysis results for both existing and existing plus project conditions. The results of the analysis indicate that all but two of the ten critical off -site intersections could accommodate both existing and full build -out of the Sweetwater Project and still operate at Level of Service D or better. Two of the off -site critical intersections would drop below the Level of service D goal during the weekday PM peak hour. These 1 include the Winchester Road /Ynez Road intersection and the Murrieta Hot Springs Road /Margarita Road intersection. The two intersections that require mitigation with build -out of the project are presented in Table 11 along with the identification of improvements necessary to maintain Level of Service D or better. The resulting service levels with the identified intersection improvements are summarized in both Tables 10 and 11. Improvements required to adequately serve existing plus project traffic which are above and beyond those required to serve existing traffic alone, can be reasonably targeted as mitigation for the Sweetwater Project. Since the remaining eight off -site critical intersections provide acceptable service levels under the existing plus project scenario, then deficiencies and improvements identified in the year 2005 cumulative background with project build -out scenario can only 'partially" be attributed to the Sweetwater project. The project's participation in the required improvements should be assessed on a "fair share" basis. Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 34 <�=o LL Ho 19 cr CO z cn F4 cn LLI .j OW 7TP Ste., LL LL F- m 0 co LLI 0 Y w < a. LLI Cl) .J cn zo Cn LLJ R w W 30 co top 0 Now so mama wmffm.� 0 LL cn MARGA p, G w ---------- LLI z g Ste-, VH U. U. NQ PJ F- F- D 0 F- L) LLJ w 0 w a. (n a. a. rL Z r- Cn LLI Olt 0 w 57< LLJ Lu co AdML AF ti M 0 z _O) In LL NJNIM � I �4s �:: -. • q, 1 °us Q / W 2 r W V, F Z 3 z O �_ R _ a F L a0 a o YNel — R1S P ��s U MARGF w J d LU I lee ti U d d e^ tC F. ste., U - -- �b �J U �JNbH LL LL �P 1 � a P O Q �P J_ P �Y n 0 w c aaa D � J Q. d N � d Z X 3 ���\ ® rr MOM ar *r MOUAFdfts r am U = m U e ;- j N o C p z U O z U o f W N W N m U U m O p n U d c V a c o W N O S n p = m m r H Q Q = N H O U LJ m m N m Of O M H U U O t0 m P m O' n O m N W Z _ o o c c o o c O N > N J C O J K p y c0 a a U m p U© m U U U m d d J O D U m 1] LL U U U z O m N O n m IL a t s � (Q - y L7 Q U> C O O C O O o 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO Id V 'O d CO Oy N °UmUUdn�UUm N ° ^_UCU ©mUUUU N 7 d I D c N a 3 a Q CD En W ? E E N N CI N N N N N N N m y N N 7i ' N W d E O c o^ s y¢ O of C N m N N N V O O O C N N - , - o W 3 3 3 3 v o o wi o o E s W G � d Z I � N P m a 1 _ o �/ U c > f.. > o p W U W fn > > 0 7 m O -1 p n L) K U d O W O a A 3 a. N w W y H y Q _T N F- co m co W Z => m r-� eh o Q co LU U O o .- O O o C m O rn > 2 T y a s m U U m m y z c m O U Z O _ m N C W D r v m o m M m .- y IL • M� U O W @ 0 r <0 U ._ U U_ rn rn m ni ° a a�i ++ d co co r Q c u� N U d U U G —> o 0 0 0 0 0 o r L ^ f` U N V OL a) U N m Z ° c m o y 3 N U m U U U m m O T '2 N 4 y W _ is a n c co, 6 _ p Q N Q In ifl ") O C L Q o N N N K m m W m n y Q - o CC Q > N C c0 C d' d d (n N � N - O m N N N N n N n } } > N cli � � U U m y U W _ d a' �' 0: ❑ ❑ �' N O C ' ❑ U U U U �C C W O O E m Q U O • � O � 2 cn cn 0 r F N y • N F C J t0 tC L J J 01 E C ' J 7 ° r r L d r N Z L N O CL J J N — ' J N L L C > J � C O p O O y r F L L E y O L N m a j L N L — L m o m O m p c a c m m m L> O F J F J r N a d mN m d O m p ;i r L N L GI co W J m 0 m Z y W n m Z Z > 2 W 'a , Z 2N w a a a a a CD r d a a E ' p p p a a °� v v a m L) U C W o U U_ U C z Q z 0 d N F ~ U7 a m 3 3a U U 0 N 3 w O > d a J C z z O N y = x W N a LL LL U W F N F � N d O w O r o a N a � a C a c N o ¢ • L � N 19 Z V • 8. CITY BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TRA IMPACT STUDY ' Traffic analysis was performed for conditions which consider full build -out of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, and surrounding unincorporated areas of Riverside County as well as the Sweetwater project. This analysis focuses on an evaluation of the potential project - related impacts on the City's Circulation Plan. Specifically, the analysis evaluates whether the proposed project land use and access plan would have an impact on the ultimate configuration and /or operational characteristics of the City's circulation system. The long -range City build -out analysis involves a comparison of projected daily traffic conditions at a roadway link level rather than at a peak -hour intersection level. The intent of this analysis is provide City staff and City officials with information concerning the potential long -range impacts of development approvals that may be made regarding the proposed Sweetwater Specific Plan project. 8.1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT BUILD -OUT MODEL The City Build -out analysis is performed using the updated Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model (TCETM). As discussed earlier in the r ' traffic study, this traffic forecasting model has been recently updated as part of the on -going City of Temecula Circulation Element Update Study. The proposed Sweewater project site plan reflects an alignment for Date Street which is consistent with the currently adopted Circulation Plan for the City of Temecula (provided in the attached appendix). The current G Draft Proposed Circulation Plan is depicted in Figure 38. The current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan is consistent with the recently adopted Circulation Plan roadway configuration within the City of Murrieta. A copy of the City of Murrieta Circulation Plan is provided in the attached Appendix. It should be noted, that in the immediate vicinity of the Sweetwater project, the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan differs from the previous City of Temecula Circulation Plan, and build -out model assumptions, in the following ways: • The previously designated Date Street interchange at 1 -15 has been ' eliminated and replaced with a new interchange aligned near Cherry Street; ' • A new grade separation of Date Street and Murrieta Hot Springs is proposed along with the re- designation of State Route 79 from Winchester Road to Date Street; and. The Western Bypass now turns east and assumes an alignment just ,• south of Cherry Street instead of continuing north into Murrieta. Sweema[er Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, Califcrnia 35 DRAFT PROPOSED �? TEMECULA CIRCULATION PLAN Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR o -I • :.•• I J � I J ? I I Z THOMPS ON RD ______ _ _ 14 =E - =N -0 E iLL • .�. ::: °.. R ...... F NORTH �� VJ Z� • FF V : �• • 1ara..t 2 F 3 0�: •i • P P. • MURRIETA MOT SPRINGS f • :,• h.��r`.(tQ • F 'S 1. \ 1 � YO � •I 'I ffs0 1 P4E 1F ' _�..ar� till H 4 � C �,•• � • 1 Gs vA � hq 1'P ^• , 1 �.•`'• • .♦N♦5 0.G •�aa...aay. y Y '. • ?P'a ••P �% RG P Y- a ':` • , '`4 RANC�Q..:::S P�' •PP,�O'••' y. It ....�ay '•, s : `* •gN'::nc0 • RO.• •� y .• - '�^ _ a j� )., Q 0 Po0.SUA , • \EMEGJ LEGEND �' Z • \ ~ a of sa a \G .. s . ytA . ', CNf=Zz='c Freeway '�. ['� ♦a•• IIIIIIIII11111 Urban Arterlal(R -Lane) �' �_ ; '. • a �o�i�•' •'• Urban Anenal(&Lane) I N �•. Arterial (4 -Lane) ....•.... Malor(4 -Lane) . �' . \9 \Hp••' • • ........ Secondary (4 -1-ane) Principal Callecwr(2 -Lane) �? F ♦ ����1� ------ • Specific Plan mad (Size Varies) �; ..� o w �; „■••• Access Restricted 1 V �.L Interchange Improvement 1 - 7 -2000 ;`: Figure 38 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • Since the procedures used for updating the TCETM included a ' comprehensive update of the build -out land use assumptions, the most recent proposal for land use within the Sweetwater Specific Plan has been incorporated into the updated model. The only differences which remain to be evaluated in the build -out analysis are the roadway network alternatives considered as part of the Sweetwater traffic study. These roadway configuration alternatives which include a Date Street Overcrossing scenario (Figure 39) and a Cherry Street Overcrossing scenario (Figure 40) were individually incorporated into the build -out model network component and build -out traffic assignments were performed. 8.2. BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service were evaluated based on the daily traffic forecasts developed for the current Circulation Plan and Draft Proposed Circulation Plan as well as the Date Street Over - crossing, and Cherry Street Over - crossing alternatives. The results of this analysis are presented in Figures 41 through 44 respectively. Daily roadway capacity values used in the analysis are consistent with those developed and used in the City of Temecula Circulation Element Update Study. A tabular summary of these capacity values (by roadway classifications) is ' provided in Table 12. Volume to capacity ratios and Levels of Service were developed for study area roadway segments. The findings of this analysis are summarized on Figures 45 through 48. 8.3. CITY BUILD -OUT ANALYSIS FINDINGS As was concluded in the traffic study prepared for the City of Temecula Circulation Update Study, the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan provides for significantly better traffic operations along both the Winchester Road and Date Street/Cherry Street corridors than the currently adopted Circulation Plan. Furthermore, the currently adopted Circulation Plan is no longer consistent with the adopted City of Murrieta Circulation Plan. It is important to note that the Sweetwater project site plan and on -site circulation system would require only minor modifications to allow for the ' Date Street/Cherry Street alignment implied by the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. For these reasons, it was decided to focus the following comparative analysis of City Build -Out circulation system alternatives on the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. 1 • Sweemater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 36 DATE STREET OVERCROSSING SCENARIO ALTERNATIVE CITY CIRCULATION PLAN _ Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR o`. 1 / ;THOMP6oN RO BENTON RD , W ' aULD RD r NORTH •, 1 y 2• § 2 R � • Q P. I eo ;. 1 MURRIETn HOT SPRINGS ( . �.Pi /J • I ` s 7 t Oh 5p \� � • rzis aF ' ,r• . \ ��, ,� '\.,� .o�s ao c e r. —r—.. d G� � '` <� 1 • r psP -moo ••'• pi - -• • ;� T.� ( r 'F'� �, ��1. ♦,• - fi r / _ �•. • ap . rag` yR J'• - w; �.. • ,cN��ihG.O • RO.• \ � �, an °-_ `�• L . }. • . PN. p0 • r '• 5. O p 00. 1 � T co •'U • LEGEND •` 4 of sa wo • f'` Freeway a, ..ky I w .. ..,, J: • •• . IIIIIIII II II II Urban Arterial( &Lane) �' HPW P ^.• 4111, m Urban Arterial(bLane) r t �♦ Arterial (4 -Lane) �' ' • ......... Malor(4 -Lane) E "i .r \R ' ••........ Secondary (4-Lane) } ` �♦.`• F Prindpal Collector (2 -1-ane) � 1 '' sue"• �r • �����, Specific Plan road (Size Varies) ,••••, NM FAGF Access Restncted Interchange Improvement r I: Figure 39 1 -7 -2000 CHERRY STREET OVERCROSSING SCENARIO ALTERNATIVE CITY CIRCULATION PLAN Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR f THOMPSOH RD _BE_ON —RD I L � 1 .::D RD •,,,,, 1 a' 1 P P. MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS l ♦ >•.♦ ♦ ♦�•� `. FQ • i F q s O h 1 a, �•• • e .-z r...�.....��• / •• � sills' � 1 44 i • \ •h., •�• :h •• \ o — .r...vl•$�S •' •' 5}1 4.. . •5:11•"•0. RO,• •• 1 u. ••!�♦: -�^.• s ♦• - 1, q`0 a0 \ • < •'L ..r-: ti t . • t rGO N1 ptd➢' •.. MECUI/` LEGEND �` '.� •.. .•� w oe p 5. sa T JIN RID •,, • •'�. Freeway ST>., , • j; i E II IIII11111111 Urban Arterial l &Lane) t� 411111110 m Urban Arterial (6-Lane) ` 3 • - - - -- Anerial M -Lane) ......... Malor(d -Lane) i �• \q� .......... Secontla714 -Lane) \`• Pnnctpal Collector(2 -Lane) l 1� N. f.��1, Specific Plan road (Size Varies) Access Restricted Interchange Improvement t S,: .H OF 0&<:_ Figure 40 i- 7-z000 1 �r 1 • Z OI <=� z R ca a3 / saa�ai M a� � ig x � iP ✓ P� ` 9 o RGpRRP ® g8 •> DP1� 5e >r. M P U •.ea iF i °_ be �s n 4 � z0 � M1e p0 O OPo t� ,h Ma t z�m i4P a � V2 SLZ•1 _ fe �� a L 1 e o $ SUea C�' :'•: M O • W • f•`F, P �4. Z �M1 Q H J Q CL Cl) Zw� O w Q � O a w Q' < a U Q rn • z 3 J m /••\ 1 WOLn VA 0 N ' 7 F � • 0 z 0 e x 3 o � o b o J m 3 y �4 O ~ R �U Q H ; J Q W W UJ m o o O a =_ w> w 0U_ :v o d LL d , O LL a aN • aX L 0 0 1 3 ❑ v \�� %S d o_ 1 1 0 1 erg b a:as �g < x Leo �3` v_.�i `-�• r / \ J� M1 O b 00 1 a fi° Z W m U >. i U) F- (� U Z_ to 1 0 W X `. >> O U W LL a W LL N • Cn � . i W }3 0 0 :i a d a F � • LL i 0 r. N ¢ V _ •0� A� 04 �5 a f qi h p .v ,.• � ;� ,tea, ^ b c M @ • � n ' 1 SIZy o4 r' \ = e3 W fn m s Z F- \ ^h N U cn F- OQ U W W _ W W Wo > >� 0 O -° O a w = F- > u w W 's LU LL a ' LL 3 S U °/ 1� °00000000 W o o O O ° '- O) N CO N N N M M V V CD h co 1 O O O O O O O O O O ' O CA 0 O O O 1 co N 00 00 co V cr a O co � Ln r M to V M u N M co V to CD I-- m 1 A d O O O O O O O O O C) 0 O aD ° O O CD 0 CD CD CD C O (D CO ' j V O M N 7 I co co Q) I- N Cl) co Cl) V LO O u U 1 N N C 3 r. w ° O O O O O O O O C i� uJ o m c CC N t- M v D v v_ O . @ ; N r- Q) C6 M O U � N N N Cl) V to CL J ++ y U w L d U 4) O. Q CD O O N O O O O O O N O N CP O V co N N N Lri ' 11J 1 N N N M �t V cn T H 3 � L C U O 7 O A @ U U U w J C N � � N @ Of 0- A V N N U C U U 1 � QQ U U U C U @ @ @ U- >1 m z Q Q Q 3 C N C C O U O O N @ @ @ ' O R a N 2 Q Q 7 Q) N @ U C a) C C C C ca • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ c @ J J J J J J J J J ' N N V C V V CD CD CO Ln d • a K LL z 1 e. p o o Cb b31 S 3 wJN� y g ° i oc° o � e c oo° e 3 p 0 0 l \ 1 B J o 4y J` B cp p. o ,T P ` m a„ Z H B Q Q ' ' J a U) Z U) �_ v V 0_ J W Q C O N Q Z o a w v 1 U�� • Q a Z U m H 3 to Z y / ' W J fn u� d ' a � LL o_ KO O 9 � s a °n waWart^ ��• .. e 0 0 O 4 ° � �� • . b b � � t 0 9`o�`ou ° ` �• 11 8 ° V • � ° y a ° �o ° LL OB P P ❑ CJ p �, i OU o , Q Q {e J , N i Cl) LL it V _ J W > U Q c ' ❑ Z m Q a u.l Q 0. w O O Q cn as m • a U ; LL Q Z d �i ❑ J N �u� • m � LL o_ m a < Ko °e p Y O JJG IM0.GM B V G% �° O f r J p •=O S:i O O 0 � ' O "a ly b ui - , 1 • p d 1 \ • �- o ° p � - o va r Ste., ` O ° p, O s W � `4 U >- U F- v Nh a Z a O cn v > Q O > W U v ¢ i • cn � U ; I J U) \��% d ' ~ • �o LL z ' <sa cv a a S ig 2 J A aiz 11 3 t' e RP w R$ ! E ego W0.C>^ J V`(I/ o p O o B �• r1 • ` �'E qp i E _ � ° 6 _ �O �a JC tZ', � 4 G O Q O •eO` S T Z O y C s 'f Z ~ ^h a �U 0 U x } _ W J W Z L ul N r O Z a v Q U u V W } rm W J o U �a N Q • } v a � IX U ; = U J v �ii� ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • A comparative analysis of the build -out volume- capacity (v /c) ratios and ' service levels for the Draft Circulation Plan and project site roadway alternatives reveals various differences. These differences show a general degradation of service levels in the project study area with the alternatives to the Proposed Circulation Plan. Since each of the project site roadway alternatives includes the elimination of one or more access ' features of the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan, it is evident that the build - out traffic flows would have to re- distribute to other remaining roadways. ' The degree to which this occurs, and the ultimate impact, varies between the alternatives. A summary of these differences is provided below. Date Street Over - crossing Alternative This alternative, which includes the elimination of the Cherry Street Interchange, results in significant and wide- spread degradation of service levels in the study area. The loss of both access to- and -from the freeway results in significant diversion of traffic to remaining interchanges at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The additional traffic burden required to be served by these ' interchanges would increase the capacity deficiencies at these locations which are already evident in the v/c ratios calculated for the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. ' • Several segments of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road between 1 -15 and where the two intersect, show higher v/c ratios and a degradation in service levels (where they are not at " F" already). The Ynez Road corridor, which parallels 1 -15 on the east, would be required to serve an additional increment of traffic that is destined to the freeway via the interchanges at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In this scenario, Ynez Road would have to be upgraded to a six -lane facility north of Date Street. ' . The Jefferson Avenue corridor between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road would be impacted with higher traffic flows. ' . The impact of adding traffic at the Winchester Road interchange is • noticeable as far south as the Overland Drive over - crossing, where the ' service level would degrade from "B" to "C ". ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 37 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY , In summary, the Date Over - crossing alternative would result in a significant • loss of access capacity at the freeway. This in turn would cause wide- ' spread negative impacts on traffic operations under the City build -out scenario. These impacts could only partially be mitigated by upgrading ' arterials parallel to the freeway. It is also important to note that the proposed alternative to construct Date Street as an over - crossing is inconsistent with the current Staff Recommended Draft Circulation Plan ' developed for the City of Murrieta. Cherry Street Over - crossing Alternative t The Cherry Street Over- crossing alternative has similar impacts on the study area roadway network to the Date Street Over - crossing alternative. ' The Cherry Street Over - crossing alternative would also result in a loss of capacity for accessing the 1 -15 freeway. Since they both have very similar overall network configurations (with the difference being simply the location , of the over - crossing), the differences in the build -out operational characteristics relative to the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan are subtle. As ' with the Date Street over - crossing alternative, the Cherry Street Over - crossing alternative results in a noticeable degradation of both the Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridors east of the freeway. 1 Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California 38 APPENDIX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Temecula, California ' . ...... . .. ................. Y CIRCULATION PLAN 2 mun Urban Anem ^ ! a \ e.. • - .� b - Lanes u � �♦'�"' _ UM.a Arsenal �. ? �• j •�'• t 'E oLnes � _ ••�• � e �• Ancn•I � • ���•- j . � •tF ' M•ior }�.Z • •:�� la�s r'� '�•`.M 1.� Seconmq / 1 1• z Lanes / � • - • 4= PnmWl Colleemr S,.if.c Plan Ra•E Six[ Van. i : ♦ • �_ m TriKIl COtnaat �i ~ �y•♦♦ • ♦� / \ • • F:. • • Y � J• I A .•.� ^••1� .[ i k . ft 49 • �l ♦ v . �. ' T h e C i t y o \I TEMECULA .. . ................. �.... T General Plan Program I ,I M!(PLANNING x. CENTI R e ,:7l ♦. FIGURE 3-1 3 -1 o 'gy O ~ V• ILD 93 12 8 i3 El is �m is g 138 +8 8° Q V r �b i` a I M 7 It It n — a 1 2 II II II n p e e U O q b CL 0 r _ y ■.ate :: II a IX It 41 o ° o ° 0 0 5 . _ c WIX � _ / R O J T < z c SE 00 IVN - �W O W D z a s < o It Of = p 1 Uryry � ZE LZ � of C) \ � e° ■ \\ \iii■ P e e ri a ll so a * • N I �.y • I S � �',� d _ � �l A • ♦ ♦a ■a 11 AGSM .' �• .Q► -fI ��� / � _ � ( _ ON �[ • � •\ \ �I .. .. 1 I. Irk mom y) ee ••b:Lc`•aa ■■I +■■ r�nN oN AYF ♦.. iI�' j I - � .. • I - ' � `_I C. • I .a ♦♦ c' I _ ere• ey,� r" _ � L. .>' 1 • • I I °e 1 �i a ...Aw A AN St ` �" N --d{ ■oom* Y_.a 1. � • 111 _..IR•i nw li�1 iON Av{ i { i•M, • �L� a ■ ♦1� :'_I ^Y , I rY a■a •■asa a- •a a� • ■ne J + o WA 9q O 1 0 _ M ION A £ 1 V115� 4� � A \,- . _ ws - -- ; � e•• C[Ar w (fII 1 V ' ` ANRRI yV _ J I [ z A l t -n - -- J I ♦ v \\ s_ i • ,( c = o • 1 1 APPENDIX C N AIR QUALITY MODELING BY EDAW, INC. DATED MARCH 15, 2000 1 ' Air Quality - Urbemis 7G 3.2 Detailed Printouts [worstcase winter operation] March 15, 2000 Page 1 of 6 URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 Name: SWEET.URB of ect Name: Sweetwater SP EIR Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAILED REPORT - Winter ' Total Land Use Area to be Developed (Estimated): 332 acres Retail /Office /Institutional Square Footage: 143660 ' Single Family Units 1528 Multi- family Units 393 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ' Source ROG NOx CO PM10 Demolition 0.00 Site Grading 21.60 307.20 - 132.80 ' Const. Worker Trips 10.56 14.94 28.33 2.86 Stationary Equip. 3.70 3.01 0.18 Mobile Equip..- Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Diesel 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.00 Asphalt Offgasing 0.00 TOTALS (ppd, unmitigated) 35.85 325.15 28.33 135.84 ' CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO PM10 emolition 0.00 to Grading 20.52 291.84 - 70.16 onst. Worker Trips 10.56 14.94 28.33 2.86 Stationary Equip. 3.70 3.01 - 0.18 Mobile Equip. - Gas 0.00 0.00 = 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.00 ' Asphalt Offgasing 0.00 TOTALS (ppd, mitigated) 34.77 309.79 28.33 73.20 ' Construction- Related Mitigation Measures Soil Erosion Measures: Replace Ground cover in Disturbed Areas Quickly: Percent Reduction(ROG 0% NOx 0% CO 0% PM10 49 %) Properly Maintain Equipment: Percent Reduction(ROG 5% NOx 5% CO 0% PM10 5 %) Implement Water /Paved Road Measures: Water All Haul Roads 2x Per Day: ' Percent Reduction(ROG 0% NOx 0% CO 0% PM10 3 %) Reduce Speeds on Unpaved Roads to 15 mph or less: Percent Reduction(ROG 0% NOx 0% CO 0% PM10 70 %) Mobile Equipment: Properly Maintain Equipment: Percent Reduction(ROG 5% NOx 5% CO 5% PM10 5 %) Architectural Coatings: Use Low VOC Coatings: Percent Reduction(ROG 5% NOx 0% CO 0% PM10 0 %) ' Asphalt Paving: Use Low VOC Asphalt: Percent Reduction(ROG 5% NOx O% CO 0% PM10 0 %) Air Quality - Urbemis 7G 3.2 Detailed Printouts [worstcase winter operation] , March 15, 2000 Page 2 of 6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) ®' Source ROG NOx CO PM10 ' Natural Gas 2.95 38.24 16.24 0.07 Wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fireplaces 1744.61 19.81 1924.41 263.60 Landscaping - No winter emissions Consumer Prdcts 93.98 TOTALS (ppd, unmitigated) 1841.54 58.05 1940.65 263.67 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Mitigated) , Source ROG NOx CO PM10 Natural Gas 2.57 33.30 14.56 0.06 Wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Fireplaces 1744.61 19.81 1924.41 263.60 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Prdcts 93.98 ' TOTALS (ppd, mitigated) 1841.17 53.11 1938.97 263.66 Area Source Mitigation Measures , Orient Buildings North /South: Rsdntl Space Heat. Percent Reduction(ROG 14% NOx 13% CO 4% PM10 8.5 %) ' Increase Insulation Beyond Title 24: Rsdntl Space Heat. Percent Reduction(ROG 14% NOx 13% CO 7.4% PM10 13 %) All Electric Landscape Maintenance Equipment: Rsdntl Lndscp Maint. Percent Reduction(ROG 100% NOx 100% CO 100% PM10 100 %) Orient Buildings North /South: Cmrcl Space Heat. Percent Reduction(ROG 11% NOx 13.5% CO 17.5% PM10 12.5 %) Increase Insulation Beyond Title 24: Cmrcl Space Heat. , Percent Reduction(ROG 10% NOx 9% CO 7% PM10 9.5 %) All Electric Landscape Maintenance Equipment: Cmrcl Lndscp Maint. Percent Reduction(ROG 100% NOx 100% CO 100% PM10 100 %) ' OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: ' Unit Type Trip Rate size Total Trips ' Single family detached 8.33 trips / dwelling unit 1528.00 12,728.24 Townhouse 6.58 trips / dwelling unit 93.00 611.94 Apartments 6.44 trips / dwelling unit 300.00 1,932.00 Elementary school 0.90 trips / students 700.00 630.00 Service Commercial 260.00 trips / acre 92.66 24,091.60 Neighborhood Shopping 41.20 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 20.00 824.00 Community Park 50.00 trips / acre 16.00 800.00 , Lake Park Facility 5.00 trips / acre 15.00 75.00 Vehicle Assumptions: ® ' Fleet Mix: Air Quality - Urbemis 7G 3.2 Detailed Printouts [worstcase winter operation] March 15, 2000 Page 3 of 6 1 Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel t Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98.58 0.26 � t Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 99.54 0.33 ium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 100.00 Urban Buses 2.00 100.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels ' Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- ' Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 ' Trip Speeds (mph) 35 40 40 40 40 40 `} of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) ' Elementary school 20.0 10.0 70.0 Service Commercial 2.0 1.0 97.0 Neighborhood Shopping 2.0 1.0 97.0 Community Park 2.0 1.0 97.0 Lake Park Facility 2.0 1.0 97.0 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family detached 188.47 281.82 1583.54 95.90 Townhouse 9.41 13.55 76.13 4.61 Apartments 29.84 42.78 240.36 14.56 Elementary school 18.94 10.73 59.82 3.47 ' Service Commercial 205.05 324.37 1853.63 100.85 Neighborhood Shopping 7.15 10.37 61.52 3.17 Community Park 7.04 10.77 61.55 3.35 Lake Park Facility 0.82 0.63 4.78 0.17 ' ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 466.72 695.01 3941.33 226.08 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family detached 184.09 274.14 1540.41 93.29 Townhouse 9.20 13.18 74.06 4.49 1 Apartments 29.17 41.61 233.82 14.16 Elementary school 18.75 10.41 58.05 3.36 Service Commercial 196.22 313.47 1791.44 97.46 ' Neighborhood Shopping 6.92 10.02 59.45 3.07 Community Park 6.82 10.41 59.49 3.24 0 ke Park Facility 0.80 0.61 4.62 0.16 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 453.97 673.85 3821.33 219.23 ' Includes correction for passby trips. Air Quality - Urbemis 7G 3.2 Detailed Printouts [worstcase winter operation] ' March 15, 2000 Page 4 of 6 Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ' ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment ' 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks ' 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest ' 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Safety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit t 3.8 /19 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service ' 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness ' 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Interconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage 0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide these Features 0 Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes 0 Safe School Routes: No Schools 1 0 Uses w /in Cycling Distance: No Uses 0 - Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) ' Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 2 Provide Transit Shelters Benches 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 0.5 Provide Route Signs and Displays ' 1 Provide Bus Turnouts 19 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) ' % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment ' 3 Mixed Use Project (Residential Oriented) 1 Provide Sidewalks and /or Pedestrian Paths 1 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections ' ' Air Quality - Urbemis 7G 3.2 Detailed Printouts [worstcase winter operation) March 15. 2000 Page 5 of 6 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Safety Provide Street Furniture Provide Street Lighting .5 Provide Pedestrian Signalization and Signage g <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) 6 Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment ' 1 Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) 1 Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities 1 Project Uses Parking Structures /Small Dispersed Lots 0.5 Provide Street Lighting ' 0.5 Project Provides Shade Trees to Shade Sidewalks 0.5 Provide Pedestrian Safety Designs /Infrastructure at Crossings 0.25 No Long Uninterrupted Walls Along Pedestrian Walkways ' 6.75 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 2 Provide Bike Lanes /Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 9 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) Trips Reduced Measure Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment Provide Bike Lanes /Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 7 <- Totals ' Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) ' ;} Trips Reduced Measure p <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) ' % Trips Reduced Measure 3 Some Frequently Needed Services Provided ' 3 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) ' % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals ' Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) Reduced Measure 1 <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction ' with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Air Quality - Urbemis 7G 3.2 Detailed Printouts [worstcase winter operation) March 15, 2000 Page 6 of 6 Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips ' Pedestrian 0.20 0.79 0.79 Transit 0.66 0.14 0.18 Bicycle 1.80 1.80 1.80 Totals 2.65 2.74 2.77 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips Pedestrian 0.15 1.35 1.35 Transit 0.66 0.01 0.66 Bicycle 1.40 1.40 1.40 Other 0.00 0.05 0.00 Totals 2.20 2.82 3.41 1 Changes Made to the Default Values 1 Construction Related: The demolition emissions option switch has been changed The asphalt option switch has been changed The mobile emissions construction option switch has been changed The architectural coatings option switch has been changed Area Source Related: The default wood stove option switch has been changed The fireplace default values have been modified by the user. Operational /Vehicle Related: t 1 t 1 t APPENDIX D NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS BY GIROUX AND ASSOCIATES DATED FERUARY 8, 2000 i- Giroux & Associates Environmental Consultants I �I MEMO TO: Alia Hokuki; EDAW FROM: Hans D. Giroux; Giroux & Associates RE: Harveston EIR Noise Mitigation DATE: September 6, 2000 VIA FAX: 660 -1046 —1 Page Transmitted Revise Mitigation Measures 5.5.7.1 and 5.5.7.2 as follows: (1) As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94 -25, no construction may occur within one- quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: a. 6:30 P.M. to 6:30 A.M., Monday through Friday, b. before 7:00 A.M. or after 6:30 P.M. Saturday, or c. at any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. (2) All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quarter (1/4) mile of any occupied residence from 6:30 P.M. to 6:30 A.M. unless such equipment is surrounded by a noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier. 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92614 - Phone (949) 851 -8609 - Fax (949) 851 -8612 i Giroux & Associates Environmental Consultants y , May 1, 2000 Ms. Patty Anders City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Re: Winchester Hills /Sweetwater Specific Plan Dear Ms. Anders: + We have reviewed the revised site plan for the above project provided by EDAW staff. These revisions will not modify any conclusions that we have previously stated in our noise impact study for the above project. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, I Hans D. Giroux Senior Scientist Giroux & Associates HDG:ai 0 cc: Alia Hokuki �E��N�rc EDHVV, uVC., IKVUVE, CH • 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92614 - Phone (949) 851 -8609 - Fax Giroux & Associates r Environmental Consultants NO = S E IMPACT ANALY S = S W S NCHE S T ER HILLS SPEC = F= C P LAN C = TY O F T EME CULA ' CAL = F ORN = A i Prepared for: I EDAW, Inc. Attn: Alia Hokuki 17875 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 400 Irvine, CA 92614 Date: +� February 08, 2000 17744 Sky Park Circle. Suite 210, Irvine. California 92614 - Phone (949) 851 -8609 - Fax (949) 851 -8612 �• NO = S E S ETT = NG Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters which describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound wave. In r particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of sound pressure ratioed to the faintest sound detectable by a keen human ear is called a decibel (dB). Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitude is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity (middle A and its higher harmonics) are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A- weighting" written as dB(A). Any further reference to decibels in this report written as "dB" should be understood to be A- weighted values. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leg) , or, alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25 -28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, included single family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL allows the interior standard to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (dual paned windows, etc.). A noise level of 65 dB is also the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. A noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is thus typically the �• exterior noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential 1 i dwellings in California. Because commercial or industrial uses are � not occupied on a 24 -hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses generally is somewhat less stringent. In many communities where a quiet environment is considered an important asset that enhances the natural scenic values, a somewhat more stringent land use compatibility guideline has often been adopted. In the Noise Element of the County of Riverside General Plan, a noise exposure of 60 dB CNEL is shown as most desirable for residential uses, and noise exposures in the range of 60 -70 dB CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable for noise - sensitive residential uses after a careful analysis has been completed to insure that all noise impact mitigation has been implemented as fully as possible. Figure 1 shows the recommended State of California noise /land use compatibility guidelines as incorporated into the County Noise Element. The City of Temecula uses the same standards as the County. Figure 1 shows that exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL are considered unacceptable for residences, schools, churches, health care facilities and other noise - sensitive uses. The 65 dB CNEL standard is therefore the significance criterion applied to the residential component of the project east of Ynez Road. Noise /land use standards for proposed commercial uses between Ynez Road and I -15 are less stringent. Noise levels of 70 -75 dB CNEL are considered compatible with such uses. Because noise standards in Figure 1 are exterior standards, while most commercial uses are interior activities, noise is generally not considered a siting constraint except for a few unique commercial activities (outdoor dining patios, outdoor retail, commercial fee -based recreational uses, etc.). The project noise impact analysis thus focuses on meeting the 65 dB CNEL residential standard for proposed development east of Ynez Road. Existing noise levels throughout the Winchester Hills area derive almost exclusively from vehicular sources on the highways and secondary roads in the area. The area comprising the project is undeveloped and largely inaccessible. On -site noise levels are therefore low except close to existing project perimeter roadways. Measured noise levels in similar undeveloped environments in rural areas around Temecula typically record the following noise existing levels: 2 r COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY L. or CNEL, dBA 55 60 65 TO T5 sa RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, _ `• MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL • MULTI FAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING- MOTELS, HOTELS v SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES ' " "' z "'•" AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS AMPHITHEATERS I . SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS t� PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES, WATER RECREATION, ` CEMETERIES " ^•r� h `"'' ;• "" OFFICE BUILDINGS BUSINESS COMMERCIALAND ^ "` "` - "•` PROFESSIONAL I .. INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING . c- UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE J x I INTERPRETATION �1 ED NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE E Spedlfed land we Is ulla le.1my, based upon the NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE .ssumptien Net." bulldlr,g. Invoived au of normal conventiaml tanstr xlkn, without any New eonelrucllon or development should generally epeclel notes Insulation regalnmmi kdi.eotaaged. ll new ean.tivellon or development doe. proceed, • detailed analyst. of the noise reduction requirement ..at M made and needed ® CONOITIONALLT ACCEPTABLE notes Inwlation bnum Included In the design. New ron.tructlan ar development should 5e undertaken only slier. detalled analysis at the noise CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE reduction requirement 1. made and needed note. Insulation lutlres ue Includ.d In the deel0n. Now construction or development should generally C— k- -UOnal conslruclon, but with at ... d wino... not W undertaken. and lreah elr euppty syaleme or.lr condlllonin9 will I norm.11y.um... Solace: Office of Noise Control, California Dept. of Health, Feb. 1976. t FIGURE NOISE /LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS • Time Averages Maxima Daytime 45 dB 65 dB Evening 40 dB 60 dB Night 35 dB 50 dB 24 -Hour CNEL = 45 dB - - - -- The existing 24 -hour exterior CNEL in local semi -rural areas of 45 dB(A) is equal to the interior CNEL required for residential development. With continued areawide growth, the .quiet noise conditions will increase to more suburban levels. Substantially degraded noise levels, however, will be confined to very narrow corridors along major arterial roadways. The project site is 2.0 miles from French valley Airport at its closest point. Aircraft noise constraints (i.e., 65 dB CNEL) are forecast to remain within the airport boundary at airport buildout. Occasional light aircraft single -event noise is audible on the project site. Single -event noise across the project site may increase as airport use intensifies for business jets or other noisier air traffic. The project site, however, is on the distant fringe of airport noise perceptibility. J 4 i 1 NO = S E = MPAC T S Two characteristic noise sources are typically identified with land use intensification such as that proposed for Winchester Hills. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short -term noise increases near the project site. With little development on the project site, initial heavy construction will not have significant noise impact potential. Such impacts may, however, become important if construction occurs near already completed residential uses during later phases of project development. Upon completion, project_ related traffic will cause an incremental increase in areawide noise levels throughout the southeast Temecula area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to insure that the project not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding community, as well as to insure that the project site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment acting upon the project. Thresholds of Significance According to the most current CEQA Appendix G guidelines, noise impacts are considered potentially significant if they cause: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise s 1, ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. i d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. ,�. The term "substantial increase" is not defined by any responsible agency. The limits of perceptibility by instrumentation (sound meters) or by humans in a laboratory environment is around 1 dB. Under ambient conditions, people generally do not perceive that noise has clearly changed until there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial increase." • L 5 J Typically, a less stringent standard is applied to temporary increases than for permanent or periodic noise exposures. The human perception of noise is that the apparent loudness doubles for every +10 dB increase. A 10 dB increase seems twice as loud, a 20 dB increase 4 times as loud, a 30 dB increase is 8 times as loud, etc. A doubling of apparent loudness is a common threshold used to define a "substantial temporary increase." These considerations regarding human perception of perceived changes in the noise environment are therefore the proposed basis for assessing noise impact significance for the Winchester Hills project. For purposes of analysis, a violation of general plan or noise ordinance , standards, a +3 dB chronic increase, or a +10 dB temporary increase in noise exposure will be considered as potentially significant impacts. Because Winchester Hills is just within two miles of French Valley Airport at its closest point, the airport noise impact significance criterion from the current CEQA guidelines could also apply. This criterion states: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? "Excessive" relative to airports normally means the 65 dB noise contour. Single -event noise away from an airport, however, can also be intrusive even if the 65 dB CNEL contour remains close to the airport boundary. There are no adopted guidelines on what makes single events intrusive. For machinery -type sources, many jurisdictions consider short -term maxima of 75 dB by day, and 65 dB at night, as potentially disturbing to residential use. Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short -term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earth - moving sources, then by foundation and parking area construction, and finally for finish construction. Figure 2 shows the typical range of construction activity noise generation as a function of equipment used in various building phases. 6 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 Fr 70 30 90 too Compaetcrs (Rollers) Front Loaders 13 Backhocs o c � Trxtctors Pi ° a Scrapers, Graders . to Pavers 8 Trucks 8 _e Concrete Mixers v Concrete Pumps $ C Cranes (Movable) � 3 „ Cranes (Derrick) � a o Pumps V El °o Generators w Compressors I _ Pncumaue Wrenches �..� Jack Hammers and Rock Drills m 6 I a •� w Pile Drivers (Peaks) ..�� Vibrator � Saws ter. Source: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 31, 1971, "Noise from Coostrucuou Equipment & Opcmuous" TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FIGURE '� NOISE GENERATION LEVELS The earth moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Measurements have shown, however, that the noise emission levels in Figure 2 tend to be more associated with periodic events under full load rather than chronic (hourly or longer) noise exposure. Short term noise generation thus tends to be on the higher end of the ranges shown in Figure 2, while longer term exposure is at the quieter end of the noise spectrum. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 20 dB in 500' of propagation. The loudest earth - moving noise sources will therefore sometimes be temporarily detectable above the local background beyond 1,000' from any individual construction area. An extensive noise impact envelope requires a clear line of sight from source to receiver. Within the complex topography of the project site, sight lines are often limited. Construction noise impacts are therefore, somewhat less than that predicted under theoretical maximum input conditions. Temporary increases of +10 dB may occur when the noise attenuation effects of buffer distance, terrain or other obstruction are insufficient to reduce heavy equipment noise to less than intrusive levels. This generally occurs when a new phase of development is built directly adjacent to completed and occupied homes. This potential impact can be somewhat minimized by completing rough grading of the entire site before any homes are occupied to preclude the operation of dozers and scrapers near people's homes or the school. Finish construction work (hammers, saws, air compressors, etc.) can be a temporary nuisance, but more from short term nuisance rather than from semi - continuous noise that would meet the +10 dB temporary impact significance criterion. if project mass grading activities are reasonably well separated from any occupied homes, temporary construction noise impacts are not likely to exceed the identified significance threshold. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on grading activi ties' imposed as conditions on grading permits. The hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays are the times normally allowed for construction activities except in an emergency. These time limits are set as conditions on the project grading permits. 8 • Project- Related Vehicular Noise Impacts Long term noise concerns from the increased urbanization of the project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on Temecula area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA -RD -77 -108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers. Table 1 summarizes the 24- ,� hour CNEL level at 100' from the roadway edge along 104 area roadway segments for existing and future conditions with and without the project. "With project" impacts are analyzed resulting from both opening year (2001), interim buildout (2005) and full buildout conditions. Noise levels were calculated using traffic volumes supplied by the project traffic consultant (WSA; 1999). Because noise is analyzed relative to a weighted 24 -hour average standard while traffic volume projections have been made only for a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movements, the p.m. volumes were extrapolated into 24 -hour average daily traffic (ADT) using a reasonable peak hour to ADT ratio. An 8.8 percent p.m. peak hour factor was used as per the project traffic consultant's estimate (R. Kowshik, WSA; Dec. 22, 1999). For an acoustically "hard" surface, noise decays at 3 dB per distance doubling. For an acoustically "soft" site assumption (landscaping, vegetated surfaces, slight terrain irregularity,- etc.), noise levels drop off at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. For the typical Winchester Hills area roadway perimeter landscaping patterns, noise propagation is best described by acoustically "soft" conditions. Table 2 shows the calculated distance of the 65 dB CNEL contour from the roadway centerline using these drop -off assumptions. The distances in Table 2 are the I� setbacks that would be needed to achieve an acceptable (65 dB CNEL) exposure for noise - sensitive land uses if walls or other barriers were not used to accelerate the noise drop -off rate. In areas where intervening structures or other barriers are or will be situated, the theoretical maximum distances of the 65 dB CNEL contour shown in Table 2 are likely overestimates. Distances of 400+ feet along Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) for the 65 dB CNEL contour distance will probably not be observed along area roadways because intervening development will shorten the distance of potential excessive noise exposure. Such predicted levels, however, should not be surprising in that predicted future traffic volumes of over 100,000 vehicles per day on MHSR between I -15 and I -215 clearly will have significant noise implications relative to being able to site noise - sensitive land uses in proximity to this • roadway. 9 TABLE 1 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS (CHEL @ 100' to Centerline (dUl) < --- -- 2001 - - -> < - - - -- 2005 --- - -> Bxist. No Proi. v Pro. No Proi. v /Proj. Buildout Murrieta Hot Springs Road: Jefferson - Madison 63.5 65.3 65.3 67.8 67.8 70.2 Madison - I -15 SB Ramps 64.9 63.3 66.8 68.8 68.8 72.9 I -15 SB Ramps - I -15 NA 66.1 66.1 69.2 69.5 72.9 I-15 - I-15 NB Ramps NA 66.1 66.2 69.4 69.5 73.0 I -15 ME Ramps - Hancock Avenue 65.3 65.4 65.9 69.5 69.7 73.5 . Hancock Avenue - I -215 SB Ramps 65.8 66.3 66.3 69.4 69.7 74.4 I-215 SB Ramps - I -215 NA 67.2 67.3 70.1 70.4 74.0 I -215 - I NB Ramps 67.2 67.3 70.1 70.4 74.1 Ramp I-215 NB Ramps -Alta Murrieta 67.7. 7 68.4 68.4 70.8 71.1 74.2 Alta - Murrieta - Yne2 Road 65.8 67.1 67.2 69.1 69.7 72.9 Yne2 Road - Whitewood Road 65.8 67.1 67.2 69.1 69.7 72.3 Whitewood Road - Margarita Rd. 65.4 67.6 67.7 68.9 69.7 72.3 Margarita Rd. - Date Street 63.5 64.9 64.9 67.0 67.3 71.7 Date Street - Winchester Road 63.5 64.9 64.9 67.0 67.3 71.3 East of Winchester Road NA 61.0 61.0 65.4 65.4 70.8 Hawthorne: Washington - Adams NA NA NA NA NA 59.9 Guava: Washington - Adams NA NA NA NA NA 69.3 Adams - Jefferson NA NA NA HA NA 66.0 Jefferson- Madison NA NA NA NA NA 64.4 Madison - Jackson NA NA NA NA NA 54.4 f Fi I Jefferson - Madison NA NA NA NA NA 59.6 Elm: Arians - Jefferson NA NA NA NA NA 61.4 Jefferson - Madison NA NA NA NA NA 66.3 Madison - Jackson NA NA NA NA NA. 66.2 Jackson - 1 -15 NA NA. NA NA NA 68.5 I -15 - Ynet Road NA NA NA NA NA. 68.5 lei I �AsTable 1 ' Page 2 < - - -- 2001 - - -> < - 2005 - -> Exist. No Proi• v Pro'. No Proi• W Pro'. Buildout Date Street: Washington - Adams Avenue NA NA NA 56.7 56.9 66.3 Adams Avenue - Jefferson NA 43.3 43.3 56.7 56.9 65.3 Jefferson - Madison NA 57.4 57.4 56.5 56.3 68.5 Madison - I -15 SB Ramp NA NA NA NA NA 69.4 I -15 SB Ramp - I -15 NA NA NA NA NA 70.1 I -15 - I -15 NB Ramp NA NA NA NA NA 70.5 I -15 NB Ramp - Ynez Road NA HA NA NA 62.6 70.9 Ynez Road - Margarita Rd. NA NA NA NA 65.0 71.0. Margarita - Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. NA NA NA NA 51.8 70.9 West of Winchester Road NA NA NA NA NA 62.1 Winchester Road: 1 Diaz Road - Enterprise Cir. W NA NA NA NA NA 63.4 Enterprise Cir. W - Enterprise Cir. E NA NA NA NA NA 64.1 Enterprise Cir. E - Jefferson 66.9 67.5 67.6 67.9 67.9 66.6 Jefferson - I-15 SB Ramps 69.1 68.3 68.5 70.5 70.7 70.4 I -15 SB Ramps - I-15 NA 69.7 70.1 71.3 71.5 71.5 I -15 - I -15 NB Ramos NA 69.8 70.2 71.3 71.5 71.5 I -15 NB Ramps - Ynez Road 70.6 71.3 71.7 72.3 72.5 72.3 Ynez Road - Margarita Rd. 68.5 69.9 69.6 70.9 71.0 70.6 Margarita Rd. - Roripaugh 67.7 68.9 69.0 70.4 70.4 71.3 Roripaugh - Nicolas Road 67.7 68.9 69.0 70.4 70.4 71.1 Nicolas Rd. - Nurrieta Hot Springs Rd. 65.8 67.5 67.8 69.9 69.8 70.2 North of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. 65.2 67.0 67.1 69.8 70.0 70.5 overland Drive: Diaz Road - Enterprise Cir. W NA NA NA NA NA 61.0 Enterprise Cir. C - Commerce Ctr. Dr. NA NA NA NA NA 60.7 Commerce Ctr. Dr. - Jefferson Avenue NA 62.5 62.6 57.4 61.8 63.4 Jefferson Avenue - I -15 NA NA NA 68.2 68.8 67.4 I -15 - Ynez Road NA NA NA 68.2 68.8 67.4 Ynez Road - Margarita Road NA 64.7 66.5 66.5 66.6 68.6 Solana Wav: West of Ynez Road NA 54.4 54.4 56.7 56.7 NA Ynez Road - Margarita Road 65.2 66.2 66.2 62.5 62.6 66.4 �. East of Margarita 61.3 63.5 63.6 62.0 62.2 63.2 General Kearney Road: South of Nicolas Road NA NA NA NA NA 65.8 North of Margarita Road NA 63.5 63.6 65.7 65.8 64.5 r Table 1 Page 3 < - - - -- 2001 - -> < - 2005 - -> Exist. No Proi. w Pro'. No Proi. Pro'. Buildout Nicolas Road: West of Winchester NA 58.2 58.2 57.4 57.4 NA Winchester Road - General Kearney Rd. 63.3 64.5 64.6 64.4 64.4 66.9 East of General Kearney Road NA NA NA NA NA 65.4 Washington Avenue: Hawthorne - Guava NA NA NA NA NA 60.6 Guava - Date NA NA NA NA NA 63.8 Diaz Road: Date Street - Winchester Road NA NA NA NA NA 65.6 Winchester Road - Overland Drive 64.5 NA NA NA NA 66.6 South of Overland Drive NA NA NA NA NA 65.1 Adams Avenue: Jefferson - Hawthorne NA NA NA NA NA 69.1 Hawthorne - Guava NA NA NA NA NA 68.0 Guava - Elm Street NA NA NA NA NA 63.3 Elm Street - Date NA NA NA NA NA 60.9 Jefferson: N of Nurrieta Hot Spring Road NA 64.3 64.4 65.9 65.9 NA Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. - Guava 65.3 66.9 66.9 67.4 67.6 66.6 Guava - Fig 64.8 66.9 66.9 67.4 67.6 67.5 Fig - Elm Street 64.2 66.9 66.9 67.4 67.6 67.2 Elm Street - Date 64.8 NA NA NA NA 69.4 Date Street - Winchester Road 65.1 66.6 66.6 68.2 68.4 69.7 Winchester Road - Overland Drive 67.0 67.7 67.8 68.6 69.2 68.8 South of Overland Drive 65.7 66.9 67.0 67.5 67.6 67.8 Madison N of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 63.4 64.2 64.2 61.2 61.5 NA Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. - Jackson 52.3 61.0 61.0 54.1 54.1 68.9 Jackson - Guava 52.3 61.0 61.0 54.1 54.1 66.6 Guava - Fig NA 61.0 61.0 54.1 54.1 66.4 Fig - Elm Street NA 61.0 61.0 54.1 54.1 64.8 North of Date Street NA NA NA 55.6 55.3 61.0 Jackson Street: Madison - Guava NA NA NA NA NA 64.3 Guava - Elm Street NA NA NA NA NA 64.2 Commerce Center Dr: South of Overland Drive NA NA NA. NA NA 55.3 Hancock Avenue: •� North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 61.1 61.6 NA NA NA NA ,• Table 1 Page 4 < - - - -- 2001 - - -> < ----- 2005 - ---> Exist. No Proi. v /Prof. No Proi. u Pro'. Buildout Alta Murrieta: N of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 65.1 66.1 66.2 67.0 67.0 NA Yne2 Road: Hurrieta Hot Springs Road - Elm St. NA NA NA NA NA 69.0 Elm Street - Date Street NA NA NA NA 60.8 69.9 Date Street - Winchester Road NA 65.2 66.3 63.8 67.0 67.8 Winchester Road - Overland Drive 68.5 68.9 69.1 69.2 69.7 70.6 Overland Drive - Solana Way 68.5 69.1 69.2 67.6 68.1 67.5 South of Solana Way NA 69.5 69.6 67.6 68.0 69.0 Whiteuood Road: North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 60.8 63.1 63.1 59.7 60.4 NA ' Margarita Road: North of Hurrieta Hot Springs Road NA 51.8 52.3 57.8 57.8 NA Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Date St. 61.6 66.4 67.0 65.7 66.9 65.1 Date Street - Winchester Road 64.3 66.4 67.0 65.7 66.9 64.2 Winchester Rd. - General Kearnev Rd. 64.7 68.4 68.6 65.9 66.2 67.9 General Kearney Rd. - Overland Dr. 64.2 67.6 67.8 65.7 65.7 68.9 Overland Dr. - Solana Way 64.2 68.1 68.3 68.1 68.2 71.4 South of Solana Way 65.9 67.5 67.7 67.4 67.4 69.4 ,1 TABLE 2 DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE TO 65 dB CNR CONTOOR (FEET) < - - -- 2001 —> < -- 2005 - - - -> Exist. No Pro v /Proi. No Prot v pro'. Buildout Murrieta Hot Springs Road: Jefferson - Madison 80 105 105 155 155 225 Madison - I-15 SB Ramps 100 80 130 180 180 335 I-15 SB Ramps - I -15 NA 120 120 190 200 340 1 -15 - I-15 NB Ramps NA 120 120 195 200 340 1 -15 NB Ramps - Hancock Avenue 105 105 115 200 205 370 Hancock Avenue - I -215 SB Ramps 115 120 120 200 205 420 1 -215 SB Ramps - 1 -215 NA 140 140 215 230 395 1 -215 - 1 -215 NB Ramps NA 140 140 215 230 400 I -215 NB Ramps - ,Alta Hmrrieta 150 170 170 245 255 410 M Alta-Hurrieta - Ynez Road 110 140 140 190 205 335 Ynez Road - Whitevood Road 110 140 140 190 205 305 Whitewood Road - Margarita Rd. 105 150 150 185 205 305 Margarita Rd. - Date Street 80 100 100 135 140 280 Date Street - Winchester Road 80 100 100 135 140 265 East of Winchester Road NA 55 55 105 105 245 Hawthorne: Washington - Adams Avenue NA NA NA NA NA < 50 Guava: Washington - Adams Avenue NA NA NA NA NA 195 Adams Avenue - Jefferson NA NA NA NA NA 115 Jefferson- Madison HA NA NA NA NA 90 Madison - Jackson NA NA NA NA NA. < 50 Fig: Jefferson - Madison NA NA NA NA NA < 50 Elm: Adams Avenue - Jefferson NA NA NA NA NA 55 _ Jefferson - Madison NA. NA NA NA NA 120 Madison - Jackson NA NA NA NA NA. 120 Jackson - I -15 NA NA NA NA NA 170 I -15 - Ynez Road NA NA NA NA NA 170 e• Table 2 Page 2 < - - -- 2001 - - - -> < -- 2005 - - -> Exist. No Proi. v Pro'. No Proi. v Pro'. Buildout Date Street: Washington - Adams Avenue NA NA NA < 50 < 50 125 ' Adams Avenue - Jefferson NA < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 105 Jefferson - Madison NA < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 170 Madison - I-15 SB Ramp NA NA NA NA NA 195 I -15 SB Ramp - I -15 NA NA NA NA NA 220 I -15 - I -15 NB Ramp NA NA NA NA NA 245 I -15 NB Ramp - Ynez Road NA NA NA NA 70 245 Ynez Road - Margarita Rd. NA NA NA NA 100 255 Margarita - Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. NA NA NA NA < 50 250 West of Winchester Road NA NA NA NA NA 65 Winchester Road: Diaz Road - Enterprise Cir. W NA NA NA NA NA 80 Enterprise Cir. W - Enterprise Cir. E NA NA NA NA NA 85 Enterprise Cir. E - Jefferson 135 145 150 155 155 130 Jefferson - I-15 SB Ramps 190 165 170 230 240 230 I -15 SB Ramps - I -15 NA 205 220 260 275 270 I -15 - I -15 NB Ramps NA 210 220 260 275 270 I-15 NB Ramps - Ynez Road 235 265 280 305 315 305 Ynez Road - Margarita Rd. 170 210 200 250 250 235 Margarita Rd. - Roripaugh 150 185 185 230 230 265 Roripaugh - Nicolas Road 150 185 185 230 230 255 Nicolas Rd. - Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. 115 145 155 210 210 220 North of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. 105 135 140 210 215 235 ' Overland Drive: Diaz Road - Enterprise Cir. W NA NA NA NA NA 55 Enterprise Cir. C - Commerce Ctr. Dr. NA NA NA NA NA 50 Commerce Ctr. Dr. - Jefferson Avenue NA 70 70 < 50 60 80 Jefferson Avenue - I -15 NA NA NA 160 180 145 I -15 - Ynez Road NA NA NA 160 180 145 Ynez Road - Margarita Road NA 95 125 125 130 175 Solana Way: West of Ynez Road NA < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 NA Ynez Road - Margarita Road 105 120 120 70 70 125 East of Margarita 55 80 80 65 65 75 General Kearney Road: South of Nicolas Road NA NA NA NA NA 115 • North of Margarita Road NA 80 80 110 115 90 Table 2 Page 3 < - - -- 2001 -- -> < — 2005 - - -> Exist. No Proi. V Pro . No Pro w /Prot. Buildout Nicolas Road: West of Winchester NA < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 NA Winchester Road - General Kearney Rd. 75 95 95 90 90 135 East of General Kearney Road NA NA NA NA NA 105 Washington Avenue: ' Hawthorne - Guava NA NA NA NA NA 50 Guava - Date NA NA NA NA NA 85 Diaz Road: Date Street - Winchester Road NA NA NA NA NA 110 Winchester Road - Overland Drive 90 NA NA NA NA 130 South of Overland Drive NA NA NA NA NA 100 Adams Avenue: Jefferson - Hawthorne NA NA NA NA NA 190 Hawthorne - Guava NA NA NA NA NA 160 Guava - Elm Street NA NA NA NA NA 75 Elm Street - Date NA NA NA NA NA 55 Jefferson: N of Hurrieta Hot Spring Road NA 90 90 115 115 NA Nurrieta Hot Springs Rd. - Guava 105 135 135 145 150 130 Guava - Fig 95 135 135 145 150 145 Fig - Elm Street 90 135 135 145 150 140 ' Elm Street - Date 95 NA NA NA NA 195 Date Street - Winchester Road 100 130 130 165 170 205 Winchester Road - Overland Drive 135 150 155 175 190 180 South of Overland Drive 110 135 135 145 150 155 Madison N of Hurrieta Hot Springs Road 80 90 90 55 60 NA Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. - Jackson < 50 55 55 < 50 < 50 185 Jackson - Guava < 50 55 55 < 50 < 50 130 Guava - Fig NA 55 55 < 50 < 50 125 Fig - Elm Street NA 55 55 < 50 < 50 95 North of Date Street NA NA NA < 50 < 50 55 Jackson Street: Madison - Guava NA NA NA NA NA 90 Guava - Elm Street NA NA NA. NA NA 90 Commerce Center Or: South of Overland Drive NA NA NA NA NA < 50 Hancock Avenue: •, North of Hurrieta Hot Springs Road 55 60 NA NA NA NA • Table 2 Page 4 < - - -- 2001 - -> < - - - -- 2005 - -> Exist. No Proi. V Pro . NO Prol. V Pro Hulldout 1 Alta Murrieta: N of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 100 120 120 135 135 NA Yne2 Road: Hurrieta Hot Springs Road - Elm St. NA NA NA NA NA 185 Elm Street - Date Street NA NA NA NA 50 215 Date Street - Winchester Road NA 105 120 85 135 155 Winchester Road - Overland Drive 170 185 190 190 205 235 Overland Drive - Solana Way 170 185 190 150 160 145 ' South of Solana Way NA 200 200 150 160 185 Whitewood Road: North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 50 75 75 < 50 50 HA Margarita Road: North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road NA < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 NA Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Date St. 60 125 135 110 135 100 Date Street - Winchester Road 90 125 135 110 135 90 Winchester Rd. - General Kearnev Rd. 95 170 175 115 120 155 General Kearney Rd. - Overland Dr. 90 150 155 110 110 185 Overland Dr. - Solana Way 90 160 165 160 165 270 South of Solana Way 115 145 150 145 145 200 The high future traffic noise environment in the project vicinity , is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. Along currently rural roads with negligible existing traffic volumes, future noise levels will be 16+ dB or more higher than in 2000. Table 3 shows the maximum noise level increases along existing roadways at locations where increases of +3 dB or more are predicted to occur. The project increment in each case is +0.2 dB or less. The project contribution to the cumulative increase is imperceptible. The noise impact from all cumulative area growth is significant based on the previously identified significance criteria. However, that impact would occur without or with the proposed project. If the impact would occur without project implementation, and if the project contribution is de minimis the cumulative impact is also considered less than significant. The maximum change in noise exposure from implementation of the Winchester Hills project would occur in close proximity to the project site. Peak noise increases at site access roadways for Year 2005 conditions are as follows: Ynez Road (Date St. - Winchester) _ + 3.2 dB Margarita Road (Date St. - Winchester) _ + 1.2 dB The Ynez Road increase individually exceeds the +3 dB "substantial increase" significance threshold. That impact, however, will only affect future residents within the project itself. All noise impacts outside the project boundary are less than significant. The project perimeter roadway noise exposure abutting proposed Winchester Hills residential uses are shown in Table 4. Noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline at buildout would range from 64.2 dB CNEL along Margarita Road to 71.0 dB CNEL along Date Street. Any noise - sensitive usable outdoor space within 90 feet of Margarita Road, 155' from Ynez Road, or 255 feet from the Date Street centerline would require noise protection in order to meet the City of Temecula exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL. For an at -grade configuration, the noise attenuation achievable by a perimeter wall is generally 5 dB plus one additional dB per foot of wall height exceeding 5 feet. Table 5 calculates the wall height that would be needed to achieve an acceptable outdoor exposure. If grade separation exists between the building pad and the roadway centerline, the wall height requirement is somewhat reduced. As seen in Table 5, the only location where roadway noise requires a wall that is higher than 6 feet is along Date Street closer than 90 feet from the centerline to the property line /wall , location. "Standard" perimeter walls of 6 feet high will meet the exterior standard along all other project exposure locations. 18 t 1 • TABL E 3 MAXIMUM PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (dBA CNEL) ' Nax. Nax. Total Proiect • Murrieta Hot Springs Road: (Hancock Ave. - I -215) Ramps + 8.6 + 0.2 Winchester Road: (N. of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) + 5.3 + 0.2 Nicolas Road: (Winchester - General Kearny) + 3.6 ± 0.0 Jefferson Avenue: (Date - Winchester) + 4.6 + 0.2 Madison Avenue: (Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Jackson) +16.6 ± 01.0 Margarita Road: (Overland Drive - Solana Way) + 7.2 + 0.1 i 1 1 1� 1 ® TABL E 4 PROJECT PERIMETER NOISE EXPOSURE (dB CNEL @ 100' TO CENTERLINE AND DISTANCE TO 65 dB CNEL FROM CENTERLINE) - - - -- 2005 - - - -- No Proi. w /Prof. Buildout Date Street: Ynez = Margarita Road N/A 65.0 71.0 (N /A) (100') (255 Ynez Road: Date Street - Winchester 63.8 67.0 67.8 ( 85 1 ) ( ( Margarita Road: Date Street - Winchester 65.7 66.9 64.2 (110') (135') ( 90') ! 1 ■ TAB L E 5 SOUND WALL HEIGHT NEEDED TO ACHIEVE 65 dB CNEL Sound Wall Centerline - Distance Location: 50' 70' 90' 110' Date Street 9' 7.5' 6' 51 Ynez Road 6',,,_ 5 <5 <51 Margarita Road 5' 5' None None 1 If exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB along the building facade, they also represent a potential constraint in meeting the interior residential noise standard of 45 dB CNEL. If the degree of "excess" noise is small, then closing windows facing the street is adequate to achieve an acceptable interior level. As noise levels increase, upgraded windows or other features may be necessary. Any requirement to close windows to shut out noise in order to meet standards also entails a concurrent requirement to provide supplemental ventilation for each affected room. Building facade noise loading along each Winchester perimeter roadway will depend somewhat upon setback from the roadway centerline. A typical setback of 75 feet was assumed in assessing the likely building envelope noise level and the mitigation needed to meet interior standards in second -story bedrooms, as follows: Location Noise Level Mitigation Date Street 73 dB CNEL Good dual -paned windows, air conditioning Ynez Road 70 dB CNEL Dual -paned or extra thick single - paned windows, air conditioning Margarita Road 66 dB CNEL Slightly upgraded single-paned windows, air conditioning , Because these mitigation requirements will depend upon exact , setback, building elevations and /or types of housing, exact building features can not be specified. However, none of the predicted noise loadings are so high as to present any technical , difficulty in being mitigated to an acceptable interior noise level. Project Site Aircraft Noise Exposure Project site aircraft noise exposure at Winchester Hills from air traffic at French Valley Airport will be well below 60 dB CNEL. Aircraft noise levels of less than 60 dB CNEL place no development constraint on noise - sensitive land uses. Levels of less than 60 dB CNEL require no acoustical studies prior to development. However, air traffic will be audible within the easternmost portion of the project closest to Margarita Road. Whereas the weighted 24 -hour average will be well within acceptable levels, single events may be 22 '• clearly audible to homeowners. Single events are often more a source of complaint from aircraft noise than the daily average noise level. An updated airport noise study is currently in progress. Preliminary results from the study confirm that the future 60 dB CNEL contour will remain in close proximity to French valley Airport without affecting Winchester Hills. Air traffic for the airport is concentrated east of Winchester Road such that the project site is on the side perimeter of airport audibility. Based upon the project's location relative to the airport, the County's airport noise consultant (D. Fitz; Coffman Associates; 1999) estimates that the loudest single event overflights will be from Stage II business jets. Based upon the project distance from the airport and its location . relative to the normal flight track, the expected maximum noise exposure is 60 dBA (Lmax). The integrated noise "dose" for one total pass -by is called the single ' event level (SEL) . An SEL of approximately 70 dBA is projected for the easternmost portion of the project site. The energy equivalent average noise level (Leg) during the overflight is calculated as ' follows: LEQ (dBA) = SEL (dBA) - 10 X LOG (TIME) N The audible portion of the overflight (TIME) is around 60 seconds. During this overflight, the calculated LEQ would be: LEQ = 70 - 10 LOG(60) = 52 dBA 1 Because the noise peak initially rises slowly and then peaks quickly before falling off again gradually, noise levels during the overflight above the LEQ level are of shorter duration than the time below the LEQ level. During a 60- second audible overflight, approximately 15 seconds will exceed 52 dBA, while 45 seconds will be below this level. Structural attenuation of ambient noise ranges as follows: Single -Pane Windows Open - 10 dB Single -Pane Windows Closed - 20 dB Dual -Pane Windows Closed - 25 dB Closed Dual Panes & Extra Upgrades - 30 dB 23 A desirable interior noise level during the daytime and evening is 45 dBA. Noisiest single overflights would produce the following interior levels at easternmost Winchester Hill homes as a function of structural features in the receiving dwelling (dBA): Structural Condition Lmax Lam_ Single -Pane Windows Open 50 42 Single -Pane Windows Closed 40 32 Dual -Pane Windows Closed 35 27 Closed Duals & Extra Upgrades 30 22 Closed single -pane windows would achieve an acceptable interior , noise exposure of 45 dBA Lmax. The ability to close windows if the exterior is perceived as too noisy requires' supplemental ventilation such as air conditioning. Air conditioning is anticipated to be a standard feature in project site homes. With minimal "extra" acoustical consideration, any single event aircraft noise issue can be maintained at insignificant levels. 1 24 A NO 2 S E = MPAC T M 2 T =GAT = ON The project noise impact study indicated that off -site noise . impacts will be individually and cumulatively less than significant. On -site noise levels may exceed residential standards for proposed homes along Date Street and along Ynez and Margarita Roads. Rear yard perimeter protection is needed for usable outdoor space (yard, patio, spa, etc.), and enhanced structural features (upgraded windows and air conditioning) may be needed to meet interior standards. Temporary construction noise nuisance may be ' experienced if new construction occurs in close proximity to already occupied homes. Mitigation is indicated for possible temporary nuisance during construction and for on -site uses that abut perimeter roadways. Recommended mitigation is as follows: 1. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and all legally proclaimed holidays. 2. All construction equipment should use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. 3. All construction staging should be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. 4. A noise mitigation analysis should be performed for all future project noise - sensitive uses potentially exposed to noise ' levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL to verify that planned noise protection will meet Riverside County standards. 1 a. exterior recreational areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL ' b. interior living areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 45 dB CNEL Substantial perimeter walls separating rear yards from the roadway right -of -way along Date Street are anticipated to be necessary. Precise wall geometrics will be determined once exact setbacks and building pad grades are established. "Standard" (6 -foot high) perimeter walls are likely adequate along Margarita and /or Ynez Roads. 25 Mode d window treatments will be necessary Moderately upgrade along Date Street in upstairs bedrooms closest to the roadway. Minor acoustical upgrades will be needed along Margarita or Ynez beyond simply closing windows to shut out roadway noise. The building code requires that supplemental fresh air ventilation be provided in rooms where window closure for traffic noise protection is necessary. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation will be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. Although aircraft noise is not a development constraint, the ' distant rumble of business jet take -offs at French Valley Airport may be audible in the eastern portion of Winchester Hills. The following measures are recommended relative to French Valley Airport noise exposure on the eastern portion of Winchester Hills: 5. Easternmost residents should be advised that their home is within 2 miles of a civil aviation airport and, that while average aircraft noise levels are well within acceptable Riverside County standards, individual overflights may be audible. 6. Use of air conditioning is recommended for all project homes to allow for window closure if airplanes are perceived as too noisy. 7. Use of dual -paned windows as a standard construction feature is encouraged for all homes to further increase the margin of safety between a desirable interior noise level and the Lmax associated with any single overflight. 26 , 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E1 GEOLOGY INVESTIAGION ' BY � CONVERSE CONSULTANTS � DATED OCTOBER 8, 1990 4sa Converse Consultants �• Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences May 2, 2000 Ms. Patty Anders Community Development Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589 -9033 Subject: REVIEW OF THE SWEETWATER SPECIFIC PLAN REVISED SITE PLAN City of Temecula, California Converse Project No. 99 -81= 305 -32 Dear Ms. Anders: Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this letter report to present comments based on our review of the SweetWater Specific Plan revised site Plan. The revised plan was prepared by EDAW for Lennar Homes of California. Converse has previously prepared a Summary of Geotechnical Conditions report, dated June 21, 1999 for the subject specific plan. Based on our review of the revised site plan it is our opinion that the changes do not impact the findings and conclusions of the previous geotechnical study. The proposed mitigation measures as previously submitted remain unchanged and are considered to be applicable to the proposed SweetWater project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. r CONVERSE CONSULTANTS moe /7��PO sa / Michael 0. - i1 � � -- l•� -.�.�� �' L{ ` %�\ � Cook Michael 0. Cook, C. E. G. 1716 CEG 1716 Project Geologist s �a of Ca \�t�� Dist.: 3 /Ms. Alia Hokuki /EDAW ' 2 /Mr. Greg Dooley / Lennar Homes MAY ° 3 2000 ■� EDAVV, INC., IRVINE, CA 10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374 Telephone; (909) 796 -0544 1 Facsimile: (909) 796 -7675 0 e -mail_ ccieconv @aol.com Converse Consultants Inland Empire Consulting Engineering and Applied A ' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Tentative Tracts 25321 Through 25324 and 25464 ' Winchester Hills Residential Development Temecula, California ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire Consulting Engineers and Geologists ' 630 Eas! Brie: Drive. S,re 10C San 9ernarcmo. Caidomia 92=0 "c • Te!e9none 7;-' 188 app-' FAX 7'-' 389- =830 V ' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Tentative Tracts 25321 Through 25324 and 25464 Winchester Hills Residential Development Temecula, California PREPARED FOR Mesa Homes 28765 Sinale Oak Drive Suite 100 ' Temecula, California 92390 ' CCIE Project No. 89 -81- 173 -01 • October 8, 1990 1 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire Consulting Engineers and Geologists cS0 Eas: over Drive. Sire !00 San ce:na:cino. Calrcrma 92 0-- • - eieDr.:re 7 1 . - 1 :889800- ' °. =.X i': E69. -650 a October 8, 1990 isa v ' Mesa Homes 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 100 Rancho California, California 92390 Attention: Mr. Csaba F. Ko Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Tentative Tracts 25321 through 25324 and 25464 Winchester Hills Residential Development Temecula, California CCIE Project No. 89- 81- 173 -01 Gentlemen: ' Enclosed are the findings of our geotechnical investigation performed for the Winchester Hills Residential Development in Temecula, California. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for tract ' development. Materials encountered in the exploratory excavations generally consisted of ' alluvial soils and soft sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba Formation. The Pauba bedrock consists primarily of fine to medium - grained sandstone with ' local interbeds of clayey siltstone. Groundwater was not encountered in trenches or borings to the maximum explored depth of 50 feet. We previously investigated a portion of this site for liquefaction potential in our report dated September 9, 1988. The results of that analysis indicated that there is a possibility of liquefaction of floodplain alluvial soils along ' Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. Preliminary grading plans indicate that a minimum of 25 feet of fill will be placed in this area. These fill soils will effectively mitigate the potential for foundation distress by liquefaction if the ' site is developed as recommended. 1• Mesa Homes •' CCIE Project No. 89 -81- 173 -01 ' October 8, 1990 Page 2 t Results of our investigation indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed ' residential development, provided that the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into final development plans. Site development can ' be achieved by conventional mass grading. Anticipated depths of overexcavation in proposed fill areas are indicated on the enclosed maps and discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. Several shallow ' landslides were located on the northeast portion of the site. These can be mitigated by overexcavation and recompaction as indicated in text. Con- ventional 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes are proposed, with ' structure setbacks as recommended herein. Spread footings may be used to support the proposed residential structures. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE ' 7 jn� C Steven C. Helfrich, , Branch Manager QSEH /GFR /SCH:wpd 1 Dist: 12 /Addressee 1 /Dr. Roy J. Shlemon 1 /Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Attention: Mr. Mike Tylman Converse Consultants inland Empire ,• PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION ' CCIE Project No. 89 -81 -173 -01 August 30, 1990 1 ' This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse Consultants Inland Empire under the professional direction of the Principal Engineering Geologists and Principal Engineers whose seals and signatures appear hereon. The findings, recommendations, specifications or professional opinions are presented, within the limits prescribed by the client, after being prepared in accordance with generally ' accepted professional engineering geologic and soils engineering practice in this area, at this time. There is no other warranty either express or implied. i 1 ' Quazi S.E. Hashmi, Ph.D. Steven C. =eIfric iy Senior Staff Engineer Principal Engi Cl) No. GE000389 T w Ex0.L � J, Mot 1A OF • G g r F. onca, CEG 1191 1 Principal B gineering Geologist Converse Consultants Inland Empire TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ... ............................... 1 ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . .... . ... ... .. .. . .. . .... . . . .. 3 ' 2.1 Existing Site Conditions .. ... . ..... .. ... ......... 3 2.2 Proposed Development .... 3 ' 3.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ... ... ...... . ..... ....... . 4 3.1 Site Reconnaissance . .. .. ....... ... ....... . . . .. 4 3.2 Field Exploration .. . .. . .. .......... ....... . . ... 4 3.3 Laboratory Testing ..... ... ....... .... ........ . 4 ' 3.4 Related Geotechnical Reports ... .... .. ... .... . .. . . 5 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS .. .. ..... . ... . ..... . . . .. . ....... . 6 4.1 Regional Geologic Framework ..................... 6 4.2 Site Geology 6 ' 4.2.1 Pauba Formation (Map Symbol Qp) . 8 ............ 4.2.2 Ancient Landslide (Map Symbol Qls) 8 4.2.3 Older Alluvium (Map Symbol Qoal) . . . .. . . ..... . . 9 ' 4.2.4 Younger Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) ... . ...... . . 9 4.2.5 Colluvium (Map Symbol Qcol) . . . . . ... . ... ... . . 9 ' 4.2.6 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol Af) ... . .... ...... . . . 9 4.3 Faulting .. .. ....... .. . ... 10 4.3.1 Regional . . .. ... . . .. . ..... . .... ........ . 10 4.3.2 Site Faulting 10 4.4 Seismicity . . . .. .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .. . . . . . . 14 ' 4.5 Groundwater . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. 15 4.6 Subsurface Variations . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . 17 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND TRACT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS . . 18 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire TABLE OF CONTENTS , (continued) Page ' 6.0 EARTHWORK /SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ...... .. . . 19 6.1 General ..... ............................... 19 ' 6.2 Liquefaction Potential ............ . . ... .... . . . . . 19 6.3 Removals /Overexcavation ........................ 20 , 6.4 Excavatability . ............................... 22 6.5 Subdrains ... ............................... 22 6.6 Expansion Potential ............................ 22 ' 6.7 Transition Lots ............................... 23 6.8 Permanent Cut Slopes .......................... 23 , 6.9 Permanent Fill Slopes . ......... ... .. . .. . .. . . . . . 24 6.10 Fill- Over -Cut Slopes ............................ 25 , 6.11 Stabilization Fills ................. . . . . . . . . .. . . . 25 6.12 Oversize Material ............................. 26 6.13 Temporary Sloped Excavations .................... 26 6.14 Utility Trench Backfill ............. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . 27 6.15 Shrinkage and Subsidence ....................... 28 6.16 Site Drainage . ............................... 28 6.17 Slope Protection and Maintenance ..... .. . .... . .. .. . 29 6.18 Asphalt Pavements ............. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . 30 ' 7.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .... . .. . .. . . . . . 31 1 7.1 Residential Foundation Design Criteria . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . 31 7.2 Retaining Walls ............... .. . . . . ... . . .. . . 32 7.3 Slabs -on -Grade .............................. 32 7.4 Appurtenant Facilities ....... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.5 Soil Corrosivity ............................... 33 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 8.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION .......... 35 ' 9.0 CLOSURE ........ ............................... 36 REFERENCES ' APPENDIX A - FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM APPENDIX C - STABILITY ANALYSES APPENDIX D - RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX E - DRAWINGS 1 through 5 GEOLOGIC MAPS DRAWINGS 6 and 7 GEOLOGIC -CROSS SECTIONS ' DRAWINGS 8 and 9 FAULT TRENCH LOGS 89 -81- 173 -01 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire t • 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and conclusions of our geotechnical investigation for ' the Winchester Hills residential development in Temecula, California. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the potential for onsite faulting, subsurface ' conditions and pertinent engineering properties of the earth materials, and to provide ' recommendations regarding general site grading, slope stability and preliminary foundation design. ' The irregularly shaped, approximately 568 -acre site, is located west of Winchester ' Road (Highway 79)• The site is bounded on the south by 1 -15 and new commercial developments and on the east by Santa Gertrudis Creek. Rough grading of a ' residential development was ongoing north of the site at the time of our field investigation. The "Site Location Map ", Figure 1, shows the site with respect to nearby streets and topographic features. Pertinent geotechnical data and exploratory excavation locations are shown on the "Geologic Maps ", Drawings 1 through 5 ' (pocket). 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire w IIJ7. 0 IN, I j C T L % hra'ier j �` � ' /�'L27'nc,�v•�ii�. oerl � ,--t d � ,' �`� ' I \ 1 � I I. � „� ('' /� 0 ��: � (' �J / �' i � 4 e J , r i � rots Ga eg51a- > ` ".1 ��1 .. � J 1 � ' _ � 'Q ( % � L IN )L V - OS 1100 10e0 Aiquist-Priolo special studies zone, Wildornar branch of Elsinore Fault 11h X 0 1000 2000 4000 REFERENCE: CIDMG, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, SCALE IN FEET Mun-leta Quadrangle, 1990 SITE LOCATION MAP WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P(0'ecr No T ' emecula, California .89-81-1734 for:.Mesa Homes �'g Converse Consultants Inland Empire u 1 e NG ,• 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.1 Existing Site Conditions In general, the subject property is in an undeveloped state. Topographically, the site ' consists of low rolling hills with southwest- trending drainages. Maximum relief is ' about 100 feet. Site vegetation consists of native weeds, shrubs, and grasses. Several unimproved roads and trails transverse the site. ' 2.2 Proposed Development ' The proposed Winchester Hills development is a master planned community development. Development will consist of the construction of commercial, single- occupancy residential, and multi- occupancy residential structures. The majority of the site will be developed for single family residential structures. Based on the ' rough grading plans, (RBF and Associates, dated October 31, 1989, 1" = 100'), site grading will consist of cuts, removals and fill operations to prepare building pad areas. Exclusive of any potential overexcavations, maximum cuts and fills to approximately 65 feet and 40 feet, respectively, are anticipated. Maximum heights of proposed fill and cut slopes is approximately 40 feet. For this report, it is assumed that the residential structures will consist of one to two -story wood frame single family homes ' with concrete slabs -on- grade. Information was not available at the time of this report regarding the type of commercial development proposed at the site. 1 89-81 -1 73 -01 3 Converse Consultants Inland Empire 1 3.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ' 3.1 Site Reconnaissance ' A Converse Consultants Inland Empire (CCIE) geologist performed a site reconnaissance of the property for mapping of geologic units and pertinent surficial ' features. Aerial photographs of the site vicinity were examined stereoscopically to assist the geologic reconnaissance in identifying possible fault - related lineaments, and , to plan the siting of fault - exploration trenches. 1 3.2 Field Exploration Nine exploratory borings and 25 test pits were excavated on the site. Borings were ' advanced using bucket -auger and hollow -stem auger drilling equipment; test pits , were excavated using a rubber -tired backhoe. All excavations were logged by our field personnel who carefully described the materials encountered. Borings BH -1, BH- ' 2 and BH -3 were entered by a CCIE geologist who observed and documented the exposed materials. Five fault trenches were excavated across the traces of photolineaments identified ' during an aerial photograph analysis by Kennedy (1977) and independently by CCIE. The fault trenches ranged from 4 to 7 feet in depth and were approximately 90 to ' 210 feet in length. The fault trenches were examined and logged in detail by a CCIE geologist. Fault trench graphic logs are attached as Drawings 8 and 9 (Appendix E). ' Approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are shown on Drawing 1. , Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of representative materials encountered were obtained from the borings and trenches. A description of the field exploration and , sampling program is presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration Program. 3.3 Laboratory Testing Samples were tested in the laboratory to aid in classification and to determine certain ' engineering properties of the site soils and bedrock. These tests included: dry unit 89 -81- 173 -01 4 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' ,. weight and moisture content, maximum density and optimum moisture; direct shear strength; consolidation; soil corrosivity; expansion index; and R- value. A description of the laboratory test methods and test results are presented in Appendix B, "Laboratory Test Program ". Moisture and density data are presented on the "Boring ' Summary Sheets" in Appendix A. ' 3.4 Related Geotechnical Reports In addition to pertinent published geologic literature, unpublished geotechnical reports ' were also reviewed. Areas in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel were investigated for liquefaction potential by CCIE. Results of our findings were presented in a report dated September 9, 1988. Prior to this investigation, Irvine Consulting Group (ICG) performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of this site. Their findings were presented in a report dated October 6, 1989. Other pertinent ' publications reviewed for this report are included in the list of references. 1 89 -81- 173 -01 5 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS •' This section summarizes the physical and geologic conditions pertinent to the design , of the project. Information presented in this section and on the attached drawings was based upon field observations, subsurface exploration, fault trenching, ' examination of aerial photographs, and review of published geologic maps and reports. The field work was supervised by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a ' Registered Geotechnical Engineer. 4.1 Regional Geologic Framework ' The Winchester Hills Residential Development is situated within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges are generally characterized by northwest ' trending mountain ranges and valleys bounded by right - lateral strike -slip faults. The regional geologic map of the site vicinity is shown on Figure 4.1, Regional Geologic , Map. The site lies within the Perris Block, which is bounded by the Elsinore fault to the west, the San Jacinto fault to the east, and the San Gabriel fault to the northwest ' (English, 1926). The Perris Block has been referred to as the Perris npeneplain" owing to the presence of numerous flat valleys of several miles in extent. Locally, the Perris Block is punctuated by ranges of hills with up to 1,000 feet of relief with respect to the adjacent valleys. 4.2 Site Geology Earth materials observed during the course of this investigation were the Pauba Formation, older alluvium, colluvium, younger alluvium and artificial fill. Several , landslides were documented at the northeast portion of the site (Drawing 1). Areal distribution of the earth materials is shown on the geologic maps (Drawings 1 through 5). These materials are described below from geologically oldest to youngest. 89- 81- 173 -01 6 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' '• 4.2.1 Pauba Formation (Mao Symbol Qo) The Pauba Formation of late- Pleistocene geologic age (Mann, 1955) underlies the site. The Pauba bedrock at the site is primarily an arkosic sandstone derived from erosion and ' shedding of debris from granitic bedrock highs to the east. Interbeds of clayey ' sandstone and silty claystone also occur locally. Bedrock structure is poorly developed, but generally trends northeast and is inclined about 2 to 10 to ' the north. ' 4.2.2 Ancient Landslide (Mao Symbol Qls) Several relatively small landslides were observed along the northeast portion of the site. These landslides are ' denoted as possible and probable landslides on Drawing 1. Possible landslides (map symbol Qls are interpreted on the basis of geomorphology and air photo ' interpretation. Probable landslides, which have been exposed in test pits, are labeled symbol Qls on Drawing 1. Several test pits (TP -21 through TP -25) were excavated within and along the ' perimeter of the landslides. Landslide basal shear planes were exposed in TP- 21 and TP -22. The basal shear planes consisted of striated, 1 -1/2 to 2 -inch ' thick clay gouge material. The shear planes strike northwest and dip southwest from 36° to 39°. ' Test pits TP -24 and T -25 were excavated near the toe of the landslides (Drawing 1). These test pits exposed, undisturbed alluvial soils. An intermittent south - flowing drainage has apparently incised the distal portion of ' the landslides and deposited older alluvial soils at their toes suggesting that these are very old features. No evidence of surficial or deep- seated instability was observed elsewhere on ' the site. Measures to mitigate the landslide are provided in Section 6.3. 89- 81- 173 -01 8 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 4.2.3 Older Alluvium (Mar) Symbol Qoal) Older alluvium occurs within much ' of the site. It is commonly overlain by a variable thickness of younger alluvium • and topsoil. These materials are primarily silty and clayey sands with minor ' amounts of sandy clay. The older alluvium is generally medium dense and contains organics and pinhole voids in the upper 2 to 3 feet where a modern ' soil is forming. The older alluvium encountered along the Santa Gertrudis Creek flood plain is up to 25 feet thick. , 4.2.4 Younger Alluvium (Mai) Symbol Qal) Younger alluvium occurs in ' drainages throughout the site. These materials are mainly sands, silty sands and clayey sands that are moist, loose, and contain variable amounts of organic ' matter. The alluvium is at least 15 feet thick in the Santa Gertrudis Creek flood plain area. ' 4.2.5 Coiluvium (Mai) Symbol Qcol) Colluvial soils locally mantle bedrock throughout the site. These sediments consist of fine grained clayey and silty sands. The colluvium is loose to medium dense and up to 5 feet thick. 4.2.6 Artificial Fill (Mar) Symbol Af) Both engineered and non - engineered fill soils were observed on the site. For the purpose of this investigation these materials were not differentiated. These soils consist of silty and clayey sands. Engineered fill was encountered near the southeastern portion of the site. These fills were placed during construction of Santa Ynez Road and during ' construction of a commercial development. Non - engineered fill was placed to construct a small reservoir near the northeast , edge of the site. End dumped piles of fill are present near the southeast end ' of the site in the vicinity of Santa Ynez Road. Past grading or fill placement was not evident elsewhere on the site. 1 89- 81- 173 -01 9 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' ' • 4.3 Faulting 4.3.1 Regional There are no known active faults projecting toward or through ' the site, nor is the site situated within a currently designated State of California Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone. As shown in Figure 4.3.1, Regional Fault Map, the nearest known active fault (displacement within the last 11,000 years) is the Wiidomar Branch of the Elsinore fault located about 0.4 miles to the southwest. The Murrieta Hot Springs fault zone is located about 0.8 miles ' north of the site. The Murrieta Hot Springs fault is not currently classified as active by the State of California. ' 4.3.2 Site Faulting Kennedy (1977) identified three photolineaments trending ' through the site. Additionally, CCIE independently analyzed aerial photographs to determine the presence of any possible fault- related photolineaments. The results of our photolineament analysis are presented on Figure 4.3.2, Photolineament Map. Our analyses verified that two photolineaments closely correspond to those mapped by Kennedy (L -1 and L -3 on Figure 4.3.2). The third photolineament identified by Kennedy could not be verified during our ' review of the aerial photographs. To evaluate the potential for site faulting, exploratory trenches were excavated across the identified photolineaments. A All fault trenches were observed by Dr. Roy Shlemon on April 25 and June 20, 1990. Fault trenches 4 and 5, were observed by Mr. Steven Kupferman, Riverside County Geologist, on June 20, 1990. ' The following summarizes the findings of our fault trenching program. Fault trench locations are shown in Drawings 1 and 2. 1 Photolineament 1 - Photolineament 1 was identified by Kennedy and independently by CCIE during our review of aerial photographs. The ' lineament is moderately well developed and trends about N75 and is expressed as an alignment of topographic saddles and ridges. 89 -81- 173 -01 10 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire � _ I / �. F . •� � �O � '•. � So . S'W SAN BERNARDiNO 4 y f� AN F yo. RIVERSIDE \'y ANNA / FAULTS fq ` PALM SPRINGS f \9%r < M OOF yo I P -- I •••• 1 / � ��\ � NEWPORT BEACH l F<S� 4 y�TSpA S TE 1 \ L GS F \ 41J <T Zo WILDOMAR FAULT \ \� 1 `` � Z \ \I I \ SAN ONOFRE 9G� CEANSIDE MESA GRANDEE 1 D ,0 20 REFERENCE: APPROX. SCALE'IN FEET After Jennings, (1975) SCALE: 1:760,000 REGIONAL FAULT MAP WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Pr° Temecula, California 89 -81 -173 for: Mesa Homes Fp le Na. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 4.3.1 1 e„- c = am 1 I� _ _ �-y_ // 4 `� _ IL -2 °0 = raj y�. \' l. J� hl Tem a _ \ : / 1087 Hot Spry ` _ _ - f y) IV \� o \ j? -1 i I .ate _v'r 087 I � ese ov o 10 0 - =. 6 Gaging SM 10721 vJ SO Reservo "o 0 100D 2000 4000 �, EXPLANATION SCALE IN FEET PHOTOLINEAMENT IDENTIFIED by -- CCIE (1990) and KENNEDY (1877) ' REFERENCE: PHOTOLINEAMENT IDENTIFIED by Portion of USGS Murrieta 7.5 minute -- KENNEDY (1977) Quadrangle, (1953), photorevised 1979 - PHOTOLINEAMENT MAP WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prolecl No ' Temecula, California 89- 81- 173 -01 for: Mesa Homes FSr.e �a ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 4.3.2 Trench 1 was excavated across the trace of Photolineament 1. No faults •' were observed. A relict paleosol occurs on the underlying Pauba formation. ' Locally this soil is covered by younger. colluvium. This soil dates a relict geomorphic surface at least 35,000 years old based upon the soil reddening, blocky to prismatic structure, moderately thick and continuous ' clay films on pad faces and regional correlation (Shlemon, 1990, personal communication). The contact between the paleosol and underlying bedrock is continuous and unbroken. ' Based on trenching and site observations, we conclude that Photolineament 1 is not fault related. Its trend closely corresponds to ' regional bedding. Its origin is thus interpreted to be the result of differential erosion along bedding planes. • Photolineament 2 - Photolineament 2, identified by Kennedy, is weak and , discontinuous. The lineament trends about N22 0 W across the northeast portion of the site and is denoted by intermittent alignment of ridges and ' divides. Trench 2 was excavated across the trace of Photolineament 2. No faults , were observed in the trench exposures. A relict paleosol also estimated to be at least 35,000 years old has formed on the underlying Pauba formation. The contact between the paleosol and underlying bedrock is continuous and unbroken. Site reconnaissance disclosed the presence of several possible fault breaks in a road cut just north of northeast site perimeter (Drawing 1). The faults were observed over a distance of about 100 feet within the roadcut. The faults trend about north -south and dip steeply to the east and west. A distinctive reddish brown sandstone of the Pauba formation was observed to terminate at the western extent of the fault zone. These faults project towards the site and their trend closely corresponds to the trace of Photolineament 2. Fault trenches 4 and 5 were excavated to determine the age and onsite location of these faults. Several joints occur in the trench exposures. These joints are carbonate -lined but showed no evidence of shearing or displacement. The orientation of these generally corresponds to possible faults observed in the described roadcut. A relict paleosol estimated to be at least 35,000 years old has formed t within the underlying bedrock. The contact between the paleosol and the bedrock was continuous and unbroken. No shearing or evidence of displacement was observed within the bedrock. • 89 -81- 173 -01 13 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' 1 ' • The joints observed in the road cut and trenches may represent an ancient fault zone that fractured sandstone units within the Pauba Formation. This ' is supported by apparent termination and 3 to 4 feet of vertical displacement of a distinctive reddish -brown sandstone of the Pauba Formation in the roadcut. However, the fractures do not extend into the ' overlying paleosol unit which is estimated to be late Pleistocene in age. As a consequence, the faults are not considered active. • Photolineament 3 - Photolineament 3, was identified by Kennedy (1977) and confirmed by CCIE. The lineament trends about N40 °W across the northern portion of the site. This photolineament is well developed and is ' characterized by ridge alignment and topographic breaks in slope. Fault trench 3 was excavated across the trace of Photolineament 3. Here, ' too, an estimated 35,000 year -old paleosol was exposed, both unbroken and continuous in the trench (Drawing 6). Further, no shears, clayey gouge or displaced strata were noted within the trench exposures. Several high angle joints sets were recorded near the southern end of the trench. These joints sets were lined with carbonate and showed no ' evidence of displacement. Based on our fault trenching and site observations it is our opinion that Photolineament 3 is not fault related. Its orientation is within the range of regional bedding and is probably controlled by the underlying bedrock ' structure. The joints observed we interpreted to be the result of normal weathering processes. ' 4.4 Seismicity The Winchester Hills project is situated in a seismically active region. As in most areas of Southern California, the site may be subjected to'strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby faults. 1 The maximum credible earthquake is the maximum seismic event a particular fault is ' theoretically capable of producing based upon existing geologic and seismologic ' evidence. The maximum credible event does not imply that an earthquake of that magnitude has or will occur along the particular fault, but simply implies that the potential for such an earthquake does exist. Maximum credible earthquakes and • associated seismic parameters for active faults within a 100 -km (62 -mile) radius of 89 -81- 173 -01 14 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire the site are summarized in Table 4.1. The faults listed in Table 4.1 are considered •� faults capable of generating significant ground motions at the site. 1 TABLE 4.1 SUM14ARY OF SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONAL FAULTS ' HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION ' PARAMETERS MINIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM PEAK DURATION SITE CREDIBLE ROCK OF STRONG DISTANCE MAGNITUDE ACCELERATION SHAKING , FAULT mi EARTHQUAKE (o) (seconds) Elsinore (Wildomar Branch) .4 7.5 0.70 25 - 35 San Jacinto 19 7.5 0.26 23 - 32 , Whittier 29 7.5 0.19 23 - 30 San Andreas (South) 35 7.5 0.18 22 - 30 San Andreas (Central) 40 8.25 0.24 18 - 25 a From Greensfelder (1974). b From Seed and Idriss (1982). c 'From Bolt (1973). To evaluate potential ground shaking at the project site, a statistical recurrence or probability of occurrence of various levels of ground motion based on past seismic activity was determined, using available sources of earthquake data. The analysis 1 estimates the ground acceleration level expected to occur, at a particular site, within a 100 -year period. The results of our seismic risk analyses are summarized on Figure 4.4 where the number of occurrences exceeding a particular level of acceleration are plotted against the maximum peak horizontal ground acceleration. The solid line shown on Figure 4.4 t represents CCIE's judgment as to the occurrences of ground accelerations during an average 100 -year period. Expected ground accelerations are 0.34g on the 1 average of every 100 years, and 0.26g on the average of every 50 years. 4.5 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in our subsurface explorations. No evidence of 1 seeps, springs, or other signs of groundwater was observed at the site. However, at • 89-81-173-01 15 Converse Consultants Inland Empire 1 I i • 100.0 I - - - - - — • - -- LATITUDE; 25 LAT : 33 °=:3:1.7! — f - LONGITUDE: 177°' 8. 1 92' • i I I I j I Z 10.0 Lu — - - - F - — — - - -- - -- w - - .- - z 1.o i o -- .._.._ i ... _. - -• j - - -_. — — - i -- . - -- cc �_... i. fill o LU Z -- - -- - -- �- — __. - o.01 0.1 02 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 MAXIMUM PEAK HORIZONTAL ROCK ACCELERATION Amax(g) EXPLANATION OF DATA POINTS: • Fault Model - Geologic evidence Site Region Local Site' Instrumental seismicity data (1934 -1987) J Site Region l }Historic seismicity data (1800 -1933) Local Site J Local Site low number of occurances. off plot 100-YEAR PERIOD HORIZONTAL GROUND ACCELERATION WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PloeCt No. Temecula, California 89-81- 173 -01 for: Mesa Homes 634 Figure NO �� Converse Consultants Inland Empire 4.4 �I the time of our subsurface exploration for liquefaction evaluation (1988), perched zones of water were encountered in several borings in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Highest water level in the borings ranged from 16 to 24 feet below the surface. ICG (1989) reported groundwater at depths ranging from 32 to 38 feet below the surface within the western portion of the site. The Pauba Formation contains clayey units that act as barriers and inhibit the transmission of subsurface water. These units may cause local perched zones of groundwater. Perched water may occur in drainage areas following periods of rainfall. 4.6 Subsurface Variations Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and experience, variations in the continuity and nature of subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Due to the nature and depositional sedimentary characteristics of the bedrock at the site, care should be taken in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond test borings and trenches. Variations in groundwater levels can be expected from seasonal changes. . "i 1 I 1 89-81 -1 73 -01 17 Converse Consultants Inland Empire '• 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND TRACT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The results of this investigation indicate that the tentative tracts are suitable for their intended usage and may be developed as planned. Small landslides present near the northeast property boundary can be mitigated by overexcavation and recompaction of site soils as described herein. Stabilization fills may be necessary along proposed cut slopes in the vicinity of the landslides if highly fractured, surficially unstable bedrock materials are exposed during grading. Of geotechnical concern for this project is the potential for differential settlement owing to the variable fill thicknesses proposed to underlie the various pads. Fill below finish grade should be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 -78 maximum laboratory density. Much of the residential distress which occurs in hillside graded lots is due to changes in moisture in the fill. Landscape irrigation and surface drainage should be controlled ' and provided such that the fill does not become excessively moist or wet. Any appurtenant structures such as swimming pools, retaining walls, grade changes and /or landscaping irrigation systems should be designed such that these future improvements do not adversely affect the graded lot stability or drainage. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that these improvements be reviewed by a CCIE Geotechnical Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist. Currently, canyon subdrains are not deemed necessary. However, it is possible that conditions exposed during grading may require subdrains. These tract development considerations are described further in the following sections. 89-81-173-01 18 Converse Consultants Inland Empire 6.0 EARTHWORK /SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ' • 6.1 General Site grading is expected to consist of cuts, removals and fill operations to prepare building pad areas. Cuts on the order of 65 feet in depth are proposed. Maximum fill thickness is expected to be 40 feet. Grading is also expected to include backfill for utility trenches. Loosely backfilled exploratory trenches (see Drawings 1 through r 5) located throughout the site and any existing undocumented fill will require over - excavation and recompaction prior to the placement of structural fills. Proposed fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Appendix D,— I "Recommended Earthwork Specifications ". Structural fill should be compacted to 6f 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557 -78). Any artificial fill encountered at the site should be removed and recompacted prior to placing further fill. To reduce the potential for differential settlement across cut /fill transition lots, overexcavation and recompaction should be performed as discussed in Section 6.7. All fill should be properly benched into firm and unyielding native materials, which is expected to consist solely of dense older alluvium or the Pauba Formation. ,I Grading recommendations for removals, subdrains, permanent slopes, temporary sloped excavations, utility trench backfill, and site drainage are presented below. Stability calculations for the anticipated slopes are presented in Appendix C, "Stability Analyses ". The calculations indicate a factor of safety in excess of 1.5 for both cut and fill slopes for surficial and deep- seated stability. 6.2 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction potential of the portion of the site within the Riverside County Planning liquefaction hazard area was previously investigated by Converse Consultants Inland Empire. Results of the investigation were presented in our report dated September V 9, 1988, (CCIE Project No. 88- 81- 117 -01). t• V 89- 81- 173 -01 19 Converse Consultants Inland Empire �. ' Based on the above referenced report and data obtained during this investigation, • liquefiable soil is primarily confined within a relatively thin zone (on the order of 1 to 2 feet thick), adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek. The remaining portion of the site is considered non - liquefiable due to the presence of fine - grained soils, shallow bedrock, �I or absence of groundwater. The liquefiable zone will be more than 25 feet below final finished grade after the fill is placed. Thus, with the great depth to liquefiable strata plus the fill cap on the surface, the probability of sand boils is very small. In addition, the potentially liquefiable zones will be at least 5 feet up to 15 feet below the ground surface of the ' nearby Santa Gertrudis Creek. As a consequence, lateral spreading toward the creek Y ' is unlikely. r{ The net result of liquefaction occurring beneath the site would be some settlement tv as the excess water pressure dissipates after the earthquake. Because of the depth I J/ (greater than 25 feet) to the liquefaction zone differential settlement at the surface 1 should be less than 1/4 inch over a distance of 25 feet. Overall, with the proposed placement of engineered compacted fill to depths ranging up to about 30 feet, any liquefiable zones will be at great depth. As a consequence, no special precautions (or recommendations) are necessary for building footings, provided footings are placed less than 5 feet below finished grade. Final grading plans should be reviewed by CCIE to verify proposed grades with respect to I i liquefaction p 6.3 Removals /Overexcavation All surface trash and vegetation (including, but not limited to, heavy weed growth, i trees, stumps, logs, and roots) should be removed from the areas to be graded. Organic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations should be hauled ' off the site. Non - organic debris from site clearing may be hauled offsite or stockpiled • for crushing and /or placement by approved methods in deeper fill areas. 89 -81- 173 -01 20 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire Complete removal of all younger alluvium topsoil, and loose compressible low strength ' older alluvium, and /or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills. Although not encountered in CCIE explorations, any existing fill should j be excavated. Recommended removal depths are depicted on Drawing 1 through 5, and discussed below: • Landslides The existing landslides should be completely excavated. Landslide removal should extend into firm bedrock. Anticipated overexcavations based on proposed grades is about 10 to 15 feet. Geologic observation of the landslide removal should be conducted during grading. • Drainage Areas (Younger Alluvium) Loose to medium dense granular soils within the drainage channels are unsuitable for fill support. These soils should be excavated. Removals will vary from about 4 to 6 feet. • Side - Slooes and Swales (Older Alluvium and Colluvium) Older alluvial and colluvial soils are present along the lower slopes of hillsides throughout the site and within most drainage Swales. These soils are unsuitable for support of fills or foundations. The depth of removal and recompaction of these materials will vary from approximately 2 to 6 feet. • Artificial Fill (Af) Artificial fill soils (non- engineered fill) observed at the site are shown on Drawings 1 through 5. These soils are unsuitable for support of fills or foundations and will require removal and recompaction. • Exploration Trenches All exploratory trenches were loosely backfilled and, if not excavated during grading operations, will require overexcavation and recompaction for support of improvements. Local areas of removals deeper than those documented may be encountered during grading. Removal depths shown on Drawing 1 through 5 are general removal depth guidelines. Actual removal depths should be established by CCIE field observations and testing during grading. The bottom of the excavated areas must be observed by a CCIE representative prior to placement of fill. Soils removed during the overexcavation procedures may be used as compacted fill, provided they have been stripped of organics and other deleterious materials. All ' proposed fills should be placed on competent native materials as determined in the • i 89 -81- 173 -01 21 Converse Consultants Inland Empire I ' field by the soil consultant representative and in accordance with the specifications O n Appendix D. 6.4 Excavatability ' Based on the findings of our subsurface exploration and on our experience in the general site vicinity, we anticipate easy to moderate excavation of the Pauba Formation bedrock materials with normal heavy duty excavating equipment (i.e. D -9 double shank ripper). CAT equipped with a single or d r - M 6.5 Subdrains Based on the findings of our investigation, canyon subdrains are not presently anticipated. However, verification of the finding should be verified based upon conditions exposed during grading. If required, subdrains should be installed at ' approved locations according to the details shown on Drawings D -1a and 0-1b (Appendix D), "Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail." O The clean -out and subdrain area should be observed and approved by CCIE personnel prior to subdrain installation; such subdrain installation may be modified based upon post - removal observations. All subdrain devices should be accurately surveyed for location, line and grade after installation. Sufficient time should be allotted for the survey prior to placement of fill over subdrains. Subdrain locations should be shown on the as -built grading plans. Discharge from subdrains should be directed to a suitable non - erosive drainage device. If the subdrain discharges into the storm drain, measures should be taken to prevent storm drain water from backing up into the subdrain. 6.6 Expansion Potential Fill soils derived from the onsite alluvium which will be placed in proposed building areas may have a moderate expansion potential if not adequately blended with the sandy material. Clayey siltstone and silty claystone layers in the Pauba may have 89 -81- 173 -01 22 Converse Consultants Inland Empire high expansion potentials, and such materials could be exposed at final grades in ' areas of cut pads. • It is recommended that if expansive claystone is exposed at final grade (i.e., on cut lots), these materials be overexcavated 3 feet and replaced with non - expansive , materials (see Figure D -2 "Typical Transition Lot Detail "). For all lots, final foundation and slab recommendations should be based on tests taken within the near - surface r subgrade soils and bedrock at the completion of rough grading. 6.7 Transition Lots To reduce the potential for differential settlement across cut /fill transition lots, the cut portion of the lot should be overexcavated 3 feet below final grade and replaced with compacted fill to finished grade, as shown on Figure D -2. Overexcavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the footprint of the structure. All fill should be properly benched into firm and unyielding bedrock of the Pauba Formation. 6.8 Permanent Cut Slopes Maximum vertical height of proposed permanent cut slopes is about 40 feet. As shown in Appendix C, cut slopes in the encountered materials not exceeding 45 feet 1 in height and cut no steeper than 2:1 ( horizontal:vertical) have a calculated factor of safety (FS) greater than 1.5. Cut slope ratios should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). A primary concern for cut slopes on this site is the high potential for erosion of the sandy material, and the resultant surficial instability. Structures should be set back from slopes as shown on Figure 29 -1 of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Geologic observation of all cut slopes should be conducted during grading to observe if any adversely oriented planes of weakness (i.e. claystone or siltstone beds) are present. Accordingly, if these materials are exposed in proposed cut slopes during 89 -81- 173 -01 23 Converse Consultants Inland Empire grading and are found to be adversely oriented, stabilization buttresses or fills may be •required. Landslide removals in the north portion of the site (Drawing 1) may result in ' converting proposed cut slopes to compacted fill slopes. Such earthwork should be conducted in accordance with Figure 0-3, "Buttress or Stabilization Fill Detail ". 6.9 Permanent Fill Slooes Proposed fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2:1 ( horizontal:vertical). In addition to normal compaction procedures, fill slopes should be properly compacted out to the slope face. This may be achieved by either overbuilding fill slopes and cutting back to the compacted core, or by back - rolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation ' gain, or by other methods which have been shown to produce satisfactory results. Feathering of fill over the tops of slopes shall not be permitted. No Where fills are to be placed on natural ground steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), compacted fill should be keyed and benched into firm material as shown on Figure D -4, "Fill - Over - Natural Slope." Benches should be excavated into firm, competent material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Keyway and benches should be approved by CCIE prior to placement of fills. Fill slopes over 25 feet in vertical height and placed on low permeability natural ground steeper than 5:1 should be provided with at least one backdrain at the heel of the keyway. The backdrain should consist of a 4- inch - diameter (minimum) perforated pipe embedded in 3 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of pipe, connected to a non - perforated outlet pipe, as shown on the detail on Figure D -5, "Drainage ' Blanket Detail ". Outlet pipes should be accurately surveyed for location, line and grade. �• 89 -81- 173 -01 24 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire Locations of outlets and backdrain pipes should be shown on the as -built grading plans. Sufficient time should be allotted for the survey location of the subdrains prior • to placement of fill. , Fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height should be terraced as recommended in , Section 7012 of the Uniform Building Code 11988 Edition). Structures should be set back from graded slopes in accordance with Chapter 29 (UBC Figure 29 -1) of the r Uniform Building Code. 6.10 Fill- Over -Cut Slopes Where fill is proposed over cut slopes, fill should be benched and keyed into firm bedrock as discussed in Section 6.8, above, and illustrated on Figure D -6, "Typical Fill Above Cut Slope." As shown on Figure D -5, where fill- over -cut slopes are greater than 25 feet in vertical height, and in low permeability bedrock areas a backdrain should be at the fill /cut boundary. The backdrain should consist of a 4 -inch- diameter (minimum) perforated pipe embedded in 3 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of pipe, connected to a non - perforated outlet pipe. Backdrain and outlet pipes should be accurately surveyed for location, line and grade. Locations and outlets of backdrains should be shown on ' the as -built grading plans. Sufficient time should be allotted for the survey prior to placement of fill. 6.11 Stabilization Fills Our field investigation did not indicate any adversely oriented planes of weakness that would require construction of stabilization fills. Final verification of conditions should be determined during grading geologic observations. If required, stabilization fills should be constructed as shown on Figure D -3. The stabilization fill should be constructed with a minimum key width of 15 feet and a minimum key depth of 2 feet, inclined at 2% into slope from toe to heel of keyway. • 89-81-173-01 25 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Backdrains should be provided at the heel of the keyway every 30 feet vertically. �ackdrains should be constructed as shown on Figure D -6, and as discussed in Section 6.9. ' 6.12 Oversize Material Oversize material defined as rock or other irreducible material with a dimension greater than 6 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fills unless the location, materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by CCIE. A suggested disposal method is shown on Figure D -7, "Rock Disposal Detail for Isolated Burial." Disposal operations for oversize materials shall be such that nesting of material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finished grade, within 20 feet horizontally of a slope face, or within the range of future utilities or ' underground construction, unless specifically approved by CCIE. W T 6.13 Temoorary Sloped Excavations he use of sloped excavations may be applicable where plan dimensions for exca- vation are not constrained by property lines, existing streets, or other structures. Where constraints exist, slot- cutting, temporary shoring or a combination of slopes ' and shoring may be required. Recommendations for shoring design or slot- cutting can be provided upon request. 89 -81- 173 -01 26 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire Based upon soils encountered in the explorations, it is our opinion that sloped temporary excavations may be made according to the slope ratios presented in the following table: TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SLOPES MAXIMUM , DEPTH OF CUT MAXIMUM SLOPE RATIO' (ft) (horizontai:vertical) 0 - 5 vertical to 1/2:1 .� 0 - 15 1/2:1 to 3/4:1 0 - 50 1 1/4:1 to 1 1/2 :1 • Selection of tegporary slope ratios should be made by the grading contractor based on actual materials encountered during excavation. Temporary back cuts for buttress or stabilization fills, if required, should be analyzed at that time. Slope ratios given above are assumed to be uniform from top to toe of slope. Sandy , surfaces exposed in sloped excavations should be kept moist but not saturated to retard ravelling and sloughing during construction. Adequate provisions should be made to protect the slopes from erosion during periods of rainfall. Surcharge loads should not be permitted within 10 feet of the top of slope, or a distance of at least one -third the slope height, whichever is greater. 6.14 Utility Trench Backfill Buried utility conduits should be bedded and backfilled around the conduit in accordance with the project specifications. Onsite materials with sand equivalents greater than 30 may be flooded /jetted around large diameter pipelines, below the spring line. Care should be taken not to move or damage utilities during compaction operations. Where conduit underlies concrete slabs -on -grade and pavement is adjacent to the proposed structures, the remaining trench backfill above the conduit should be placed and compacted in accordance with Appendix D. 89 -81- 173 -01 27 Converse Consultants Inland Empire i 0 6.15 Shrinkage and Subsidence / Based on our test results, shrinkage and subsidence are estimated as follows: • Too Soils and Alluvium and Colluvium Top soil, alluvium and colluvium are ' expected to shrink on an average of approximately 12% by volume, with variations ranging from 6% to 20 %. Subsidence in ravines due to earthwork activities may range up to 0.2 foot. ' 0 Pauba (Bedrock) Shallow porous Pauba bedrock may shrink from negligible to 10% by volume when properly recompacted. Porous, weathered Pauba is not anticipated to be thicker than 1 to 3 feet below the bedrock surface. An average value of 4% can be used for preliminary shrinkage calculations. Deeper, dense Pauba bedrock is expected to shrink less. Shrinkage ranging from negligible to 6% is anticipated in most of the dense Pauba bedrock. An average shrinkage of 3% by volume may be used to estimate shrinkage in the deeper bedrock. Subsidence of the exposed surface in deep cuts within the Pauba bedrock is expected to be negligible, exclusive of wet weather earthwork disturbance. Volume losses due to stripping of organics should be included during the calculations of earthwork quantities. These estimates are based upon the assumption that all removals and compaction are performed as recommended herein. Estimates provided above should be considered preliminary. Refined estimates can be provided by CCIE during earthwork, based on exposed conditions, additional compaction curve data, and field density test results. Considering the quantities of earthwork proposed, some ' shrinkage variability from ravine to ravine, and hill to hill should be anticipated. 6.16 Site Drainage Adequate positive drainage should be provided away from structures to prevent ' ponding and to reduce percolation of water into the foundation soils. We recommend that slopes for surface drainage be constructed at 2% to 4% in landscaped areas and ' 1 % to 2% in paved areas. Planters and landscaped areas adjacent to the building perimeter should be designed to minimize water infiltration into the subgrade soils. Planters adjacent to foundations should have waterproofed walls and bottoms and • should have a drainage system to conduct water to a collection point for disposal. 89 -81- 173 -01 28 Converse Consultants Inland Empire To enhance the long -term performance of the building pad areas, it is recommended that gutters and downspouts be installed on the roofs. Roof runoff and surface pad drainage should be collected and directed to the street through non - erosive devices. Slope drainage devices should be constructed in accordance with Chapter 70 of the , Uniform Building Code (1988 Edition). Lot drainage should preclude the possibility of the uncontrolled flow of water over slope faces with the use of brow ditches, earth , berms and other methods. 6.17 Slone Protection and Maintenance Proposed slopes should be planted as soon as possible after construction. To perform in a satisfactory manner, slopes will require maintenance through time. In most cases, slope maintenance can be provided along with normal care of the grounds and landscaping. Cost of maintenance is less expensive than repair resulting from neglect. Most hillside lot problems are associated with water; either uncontrolled water from a broken pipe, excessive landscape watering, or exceptionally wet weather. Drainage and erosion control should be provided for long -term slope stability and performance. It is important that the drainage patterns and slope protection provisions be established at the time of final grading and maintained throughout the life of the project. The provisions incorporated into the graded site must not be altered without competent professional advice. Terrace drains and brow ditches on the slopes should be periodically maintained and kept clean of debris so that water will not overflow onto the slope, causing erosion. All subdrains should be kept open and clear of debris and soil which could block them. , Landscaping on the slopes should disturb the soil as little as possible and utilize drought resistant plants that require a minimum amount of landscape irrigation. Wet spots on or around the site, which may be natural seeps or an indication of broken water or sewer lines, should be noted and brought to the attention of CCIE. • i 89 -81- 173 -01 29 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' Watering should be limited or stopped altogether during the rainy season when little •irrigation is required. Over- saturation of the ground can cause subsidence within subsurface soils. Slopes should not be over - irrigated. Ground cover and other vegetation will require moisture during the hot summer months. However, during the wet season, over - irrigation can cause ground cover to pull loose, which not only destroys the cover, but also results in serious erosion. We suggest that a professional ' landscape architect be consulted for planting and irrigation recommendations. i 6.18 Asphalt Pavements Asphalt pavement sections have been designed based on an R -value of 68. Final ' street structural sections should be provided by CCIE based on the actual R- values of ' the street subgrades after grading. Based upon the Assumed Traffic Indices (Tls) provided to us, either full -depth or composite asphalt and base pavement sections may be used as tabulated below: ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS ASSUMED ASPHALT OVER BASE FULL DEPTH TRAFFIC INDEX SASE (in) ASPHALT (in) ASPHALT (in) 4 3.0 2.0 3.0 1 5 3.0 2.5 3.5 6 4.0 3.0 4.0 7 4,0 4.0 4.5 In areas to support asphaltic pavement, the subgrade should be recompacted to a ' depth of at least one foot below the final subgrade as recommended in Appendix D. At the time of placing pavements, the subgrade should be firm and unyielding during ' proof rolling, and be within 2% to 3% of optimum moisture. All base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the ASTM D 1557 -78 laboratory maximum dry density. Base course should consist of CALTRANS Class II aggregate base or equivalent. Placement of full -depth asphalt will require that the compacted subgrade soils provide competent support for paving equipment. Clean cohesionless sands are ' subject to yielding under rubber -tired and track loads from paving equipment. The paving contractor should confirm in writing the acceptability of the compacted �• subgrade prior to placement of full -depth asphalt pavement. 89 -81- 173 -01 30 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 7.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS , r 7.1 Residential Foundation Design Criteria Conventional spread footings, founded in property compacted structural fill may be used to support the proposed residences. Footings should be set back at least 5 feet or one -third the slope height, whichever is greater, from the top -of -slope or toe -of- slope. Alternatively, footings may be embedded such that there is adequate setback , between footings and the face of slopes. In any case, footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 and T8 inches below lowest adjacent grade for one and two stories, respectively. Residential footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings for one to two -story wood frame homes may be designed for an ' allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). All continuous , footings should be reinforced with at least #4 reinforcing bars top and bottom, along the full width of the footings to mitigate the potential for differential fill settlement. Additional reinforcement may be required by the project architect and /or design engineer. Structure settlement will be due to relatively light foundation loads, as well as long- , term consolidation of fill soils and compressible native materials below the fill. Maximum anticipated structural load- induced settlements of continuous residential ' footings, designed as recommended above, are 1/2 inch or less. Compacted fills will settle depending on the fill thickness and future changes in the "as- compacted" moisture conditions. Properly compacted fill can be expected to settle 1/2% to 1 % of the fill thickness if the soils are allowed to become soaked. These fill settlements should be considered in design. Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by friction acting at the base of the footings and by passive resistance against the side of footings. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with the dead load forces. An allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against compacted fill or bedrock. The • 89 -81- 173 -01 31 Converse Consullants Inland Empire ' lei llowable passive pressure may be increased 33% for lateral loading due to wind or eismic forces. r Foundation setback should be provided as recommended in Figure No. 29 -1 of the ' 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. Where reduced foundation setback is required, CCIE can evaluate specific cases and provide appropriate geotechnical criteria for design. ' 7.2 Retaining Walls It is not known at this time if any retaining walls are proposed at the site. If required, ' the retaining walls may be designed for an assumed earth pressure equivalent to that ! exerted by a fluid weighing not less than that shown in Table 7.2.1. TABLE 7.2.1 ' ! EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (ocf) SURFACE SLOPE OF IF CLEAN SAND AND /OR IF NATIVE SANDY RETAINED MATERIAL GRAVEL WITH (P = 38* SOILS ARE USED HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL IS USED TO BACKFILL TO BACKFILL ! Level 30 40 5 to 1 32 42 4 to 1 35 45 3 to 1 38 48 1 2 to 1 43 53 Any applicable construction surcharges should be added to the above pressures. At least 12 inches of granular material should be used in the backfill behind the walls and ' water pressure should not be permitted to build up behind retaining walls. Retaining walls should be provided with weep holes or backdrains. The upper 12 to 18 inches ! of the backfill must consist of impervious soil. ' 7.3 Slabs -on -Grade Conventional, minimum 4- inch - thick, slabs -on -grade may be constructed for support ' of nominal ground floor live loads. All slab subgrades should be moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended in Appendix D. Care should be taken to avoid slab 89 -81- 173 -01 32 Converse Consultants Inland Empire curling if slabs are poured in hot weather. A mix design should also be provided to , reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks. Slabs should be designed and constructed • as promulgated by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). If low- expansive soils are r used in the upper 3 feet (Expansion Index less than 30), then the design engineer need not design the slabs for expansive soils. Reinforcement should be provided as ! recommended by the design engineer, and may include conventional, post- tensioned, or fiber - reinforced slabs. ! If a moisture - sensitive floor covering (such as vinyl tile) is used, slabs should be , protected by a 6 mil -thick polyethylene vapor barrier. If the barrier is used, it should be protected with 2 inches of sand placed above and below to prevent punctures and to aid in the concrete curing process. Vapor barrier seams should be lapped a , minimum 6 inches and sealed. ! 7.4 Aoourtenant Facilities ■ It is anticipated that residential lots will be customized, including home additions and construction of garden walls, pools, landscape ponds, retaining walls, general regrading, and modifications of landscaping. Any of these modifications may , adversely change the foundation conditions, lot stability, and /or adversely affect adjacent lots. It is therefore strongly recommended that proposed lot modifications ' be reviewed by CCIE or an experienced Geotechnical Engineer and /or Certified Engineering Geologist. All homeowners should be made aware of the need for geotechnical evaluation of proposed foundation, grading, irrigation, and /or landscape modifications. 7.5 Soil Corrosivity A bulk sample obtained from the subsurface exploration was tested for resistivity, pH, and soluble sulfate and chloride content. A relatively moderate sulfate concentration , of 53 parts per million (ppm) was measured. Therefore, conventional Type I or II portland cements may be used. A very low chloride content and mild resistivity were 89 -81- 173 -01 33 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' also measured, which would indicate low corrosivity. Conventional corrosion 'mitigation measures are therefore appropriate, such as the following measures: • All steel and wire concrete reinforcement should have at least 3 inches of ' concrete cover. • Below grade ferrous metals should be given a high quality protective coating, such as 18 -mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene, coal tar enamel, or portland cement mortar. N 89 -81- 173 -01 34 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 8.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION ' S This report has been prepared to aid in evaluation of the site, to prepare site grading recommendations, and to assist in the design of the proposed structures. As ' indicated above, additional studies may be required for appurtenant structures. It is recommended that this office be provided the opportunity to review the final grading , plan, design drawings and specifications to determine if the recommendations of this report have been properly implemented. , Recommendations presented herein are predicated upon the assumption that continuous earthwork monitoring will be provided by CCIE. Removal excavation , bottoms should be observed by a CCIE representative. Structural fill and backfill should be placed and compacted during observation and testing by this office. ' Footing excavations should be observed prior to placement of steel and concrete to confirm that the footings are founded on competent soil and the excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials. 89 -81- 173 -01 35 Converse Consultants Inland Empire , 1. 9.0 CLOSURE The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and ' practice in this area of California, at this time. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the results of the field and laboratory investigations, combined with an ' interpolation of subsurface conditions between and beyond exploration locations. As the project evolves, our continued consultation and construction monitoring should ' be considered an extension of our investigation services performed to date. CCIE should review plans and specifications to check if the recommendations presented ' herein have been appropriately interpreted, and that the design assumptions used in this investigation are valid. Where significant design changes occur, it may be ' necessary that CCIE augment, or modify, the recommendations presented herein. Subsurface conditions may differ in some locations from those encountered in the » explorations, and may require additional analyses and possibly modified recommendations. ' This report was written for the exclusive use of Mesa Homes, and only for the proposed development described herein. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our exploratory information which has not been described or documented in this report. Specific questions or interpretations concerning our findings and conclusions may require a written clarification to avoid future misunderstandings. 89 -81- 173 -01 36 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire REFERENCES 1 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire REFERENCES olt, B.A., 1973, Duration of strong ground motion: Proceedings on Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, v. 2, no. 292, p. 10. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, Alquist- Priolo special studies zone map, Murrieta Quadrangle, scale 1:24000. ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire, Uquefaction evaluation - Winchester Hills: dated September 9, 1988, Project No. 88 -81- 117 -01. ' Duncan, J.M., and Buchignani, A.L., March 1975, An engineering manual for slope stability studies: University of California, Berkeley, Department of Civil Engineering, 83 p. ' English, W.A., 1926, Geology and oil resources of the Puente Hills region, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 768, 11 Opp. ' Eppley, R.A., 1966, Earthquake history of the United States: Part II Coast and Geodetic Survey (ESSA) Bull. no. 41 -1. ' Greensfelder, R., 1974, Maximum credible rock accelerations from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. ' Highland Geotechnical Consultants, 1989, Geotechnical feasibility investigation, 1050± acres - Rancho California Commerce Center, Rancho California, Riverside County, California: Highland Geotechnical Consultants Rpt., February 13, 1989, job no. 08- 6574 -012 -00 -00, log no. 9 -3016. ' ICG Incorporated, Revised feasibility geotechnical report - 575± acre Winchester Hills Development: dated October 6, 1989, Consultants Project 07- 8079 - 003-0000. Jahns, R.H., 1954, Generalized geologic map of the Peninsular Range Provinces, Southern California: in California Division of Mines and Geology, Bull. 170, Chapter Il, Plate 3. Jennings, C. W. et al, 1975, Fault map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 1, scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology ' Spec. Rpt. 131, p. 1 -12. Mann, J.F., Jr., 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone: California Division ' of Mines and Geology, Special Report 43, 22 p. Marachi, N.D., and Dixon, S.J., 1972, A method for evaluation of seismicity: Proceedings ' of the International Conference on Microzonation, Seattle. �uaichin, L., and Jones, A.L., 1987, Peak acceleration from maximum credible ' earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report (in progress), 79 p. ' 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire REFERENCES ' (continued) , Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E -, 1974, Repeatable high ground accelerations from • earthquakes: California Geology, Sept. 1974, p. 195. , Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during ' earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph, 134 p. Uniform Building Code (UCB), 1988, International Conference of Building Officials, , 1988 Edition. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, quaternary faults, and seismic hazards in California: , Journal of Geophysical Research, no. B12, p. 12,587 - 12,631. 89 -81- 173 -01 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 1• 1 APPENDIX A ' FIELD EXPLORATION i i 1 1� 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' APPENDIX A �• FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration included a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. During the ' site reconnaissance, surface conditions were observed, and the locations of test borings and trenches were determined. Exploratory borings and trenches were approximately located using existing boundary and other features as a guide. Elevations shown on the logs were interpolated from the site topographic map. ' Exploratory borings were advanced using a 8- inch - diameter hollow -stem auger or a 24 inch- diameter bucket auger drilling equipment. Exploratory trenches were excavated by a backhoe equipped with a 24 -inch bucket. Soils were continuously logged by ' experienced geologists, and classified in the field by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Bucket -auger borings and trenches were entered by a geologist who observed the exposed earth materials. Where appropriate, field descriptions and classifications have been modified to reflect laboratory test results. Relatively undisturbed drive samples and bulk samples of typical soil types were obtained. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at frequent intervals in the exploratory borings. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a steel drive sampler (2.4 -inch inside diameter, 3 -inch outside diameter) lined with sample rings. In bucket -auger borings, the steel sampler was driven into the bottom of the boreholes with successive drops (about 12 inches) of the telescoping kelly bar. In hollow -stem ' auger borings, samples were driven by a 140 -pound hammer dropping 30 inches. Depths below ground surface versus kelly bar weights are as follows: DEPTH BELOW KELLY BAR GROUND SURFACE WEIGHT (ft) (pounds) 0 - 25 2,050 25 - 45 1,350 45 - 68 650 The number of successive drops of the driving weight ( "blows ") required for one foot of ' penetration of the sampler are shown on the Boring Summary Sheets (Drawings A -1 through A -9) in the "blows /foot' column. The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4 inches in diameter, 1 inch in height). The central portion of the sample was normally retained and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the laboratory. ' 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire A -2 Logs of the exploratory borings and trenches are presented in the following boring and • trench summary sheets which also include descriptions of the materials, pertinent field data and supplementary laboratory data. A key to soil symbols and terms is presented on the key sheet included as the last page in Appendix A. 89-8 1-173-01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' Log of Boring No. BH -1 ):I D lied: 4/23/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR :qui *: Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: See Appendix A A nd Surface Elevation: 1131 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F j +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H w U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions LL ¢ H k 2 may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W ill '- tt IL D Y 3 N w W a s passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O H Y u I tt D J O 0: d F Q 0 0J encountered. O m m L O— O TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained sand, rootlets and organics throughout, dark brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: medium to coarse grained, clavey, weathered to 5 feet, massive, reddish brown 5 7 I I I 5 6 9 116 ds 7 28 92 8 9 124 _ IS 9 III 30 I WE P:ojcct No. Drawing No, Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89 - 8 1- 173 -01 A -1a Log of Boring No. BH -1 , Drilled: 4/23/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR , quipment: Bucket Aueer Driving Weight and Drop: See Appendix A • 1: and Surface Elevation: 1131 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F 3 +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the 0 0 w F v N U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions IL Ex D Z s N , change at this location with the j = may differ at other locations and may c Y 3 l- D L W a¢ U passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions w J O '+ > u 2 encountered. O m m L O a O CLAYEY SILTSTONE: micaceous, unweathered, massive, olive green 5 40 81 - 40 End of boring at 40 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled and tamped 4/23/90 *ds = Direct Shear Test I 1 /�� Project No. Drawing No. , Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89- 81- 173 -01 A -lb ' ' Log of Boring No. BH -2 a'Drilled: 4 /23/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR qui. Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: See Appendix A r'Ind Surface Elevation: 1135 feet Depth to Water: none encountered ' SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and H 3 should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W F U lo of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions LL D Z � ' H _ S may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the 7 Y 3 0 — = �. W Q C7 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O H Y n 2 O encountered. O O m OE O a O ' SOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, minor rootlets, reddish brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) ' SANDSTONE: fine grained, weathered to about 4 feet with pinhole voids and carbonate along bedding 4 13 98 — planes and random fractures, massive to poorly ' bedded, olive green , "— - - Bedding at I foot: N34 ° E, 2 ° NW SANDSTONE: fine grained, unweathered, massive to poorly bedded, olive green 8 6 114 6 6 84 ' medium grained sandstone interbeds ' SANDSTONE: medium grained, massive, 1� consistency of loose - sand - - , brown - ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 1 125 SANDSTONE: fine grained, massive to poorly bedded, olive green Bedding at 18 feet: N67 7 0 NW �� 8 22 02 - - - - { SANDSTONE: medium grained, massive, ' I consistency of loose sand, brown SANDSTONE: medium to coarse grained, clavev, —� massive, brown _ Projec. No. Drvwing No. / ✓/�� Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -2a Log of Boring No. BH -2 , ): Drilled: 4/23/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ' :quipment: Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: See Appendix A • 31 and Surface Elevation: 1135 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAHPLES \ F This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and 1— 3 +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the TO W F U l of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions LL Ex Z � 0. = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the (A H ^ 3 N w W a: p pmsage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual condition O O a r WO 0 Ir 0J encountered. m L O O -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — SANDSTONE: fine grained, clavey, massive, olive green , 4 21 IO2 - 40 carbonate lined random fractures 5 30 14 115 ' � 0 End of boring at 50 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled and tamped 4/23/90 I I 0 Project No. Jrawm , x o. Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89- 81- 173 -01 A - 2b 1 Log of Boring No. BH -3 )a Drilled: 4/23/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR :qui Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: See Appendix A ;r'nd Surface Elevation: 1166 feet Depth to Water: none encountered ' SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAM p LES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and 3 should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O 4 O W F U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions W a H \ J Z + = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W Ul O Y 3 ul w W a ¢ O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions .y J O > U Z 0 encountered. O m m E O a O SOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium grained sand, trace gravel, rootlets throughout, reddish brown ' BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: medium grained, clayey, moderately weathered to about 4 feet, massive, brown 6 S 119 ' T= SANDSTONE: fine grained, clayey, micaceous, massive, olive green, local interbeds of medium grained sandstone with consistency of loose sand 6 11 121 ds WE T 7 S 107 9 9 122 ' S 10 13 111 - 30 W5 Project No. Drawing No. Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89- 81-173-01 A - Log of Boring No. BH -3 e Frilled: 4/23/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR , iipment: Bucket 4uiZer Driving Weight and Drop: see Appendix A • it d Surface Elevation: 1166 feet Depth to Water: none encountered 1� SUMiV1.4RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAHPLES \ F _ This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and h 3 O ++ should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O tL tL . W H O x U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions N (x 7 W M _ = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the D y 3 in y U 4 Q U passage of time. The data presented is a simpliGc scion of actual condition 7 O O C c w C O encountered. O m m L O O O 0 J CLAYSTONT: silty, massive, olive green. Grades 7 79 92 ' to sandstone SANDSTONE: fire gained, siR9 to cl5yeyldcaliv, massive, olive green. Local interbeds of medium grained sandstone with consistency of loose sand. i I � � _ —� 35 8 1 1 17 End of boring at 50 feet No caving , No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled and limped 4 /23/90 'ds = Direct Shear Test I Project No. Drawing No. ` � "Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -3b Log of Boring No. BH -4 DI Drilled: 4/24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR Equi�: Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 Ib / 30 in 74nd Surface Elevation: 1104 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES t. This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and F j +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W F U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions LL ¢ '-' H in Z S may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N U) ] I W cr Q 0 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions w J O H } U 2 encountered. O m m O 0 a O ' ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant organics, black I OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, rootlets throughout, minor pinhole voids, - 5 dark brown 41 10 122 c _ ' CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine grained sand, minor silt, 0 micaceous, brown 34 13 102 I c 132 9 105 1 5 -' 0 fine grained silty sand interbeds N 26 25 95 - 25 fine grained sandy clay interbeds -' / 19 28 93 - 30 ' End of boring at 30 feet • No caving No groundwater encountered � Boring backfilled 4/24/90 `c = Consolidation Test Project No. 1). in.g No. Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89 81- 173 -01 A -4 Log of Boring No. BH -5 la : Drilled: 4/24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR , .quipment Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lb / 30 in • rl and Surface Elevation: 1099 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ r This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and ~O .. 3 -, should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W t- W a ~ O location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions D Z M = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j Y 3 i— O W Q O passage of time. The data pres is a simplincation of actual conditions O O 4 F M OJ encountered. O m m L O �- O ALLUVIUM (Qal) = SILTY SAND (Slut): fine grained, brown -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant pinhole voids, brown 42 5 98 ' S OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): medium 35 6 115 0 to coarse grained sand, brown -- -- SILTY SAND (SM) fine grained sand, trace clay, micaceous, olive green and brown 34 10 1I5 - S ------------ - - - - -- E - -- - - - - - - - CLAYY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, micaceous, , olive green 44 7 107 '0 25 1 fine grained silty sand (sm) interbeds 31 II 108 ' - 31 18 110 - 30 End of boring at 30 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled 4/24/90 Project No. Drawing o. 'ter Converse Consultant Inland Empire 1 �� 89 -81- 173 -01 A -5 Log of Boring No. BH -6 a rilled: 4 /24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR auip Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lb / 30 in INNEW r 'Id Surface Elevation: 1095 feet Depth to Water: none encountered ' SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and F 3 should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W f U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions IL a '+ \ 7 Z « may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the 2 W 7 - 3 0 W Q 0 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H -J 3 0 W Cr encountered. O m m L ❑ a O ' ALLUVIUM (Qal) -SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, organics and rootlets throughout, dark brown 36 8 128 c 5 OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine ' grained sand, micaceous, olive green and brown 36 13 120 c -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CLAY (CL): sandy, interbeds with carbonate along 16 17 99 random fractures fine grained silty sand (sm) interbeds 29 18 103 25 37 16 114 ' End of boring at 30 feet No ground water encountered • Boring backfilled 4/24/90 `c = Consolidation Test I �.- Project No. Drawing No. Converse Consultant Inland Empire ��/ 89 -81- 173 -0I A -6 Log of Boring No. BH -7 , a Drilled: 4/24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ' quipment: Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lb / 30 in • r, .nd Surface Elevation: 1069 feet Depth to Water: none encountered ' SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and 3 should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W l- v LL a H U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions ❑ Z M = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j to F- �. W Q ❑ passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions O H Y U J O K a O 0 OJ encountered. m — ❑ .. O ALLUVIUM (Qal) -SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, brown -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, abundant 24 No Re :overy organics, dark brown 22 1 OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, micaceous, dark brown 34 II 120 c 26 14 101 c , 29 17 103 25 31 29 93 A End of boring at 30 feet , No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled 4/24/90 • `c = Consolidation Test ' Project No. Dr;,wing No. _ Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -7 , i ' Log of Boring No. BH -8 , aIDrilled: 4/24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR qui. Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lb / 30 in I nd Surface Elevation: 1068 feet Depth to Water: none encountered ' SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and H j should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H .. U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions I\ H *. 2 may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W in O .. d O I 3 N W 2 O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions i..i J O Y u Z O (3 J encountered. ❑ O M O a O ' ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, minor organics and rootlets, brown OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine 50/9" 4 119 grained sand, minor rootlets and pinhole voids, brown increased moisture, minor pin -hole voids 23 II 116 c I medium grained clayey sand (sc) interbeds, minor 44 4 11 pinhole voids ■ 34 9 102 1 25 - - ------------------------- a0 /7" 17 109 ' SAND (SP): medium to coarse grained sand, brown ' End of boring at 30 feet No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled 4/24/90 'c = Consolidation Test Project No. Dr,-mg No Eel Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A-8 Log of Boring No. BH -9 , Dt ; Drilled: 4 /24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ' equipment Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lb / 30 in • 31 and Surface Elevation: 1069 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and H 3 +-' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H U W a location of the boring and at the time o[ drilling. Subsurface conditions O r N = may differ at other locations and may change at this location With the W N Y W F O ^ W O 3 n U t7 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O '+ > U S O c) J encountered. O m m L O a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, organics and rootlets, brown 17 7 106 ' -------------------------------- SAND (SP): medium to coarse grained, brown 12 17 0 _ M ---------- ------ ------ -- -- ----- -- - --- -- 14 5 OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine ' grained sand, micaceous, olive green and brown 24 s 113 -10 - 1 CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, micaceous, , olive green - 22 II 113 - 25 J0 increased moisture 29 91 ' - Project No. Drawing No. V1� Converse Consultant Inland Empire 89-81-173-01 A -9a ' Log of Boring No. BH -9 Drilled: 4/24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR :qui* Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lb / 30 in 31 n Surface Elevation: 1069 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F j should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H' w. U location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions L x M = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W to O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions N J O H Y U S O 0 J encountered. O m m Oz O a O local medium grained sand (sp) interbeds - SO/10 4 . ' End of boring at 40 feet Let boring stabilize 8 minutes, no groundwater encountered ' Boring backfilled 4/24/90 1 1 I • I Project No. Drawing No. Converse Consultant Inland Empire �"/ 89- 81- 173 -01 A -9b Log of Test Pit No. TP -1 a, Excavate 4/18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR quipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • rt nd Surface Elevation: 1147 feet Depth to Water: none encountered 1 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and F 3 ✓ should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the W H v H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions O Z x H = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j Y 3 _ V1 7 '« W_ (7 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual Conditions H J O H Y O � a W (C O 0 O m 7 J O 0' d 0 O C7 J encountered. O }= O OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): medium ' grained sand, loose, moist, brown CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine to medium grained sand, ' rootlets and pinhole voids throughout, loose Slightly >� moist, reddish brown BEDROCK - PAUIIA FORMATION (Qp) F SANDSTONE: fine to medium grained, silty, weathered, massive, dry, moderately hard to hard, dark brown , End of test pit at 5.5 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/13/90 SCALE: 1' =5' (H =V) SKETCH f -. N25 ° E ' al � i / _ I I I •, Project No Drawing No Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89- 81- 173 -01 A -10 1 Log of Test Pit No. TP -2 ),IE avate 4 /18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked bv: CFR :qui *: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: kind Surface Elevation: 1103 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SANPLESI This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and H j +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W F- t. U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions tL C H N \ D z Y I may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W U) r = — ¢ (7 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions N J O r Y u I W O a OJ encountered. O m 0 E ❑ a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM) /CLAYEY SAND (SC): interbedded, fine to medium grained sand, very moist, loose, reddish brown 1 5 Sift 1 BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) j SANDSTONE: fine grained, highly micaceous, moderately weathered, massive, very moist, soft, olive reen End of boring at 14.5 feet No groundwater encountered _ Minor caving 3 to 4 feet Test pit backfilled 4 /18/90 SCALE: 1' =5' (H V) SKETCH N3fi E 1 Qoa] / Qp 1 � Project : :No. Drawing No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -11 Log of Test Pit No. TP -3 , at Excavate 4/18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ' �uipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • rt nd Surface Elevation: 1089 feet Depth to Water: none encountered , SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and ~O W .. 3 +, should be read together with the repo. This summary applies only at the rt O LL K r U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions U . O Z N T may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the lu Y 3 N a W Q O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions ¢ 7 O O M ua F W O a OJ encountered. O m m L O O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium grained sand, very little silt, well sorted, moist, loose, brown CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, abundant organics, very moist, loose, black 5 - OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, pinhole voids and rootlets throughout, dry, dense, reddish brown. Lower 2 feet appears to be reworked Pauba Formation. BEDROCK - PA BA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, weathered, massive, dry, soft, brown End of test pit at 12 feet No groundwater encountered No caving Test pit backfilled 4 /18/90 SCALE: 1' =5' (H V) SKETCH N88 ° E Qa Topsoil Q al- 4 Dm�ing No t ��' Converse Consultants Inland Empire 59- 81- 171 -01 A -12 I Log of Test Pit No. TP -4 a (Excavate 4/18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR quip• Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: r Ind Surface Elevation: 1088 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ F This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the Tt:- o W F- w LL ¢ U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions D x = may differ a[ other locations and may change at this location with the N F- 7 — M Q 0 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions O H > U I -J 0 0 CJ encountered. m r a O 1 ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium grained sand, minor silt, moist, loose, brown 1 TOPSOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, abundant organics, very moist, loose, black OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine 1 grained sand, pinhole voids, massive, dry, soft to moderately hard, brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION ((2p) SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, weathered with minor pinhole voids, massive, dry, soft to moderatel} hard, brown 1 I I End of test pit at 13 feet No groundwater encountered No caving Test pit backfilled 4/18/90 CALE: 1' =6' (H =V) SKETCH —: Sel Qal 1 - - j Topsoil�. 1 Qoal 1 p ,. 1 1 No. Drawing No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89- 81- 1 73 - A -13 Log of Test Pit No. TP -5 ' 12 : Excavate 4/I8/90 Logged by: DCP Checked bv: GFR .quipmen[ Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • it ind Surface Elevation: 1102 feet Depth to Water: none encountered , SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAnpttisl \ This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and N O should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W t- L ¢ U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions D x N , _ may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W In F- O ^ = 11 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J p r Y u 2 Q O R D J O CE 0. 1 W O (r OJ encountered. O M m E O O ALLUVI UM (Qal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained d , san, abundant rootlets and very moist, loose, black OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine 1 5 grained sand, open voids, minor rootlets and root clasts, dry, very dense, reddish brown; voids decrease t with depth '0 BEDROCK -PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) 1 SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, moderately weathered, massive, slightly moist, soft, dark brown End of test pit at 12 feet No caving , No groundwater encountered TpV t nit hnrkfillP(i d /Ig /c)f) SCALE: 1' =5• (H =v) SKETCH s ' Qa1 i : Qoal V. I � 1 J prof ett \'o. Drawing No. 1 ,, Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89- 81-1 - /3-01 A -14 Log of Test Pit No: TP -6 )a� E cavare 4/18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR 'qui{ Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: 311nd Surface Elevation: 1108 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and F j +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O o w r U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions W a H \ D = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N H 7 . ¢ Q O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H y 3 N w W LU It encountered. O m to E C a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine to medium grained sand, rootlets throughout, moist, loose, dark brown 5 OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, pinhole voids and rootlets throughout, dry, very dense, brown —� BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, moderately weathered, massive, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard, reddish brown End of test pit at 10 feet No groundwater encountered No caving Test pit backfiHed 4/13/90 SCALE: 1' =6' (H =V) SKETCH 87eW Qal Qoal P.ojec: No. :a Ills Converse Consultants Inland Empire 39.81- 173 -01 A -15 Log of Test Pit No. TP -7 1 ): Excavate 4/18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR .quipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • ;! and Surface Elevation: 1099 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLESI This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and ~ +! should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H W U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface condition `a s IUDMO-NIM, \ O Z K H = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the EL O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions O H W M O J O 6 O J encountered. m O 0 0 O - L ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, open voids and rootlets throughout, dry, loose to medium dense, light brown; previously cultivated OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine , 5 .. grained sand, minor open voids, dry, dense, dark -- brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, unweathered, massive, dry, moderately hard, dark brown End of test pi[ at 6 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfiiled 4/18/90 SCALE: 1' =5' (H= V) SKETCH Sseaw Qal Q al �j� Project No. Drawing NO. Converse Converse Consultants Inland Empire 99 81 1 73 -01 A -16 Log of Test Pit No:; TP -8 la' vate 4/18/90 Logged bv: DCP Checked by: GFR Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: q I Surface Elevation: 1083 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ F _ This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and F 3 +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O O W H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL ¢ I = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j d passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions . J O H T u T t1 Q O a J J O ¢ tL H r w ., encountered. O m m O" O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SAND (SP): fine to medium grained sand, trace silt, well sorted. moist, loose, brown TOPSOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, abundant rootlets and organics, very moist, loose, black I OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, minor pinhole voids, dry, dense to very dense, dark brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) CLAYEY SILTSTONE: micaceous, weathered, massive, upper I foot very clayey, moist, soft, olive green i End of test pit at 9 feet No groundwater encountered �I No caving Test pit backfilled 4/13/90 SCALE: 1' =5* (H =V) SKETCH S11 0 E Q al T opsoil Qoal Q Project No. Urawing No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire S9- 81- 173 -01 A -17 Log of Test Pit No. TP -9 al Excavate 4 /18/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ' auipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • rc nd Surface Elevation: 1071 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ F This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and ,. 3 ✓ should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the "O O W H v U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL a 3 z t a. 2 may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the 1:W-0m, 3 Ln 2 U passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions J O r Y U U J encountered. m m L O a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, minor silt, well sorted sand, loose, moist to I foot, dry below, brown OLD ALLUVIUM (goal) - SILTY SAND (S /1): fine grained sand, minor pinhole voids, dry, very dense, 5 brown End of boring at 5.5 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4 /18/90 l �. I SCALE: 1' =e' (H V) SKETCH sleaw W Qal Qoal Sg-SI Prol e<t No. D:awmg P'o. Converse Consultants Inland Empire I A -18 Log of Test Pit No. TP -10 a'Excavate 4 /14/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: CFR qui� Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: r td Surface Elevation: 1101 feet Depth to Water. none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLESI This to is art of the rep prepared b Converse for this project and X. 1- H P p P P Y P J r- 3 +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H 4 U location of the test pit and a[ the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions D z T � < may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N i- 7 .. a: d J Y 3 O W Q C7 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions i..i -1 O a D o a n r a 00 encountered. O m t➢ - ❑ O TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant organics, very moist, loose, black OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, rootlets are oxidized to about 3 feet, 5 minor voids, drv, dense, brown End of test pit at 5 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 —� CALE: 1" =5 (H =V) SKETCH 1415 0 E � To soil Qoal I Project P'o. Ur:.wing No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire ��'/ 89- 8 1 - 173 - 0 1 A - 1 9 Log of Test Pit No. TP -11 a Excavate 4/19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR quipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • r .nd Surface Elevation: 1098 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F X 3 +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W ` O W F .. O location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL K = may differ at other locations and may Change at this location with the W N (n O W J J 3 N . W O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions a J O M tr n = n M J O 0 d 0 W 0 O encountered. O m M z: ❑" O ❑ t7 J ALLUVIUM (Qal) -SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, rootlets throughout, loose, moist, dark brown OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, rootlets to 3 feet, minor voids, dry, 5 dense to very dense, brown CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, minor �I pinhole voids, Slightly moist, very dense, dark brown End of test pit at 6 feet No caving groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 SCALE: t' =5' (H V) SKETCH I N85 'W 1 I �I I Qoal project NO. Drawur No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89- 81- 173 -01 A -2 } Log of Test Pit No. TP -12 , a Excavate 4 /19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR qui� Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: �rInd Surface Elevation: 1089 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES! This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and H 3 +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W F LL r H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions N = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N H O ^ W O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J p N } p 2 Ir W O C 00 encountered. O m M � 0— O ALLUVIUM (Qal) -SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, minor organics, moist; loose, brown �F. ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine L OLD ained sand, rootlets to 2.5 feet, minor voids, dry, ery dense at 25 feet down, brown; near refusal with ackhoe End of test pit at 3 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 i — CALE: 1' =5' (H =V) SKETCH sza °E Am 1 1 � i S Qoal Project No. Urawtng No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -21 -t— — Log of Test Pit No. TP -13 , a Excavate 4 /19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked bv: GFR quipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: O it fnd Surface Elevation: 1084 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES ^ This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and ~O 3 +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions I\ � Z x M 2 may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W to F- ❑ ^ d J Y 3 V u W 2 p passage of Lime. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O �+ Y U S 0 0 J encountered. ❑ m m E O a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SAND (SP): fine to medium grained sand, moist, loose, brown TOPSOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, abundant organics, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense, black BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, micaceous, moderately weathered, massive, moist, moderately r hard, reddish brown l ■� End of test pit at 6 feet No caving No groundwater encountered test backfilled 4/19/90 SCALE: V =5' (H =V) SKETCH Sa e w Qal_. / ! Topsoil./ . .I — �j� Projec. \o. Drawing No. t '�' ;� Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -22 1' Log of Test Pit No. TP -14 , a 1E vate 4 /19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR qui Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: Ir( nd Surface Elevation: 1079 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and r 1z , ~ y should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O O W H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL 7 H H T x T may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j y (n ❑ a W Q 0 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J ❑ H > u 2 W O 0 Er 0 J encountered. ❑ It m m L O a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, moist, loose, brown 1�2 TOPSOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SQ): fine grained sand, abundant organics, slightly moist, loose, dark brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: fine grained, moderately weathered, massive, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard, brown �I End of test pit at 4.5 feet No caving groundwater encountered Test pit backfileld 4/19/90 r� —' CALE: 1' =5' (H =V) SKETCH f —: saz`E I Qal � . Topsoil t � Project No. Drawing .No. ''nConverse Consultants Inland Empire 89_ b1_173.01 A -23 10 Log of Test Pit No. TP -15 )a Excavate 4/19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR quipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • it Ind Surface Elevation: 1079 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES _ ' This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F ,�, +s should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the C W tion. Subsurface conditions W M v U location of the test pit and at the time of excava Z) w = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W U H 7 ^ a passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions J O Ir 7 J 0 0. N > Q I Q 0 F O 0 F 0 0J encountered. m m ❑ O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, moist, loose, brown OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, minor open voids, rootlets to 3 feet, moist, very dense, brown; near refusal with backhoe End of test pit at 4 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 SCALE: 1'=5' (H =V) SKETCH —: Se50w i b Qal :. Qoal Project NO. UraWmg No. C Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -24 Log of Test Pit No. TP -16 a Excavate 4/19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked bv: GrIZ qui Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: r d Surface Elevation: 1073 fee Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES H This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F 3 +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W F - H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation, Subsurface W Er ace conditions - � H = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N C7 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O r Y U W 0 encountered. O m m O a L ❑ O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, moist, loose, brown TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, — �� abundant organics, moist to very moist, loose, dark t own OCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) NDSTONE: fine to medium grained sand, clayey, oderateiv weathered, massive, very moist to 4 feet, ojst to 4.5 feet, soft to moderately hard, brown I End of test pit at 4.5 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 GALE: 1'= 5' (rl =v) -- - -- SKETCH N7VW Topsoil'! i QP i —� Project NO, D-' -tu3 N.. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 - 01 A - Log of Test Pit No. TP -17 )r Excavate 4/19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR .quipmenc Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: 11 and Surface Elevation: 1103 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES \ F This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O LU LL ¢ U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions Z x = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the uJ H 7 ^ tr Y 3 N . W S passage of Lime. The data presented is a aimplinc anon of actual conditions cr D -J r > U Z 0 Ix J encountered. O m m O a O TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant organics, very moist, loose, dark brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, moderately weathered, massive, moist, moderately hard, brown End of test pit at 3.5 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4 /19/90 i I I SCALE: 1' =5' (H =V) SKETCH —: S Topsoil I' i I � I I I Project No. Drawing Vo. ` 'e'1� Converse Consultants Inland Empire 39 -81- 173 -01 A -26 Log of Test Pit No. TP -18 r vote 4 /19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ;n Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: I nd Surface Elevation: 1071 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES _ This log is part of the report prepared by Convene for this project and +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the 00 U C W F- 0 location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL a x N = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j y 3 N W d Q O passage of time. The data presented is a simplincation of actual conditions H J O Y U W � O C J J 0 C (1 O F encountered. O [0 m E O O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, moist, loose, brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) _ SANDSTONE: medium grained, silty, moderately weathered, massive, dry to slightly moist, moderately hard, brown; scour and fill channel features End of test pit at 4 feet I No caving ,. No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 SCALE: 1' =5' (H V) SKETCH f S40 0 E - ,gal Qp. ' I ProjeCL No. . o, Converse Consultants Inland Empire J 89- 8I- 173 -01 /a -27 Log of Test Pit No. TP -19 )i . Excavate 4 /19/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR .� :o>>ipment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: 3i_und Surface Elevation: 1083 feet Depth to Water: none encountered , SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES _ This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F j +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W H r U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface condition LL Z) Z x N S may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the w N F O Q O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions w -1 3 N m O O J encountered. O m m E O �- O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant organics, very moist to wet, seep at 2 feet, with minor caving, brown BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) , SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, moderately weathered, massive, moist, soft to moderately hard, brown End of test pit at 3.5 feet Caving as noted No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 SCALE: 1' =5' (H =V) SKETCH + —: N85 0 E v Q Alk ,I Project No. U:awur {.Nn. t ,n Converse Consultants Inland Empire S9-81-171-01 A -28 Log of Test Pit No. TP -20 a ate 4/20/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR an Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: r �d Surface Elevation: 1080 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O O W F U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions U- tr Z x H = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N D H .. C C D Y 3 N . W d- ¢ O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O H T U S W J encountered. ❑ m m L O a O ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant organics, moist, loose, brown OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, rootlets and organics to 4 feet, minor pinhole voids, dry, very dense, brown " End of test pit at 6 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 4/19/90 CALE: 1 =5' (H V) SKETCH —: s8ew Qal _ Qoal - I � Project h'o. D..,' «ing Nc. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -2 Log of Test Pit No. TP -21 oa Excavate 6/20/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by GFR q• ^pment: Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop:- - ir„,tnd Surface Elevation: 1134 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES _ This log is part of -the report prepared by Convene for this project and +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O w H U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions TwC LL 7 N H = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the 3 in v- W iL Q m passage of time. Th data presented is a simplification of actual conditions O H } u = J o a s 0 O OJ encountered. 0 E O— O LANDSLIDE DEBRIS (Qls): disturbed sandstone layers, fine to medium grained, increased moisture with depth, soft, oxidized, brown and reddish brown 4 10.5' -Slide Plane - N7 ° W,36 0 S. Poorly developed ' striations plunge directly down slide plane, 1 I/2 inch ick clayey gouge BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATIOI(Qp) SANDSTONE: fine to me dium gry, slightly weathered, unoxidized, massive, soist, 4 th , moderately hard, olive green ' End of test pit at 12 feet No groundwater encountered No caving Test pit backfilled 6"20,/90 SCALE: 1'= 10'(H =v) SKETCH Se30W ' 1 . 1l ( QlS Slide Plane 'r 1 Project No. Drawing No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' �:/ 89- 81- I 7 A -3 Log of Test Pit No. TP -22 �vate 6/20/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR ;r, p1}l![Sr. Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: Ind Surface Elevation: 1141 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and ~ ' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the ~O .. 3 O W F U location of the teat pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions IL H 2 may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the j Y in J' .- w a. Q O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O t+ > U S W a J encountered. a m m r O a O LANDSLIDE DEBRIS (Qls): disturbed sandstone beds, fine to medium grained, increased moisture with depth, soft, oxidized, brown and reddish brown i I 15' -Slide Plane - N30 W, 39 ° SW. 2 inch thick striated j clayey gouge. Striations are random. May be plane of differential adjustment of bedrock lavers BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) r SANDSTONE: fine to medium grained, silty, slightly o weathered, unoxidized, massive, slightly moist, i moderately hard, olive green and moiled brown End of test pit at 17 feet No groundwater encountered No caving Test pit backfilled 6/ J CASE: 1'= IT(H =v) SKETCH :S70 1 1 S Qls 311de Plane Now I I i Converse Consultants Inland Empire \./ 89- 8 1 - 173 -01 A -31 Log of Test Pit No. TP -23 a Excavate 6/20/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: CFR q Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: • ,_ �r_ind Surface Elevation: 1157 feet Depth to Water: none encountered , SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS sanp LES _ This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O W 1- w N U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL Ir • ,� H I may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N H 7 tt LL ] Y 3 N W d ¢ O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H -1 O H } ❑ I cr O Cr J encountered. O m m L ❑ a O SLIDE DEBRIS ?(Qls): disturbed appearing sandstone layers, fine to medium grained, increased moisture with depth, soft oxidized, mottled brown, Possibly deeply weathered bedrock. , BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp) —J SANDSTONE: fine to medium grained, slightly weathered, unoxidized, massive, Slightly moist, moderately hard, olive green No groundwater encountered End of test pit at 17 feet Test pit backfilled 6/20/90 No caving SCALE:1'= 10 '(H =v) SKETCH S71 °W , i 1 1 Qls I •, � � ProJec: No. Drawinq No. Converse Consultants Inland Empire , `_/ 89- 81 -17 -01 A -32 Loa of Test Pit No. TP -24 a ate 6/20/90 Logged bv: DCP Checked bv: GFR au Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: r d Surface Elevation: 1122 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAM P LESI _ This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and F 3 +' should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O �, O W U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface I xe conditions LL D N H Z may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the 2 j y 3 m 7 w a: C O passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions H J O H Y U I W M O r 7 J O K a F O J encountered. O m M L O O / SOiL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine to medium grained sand, dry, dense, dark brown to reddish brown ' OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): medium to coarse grained sand, weathered to about 5 feet, horizontal stratification, dry, loose to medium dense. ' light brown End of test pit at 12 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 6/21/90 CALE: 7'= 10'(H =V) SKETCH —: s70OW SOIL (SC) Qoal � P: oleo ; 1p Ii r;,winq \'; Converse Consultants Inland Empire �� 89- 81- 173-01 A -33 Log of Test Pit No. TP -25 a Excavate 6/20/90 Logged by: DCP Checked Uy: GFR quipment Backhoe Driving Weight and Drop: r -ind Surface Elevation: 1122 feet Depth to Water: none encountered SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . SAMPLES 1 _ This log it part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and. ~ .. 3 +� should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the O O W r U location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions LL D Z 7 Z x = may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W N t- D ,. 2 <1 passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions . J O H Y U I W O Ca7 C M a m m Z 0 a O SOIL - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine to medium grained sand, dry, dense, dark brown to reddish brown OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): medium ' to coarse grained sand, weathered to about 5 feet, horizontal stratification, dry, loose to medium dense, light brown ' End of test pit at 12 feet No caving No groundwater encountered Test pit backfilled 6/21/90 KALE: 1' =5' (H =V) SKETCH —: sae °w - r SOIL (SC) oal / w Project N. Drawin3 No, Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89-81-1 73-01 A -34 t�� q �• en.:JCP 7• r.SlCN, I S'rmaC_ e ' C ^., u .om E • -, .rare, G A V EL` I - �l<me e v , �_ 'r•;! �,mee ;rv. ;.v. More ,ro. m Gi =1 ioer, grmN Ta•.; 9•a�•- .a..a- .sure, � bll c - - -_ - Near I wro (n GC // T . aov,y yrm.0 q .a.,.I - -<la, < _ Clean "- SL+' T «.IMgrcaeo ram, g,wvil n,.n _ SANDS n lisle p ro nv O _ SP I Peon} gaa.d ,u.o4 9na.11 .pm SC Cla ra..m. n aari l ML clayey nr ,e.v,, p clove. ,:In -;m Jignr elms<iry SILTS AND CLAYS ' %/� C L;m;a 1;-;, Iva ��• cloy., rer.ey clay., airy clw,, Lv. <Iw, ' fr of I Orya.;c <Iq. e.rd e.ym;c ,;17 ciey, d le_ I I I Im; iry = E SILTS AND CLAYS « L:m;a li-;, q,.orvr ricn W C4 Irvyvnm cle.+ e/ Aign vimrc; ry, is 4 n I CX � Crgo,;c cloy, ei , n.d;wn re elfin mmr•c; rv, HIGHLY CcGANlC SCILS P SAMPLE TYPE TEST TYPE (Results shown In Appendix B) T t- O STANDARD PENETRATION TEST CLASSIFICATION Split barrel sampler In accordance with Plasticity PI ASTM D1586 -84 Standard Test Method Grain Slze Anelysle me Specific Gravity so ,® DRIVE SAMPLE 2.42' ID sampler, Sand Equivalent SE driven with 140 lb. weight, 30 In. drop Expansion Index EI STRENGTH ' Direct Sheer ds ® Unconfined Compreselon uc DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE Trlaxial Compression tx Pocket Penetrometer P CONSOLIDATION c .J& D SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND EXPLORATION LOG SYMBOLS 0 0, Converse Consultants Inland Empire 89 -81- 173 -01 A -35 I Consolidation of Sedimentary Rocks; usually determined from unweathered samples. Largely dependent on cementation. U = unconsolidated M = moderately consolidated P = poorly consolidated W = well consolidated I II Beddine of Sedimentary Rocks , Solittina Prooerty Thickness (in feet) Stratification ;Massive greater than 4.0 very thick bedded Blocky 2.0 to 4.0 thick- bedded Slabby 0.2 to 2.0 thin- bedded 0.05 to 0.2 very thin - bedded Flaggy Shaly or platy 0.01 to 0.05 laminated .- Papery less than 0.01 thinly laminated III Fracturing /jointing (discontinuities) Intensi [y Size of Pieces (in fee[) Very little fractured greater than 4.0 Occasionally fractured 1.0 to 4.0 Moderately fractured 0.5 to 1.0 _ Closely fractured 0.1 to 0.5 Intensely fractured 0.05 to 0.1 Crushed less tan 0.05 , IV Hardness 1. Soft - Reserved for plastic material alone. 2. Low hardness - Can be gouged deeply or carved easily with a knife blade. 3. Moderately hard - can be readily scratched by a knife blade; scratch leaves a heavy trace of dust - and is visible after the powder has been blown away. 4. Hard - Can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visble. 5. Very hard - Cannot be scratched with knife blade; leaves a metallic streak. II V Strencth 1. Plastic or very low strength. 2. Friable - Crumbles easily by rubbing with fingers. 3. Weak - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows. 4. Moderately str ong - Specimen will withstand few heavy hammer blows before breaking. 5. Stronq - Specimen will withstand a few heavy ringing hammer blows before breaking into large rT agments. 6. Very strop - Specimen will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only ust and small flying fragments. ' VI Weathering - The physical and chemical disintegration and decomposition of rocks and minerals by natural processes such as oxidation, reduction, hydration, solution, carbonation, and freezing and thawing. F. Fresh - Unaffected by weathering agents. No disintegration or discoloration. Fractures usually ' less numerous than joints. L. Slight - No megascopic decomposition of minerals; little to no effect on normal cementation. ig t and intermittent, or localized discoloration. Few stains on fracture surfaces. M. Moderate - Slight change or partial decomposition of minerals; little disintegration; cementation itT to unaffected. Moderate to occasionally intense discoloration. Moderately coated fractures. ' D. Deep - Moderate to complete mineral decomposition; extensive di si ntegra[ ion; deep and thorough , discoloration; many fractures, all extensively coated or filled with oxides, carbonates and /or clay or silt. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES CRITERIA FOR ROCK DESCRIPTIONS Proleel NO WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 89-81-173 - Temecula, California for: Mesa Homes r,g.re No Converse Consultants Inland Empire A -36 1 i� 1 1 1 r - APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM r 1 1 1 r� r Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' APPENDIX B �• LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM ' Laboratory tests were conducted in a Converse laboratory on representative samples for the purpose of evaluating their physical properties and engineering characteristics. Test results are presented on the exploration logs (Appendix A) and in this appendix. A summary of the various laboratory tests conducted is presented below: In -Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density Data obtained from these tests, performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the field, were used to aid in the classification and correlation of the earth materials and to provide qualitative information regarding strength and compressibility. The percent of moisture as a function of dry weight, and the calculated dry density in units of pounds per cubic foot (pcf) are provided on the logs. r Laboratory Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Tests Three laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture tests were performed on representative bulk samples of the site materials. These tests were conducted in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 -78 laboratory procedure. Results of these tests are p resented on Drawing B -1, "Compaction Test." 1* Sar Tests ' Direct shear tests were performed on both relatively undisturbed ring and remolded soil samples. Individual rings were prepared, soaked and vertical surcharge applied. Each ' ring was then sheared at a constant rate of strain. A range of normal loads was applied and the shear strength envelope was determined. Results of the tests are presented on Drawings B -2 through B -4, "Direct Shear Tests.' Consolidation Tests Data obtained from these tests, performed on relatively undisturbed and remolded soil samples, were used to evaluate the settlement characteristics of the site soils under load. Specimens were loaded into a test apparatus which contained porous stones to ' accommodate vertical drainage during testing. Normal vertical axial loads were applied to the ends of the sample through the porous stones, and the resulting vertical deflections were recorded at various time periods. The load was increased after the sample reached a reasonable state of equilibrium. Samples were loaded at field moisture and submerged for additional loading. Test results are shown on Drawings B -5 through B -11, "Consolidation Test." ' 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire B -2 Exoansion Index Test •� A selected bulk soil sample was tested to determine the expansion potential of the clayey siltstone encountered at the site. The lest was conducted in accordance with UBC Standard 29 -2. The sample had an El of 124 which is classified or highly expansive. SAMPLE BORING SAMPLE DEPTH EXPANSION No. No. ft SOIL DESCRIPTION INDEX BH -1 BULK 6 39 - 40 Clayey Silt 124 Resistance R -Value Test A selected bulk soil sample was tested to determine the "R" value using the California "R" Value Test Method No. 301 (ASTM D 2844 -69). Results of the "R" value test are presented below: AMPL ESIS ANC BORING SAMPLE DEPTH rrR No. No. (ft) SOIL DESCRIPTION VALUE' SH -1 8-2 25-26 SAND (SP) 68 • By exudation Soil Corrosivi ' Resistivity, pH, soluble sulfate, and chloride concentrations were determined for a soil sample to evaluate the corrosion potential of common construction material in contact with soil. These tests were performed by Converse Envirolab, and the test results are shown at the end of this Appendix. Sample Storage Soil samples presently stored in our laboratory will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report unless this office receives a specific request to retain the samples for a longer period. r 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire 140 1 i e 135 I ■ i 130 1`00 PERCENT SATURATIO: \' z SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.70 r✓ x � 125 � F a ° 120 115 110 0 5 10 15 20 MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT SAMPLE DEPTH TEST OPTIMUM MAXIMUM CRY SYMBOL LOCATION (ft) DESCRIPTION METHOD MOISTURE DENSITY (pcf) 0 BH -2 2 -3 SAND(SP) ASTM D1557 13.4 114.7 BH -4 2 -3 CLAYEY SAND(SC) ASTM D1557 7.E 129.5 d BH -9 0 -5 SILTY SAND(SM) ASTM D1557 4.9 121.0 COMPACTION TEST ! 4C;;STEP HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Project No. ' Fcr: Mesa Homes 89 -81- 173 -01 �onverse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. B -I i 4.0 x � , z to c 2.0 rn 0 0 4.0 6.0 6.0 10.0 NO STRESS IN KSF , 2.0 — � 1 x z J , zn 1.0 F y M C a w � O p 1 .2 .3 .4 .5 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH BORING /SAMPLE BH -1 /S -2 DEPTH (ft) 9 -10 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SANDSTONE ' STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) 641 (PEAK STRENGTH) FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 46.0 (PEAK STRENGTH) SOAKED MOISTURE DRY DENSITY V STRES N O R M A L A (ksf S HEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) S YMBOL CONTENT (% (p ) ( ) 0 16.9 116.0 .437 .50 1.15 .54 0 16.7 116.3 .433 1.00 1.59 1.15 o 15.3 117.4 .419 200 2.71 2.12 DIRECT SHEAR TEST "N HESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Project No. 1 For: Mesa Homes B9 -61- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. B -2 i • 4.0 i x � 2.0 0 r� 0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 NORMAL STRESS IN KSF 2.0 Y Z to c 1.0 W 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 5 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH BORING /SAMPLE BH -3/S -2 DEPTH (ft) 9 -10 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SANDSTONE STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) 1.027 (PEAK STRENGTH) ' FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 30.9 (PEAK STRENGTH) SOAKED MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL SYMBOL CONTENT (% (Pcf) RATIO STRESS (ksf S HEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) O 15.8 121.1 .376 .50 1.50 .98 ❑ 15.3 116.4 .432 1.00 1.36 .89 0 14.8 120.3 .384 2.00 2.31 1.76 1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST :CHESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Project No. For: Mesa Homes 89 -81- 173 -0 1, Converse Consultants Inland Empire Dr, awing No. B -3 li I I . f 2D rn 1 1 i I in � 0 V) I � a I I I I W n 0 I 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 5 Q 1 NORMAL STRESS IN KSF I x 1I h 1 W I x � 0 U 1 2 3 4 qX HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH BORING/SAMPLE BH -2 DEPTH (ft) 2 to 3 ; I DESCRIPTION REMOLD SANDSTONE, with $.It STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) 346 (PEAK STRENCTII) FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 21.1 - Remolded to 90% of the ASTM D 1557 -78 maximum laboratory density near optimum moisture SOAKED MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL S YMBOL CONTENT (w ( RATIO 6STRESS (ksf S HEAR (ksf) SH EAR (ksf) , <) 27.7 103.2 .633 .50 .54 .22 25.2 103.3 .631 1.00 .72 .46 d 27.7 103.4 .629 :2.00 1.12 1.12 I ' DIRECT SHEAR TEST WINCHESTER ITILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. • Tor: Mesa Homes 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No..a -a i �• LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1C 1 1 z ' 0 10 10 496 Z • .488 4 .438 O Z a a O Z 6 .408 U C. G 6 .378 1 i 10 .348 ' BORING IIH -4 /S -1 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND(SC) DEPTH (ft) 4 -5 MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID i CONTENT (Pcf) SATURATION RATIO INITIAL 10.1 121.7 60 .496 FINAL 16.1 123.7 100 .472 Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water ' CONSOLIDATION TEST :CHESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. For: Mesa Homes 89 -61- 173 -01 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. H -s LOAD IN HIPS PER SQUARE FOOT z , 0 10-1 1 1 0 10 744 i �I 2 I I I I .709 W Z 4 .674 O a < U Q O W 6 .639 > U Cz: B .604 I 10 I SBB BORING BH -4/S -2 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND(SC) ' DEPTH (ft) 9 —tD i MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (5) (Pcf) SATURATION RATIO ' INITIAL 112 102.1 51 .744 FINAL 22.1 109.1 100 .632 Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water CONSOLIDATION TEST WINCHESTER. HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. For: Mesa Homes 69 -61- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. H -E I • LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT a 10 1 10 10 2358 E 2 w U 4 .302 O ,4 F O Z 6 .275 > G] ' U lz C:1 a. e .246 ' 10 .221 BORING SH -6/S -1 DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND(SM) DEPTH (ft) 4 -5 MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (x) (pct) SATURATION RATIO INITIAL 7.7 127.6 60 .356 FINAL 11.8 130.4 100 .328 Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST ' CHESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. For: Mesa Homes 89 -81- 173 -01 t Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drnwinb No. B -7 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT • 10 10 0 . 1 .468 i 2 .439 a Z .409 4 W O ' F z 6 Y U 1 F � Z 6 .360 > C:7 U C FL G 8 .351 Ip .321 t BORING BH -6/S -2 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND(SC) DEPTH (ft) 9 -10 MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (Pcf) SATURATION RATIO ' INITIAL 12.9 119.6 78 .468 FINAL 15.9 121.2 100 .449 Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water CONSOLIDATION TEST 1 WINCHESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. Fcr: Mesa Homes 89- 61- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. 3 -6 i • LOAD IN HIPS PER SQUARE FOOT !� 1Q 1 10 10 o 394 I I F Z .366 z 4 .338 z �U oI z 6 .310 > CL I. U C G 8 .282 ' 10 .254 BORING OH-7/S-2 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND(SC) DEPTH (it) 9 -10 i MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (a) (Pcf) SATURATION RATIO I i INITIAL 10.9 119.7 74 .394 FINAL 13.1 123.0 99 .356 I Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water CONSOLIDATION TEST RESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. For: Mesa Homes 89- 61- 173 -01 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing I NC. 13 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 10 lO 0 1 ssa I 2 .634 r U W Z 4 .601 , O a a U F o I W 6 .567 > n. .534 i 1D .501 1 BORING BH -7/S -3 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND (SC) DEPTH (f t) 14 -15 , r MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (z) (pcf) SATURATION RATIO INITIAL 13.7 101.2 56 .668 FINAL 21.9 105.8 100 .594 Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water CONSOLIDATION TEST WINCHESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. For: ,Mesa Homes 89-81 - 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. B -10 i I• LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 10' 1 10 10 2 .406 r Z 4 .377 � O z a � z U � E O 6 .348 > W 8 .320 ' 10 .291 BORING BH -8/S -2 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND(SC) DEPTH (ft) 9 -10 MOISTURE DRY DENSITY PERCENT VOID CONTENT (a) (pct) SATURATION RATIO INITIAL 10.7 116.3 66 .435 ' FINAL 14.1 119.8 97 .393 Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water CONSOLIDATION TEST CHESTER HILL RESIDENTIAL DEV. Project No. For: Mesa Homes 89 -81- 173 -01 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire Drawing No. a -11 C ± m O • 7 m E m L m m J T I v 1-4 I I I m LU n` E � m Q` ljo E k Z c a 0 c E a `o m 1 m m E Z E C O O a m J T E Q J m tC N` m v — en CL V I m lll V i a o Q �' E L m LL Z m c a a LLI m ' Z Vl E m a = a m a m, CONVERSE ENVIROLAB 57 Wesc Bellevue 0,ve 5urce O Pasaaena CahPome 91'105 -2501 ' Teieonone: 61 a/796-8200 • ' May 30, 1990 PROJECT /CLIENT MESA HOMES PROJECT NO. :89 -81- 173 -01 ' Winchester Hills PROJECT ENG. /MGR. Greg Rzonca ENVIROLAB NO. :90 -71 -05 -108 Subject : Analysis of Samples May 2, 1990 one (1) soil sample was delivered to the laboratory be analyzed by ASTM methods for pH, chloride, soluble sulfates, and minimum resistivity. The sample was analyzed on May 19 -25, 1990. The ' results which were obtained are listed in the attached table. Seo Colovos, Ph.D g Laboratory Director 1 PROJECT /CLIENT : MESA HOMES DATE REPORTED : May 30,1990 , PROJECT NO. : 89 -81- 173 -01 DATE ANALYZED : May 19- 25,1990 PROJECT ENG. /MGR. : Greg Rzonca DATE RECEIVED : May 2,1990 ENVIROLAB NO. : 90 -71 -05 -108 RESULTS ANALYSIS OF SOIL SAMPLE a TABLE 1 BH #1,BULK #1 ANALYTE @0 -1' UNITS O pH 7.50 N/A Soluble Sulfates 53 mg /kg Soluble Chlorides 0.85 mg /kg Minimum Resistivity 14000 ohm.cm NA : Not Applicable _ 1 Reviewed by: Approved by: Shu -Teh Pan qGerge Colovos,Ph.D , Organics Lab Manager Laboratory Director CONVERSE ENVIROLAG ' APPENDIX C ' STABILITY ANALYSES 1 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' APPENDIX C ' STABILITY ANALYSES • Stability analyses for deep- seated failure were performed for the proposed cut and fill ' slopes. Surficial stability was also checked. Geologic cross - sections used in the analyses are presented on Drawings 6 through 7. ' Stability evaluations were performed using Janbu's Method (stability charts). ' Soil strength parameters used to determine surficial stability and deep- seated stability are presented below: SOIL STRENGTH COHESION FRICTION UNIT WEIGHT ' c. Dsf degree ^1, DO 1. CWT Slopes . Surficial 600 30 120 Deep- Seated 600 30 120 ' 2. :ill Slopes Surficial 300 21 120 Deep - Seated 300 21 120 Be esults of our analyses indicate that the slopes have adequate factor of safety against ' failure. ' 89 -81 -173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire C -2 , 2:1 (HORIZONTALNERTICAL) FILL SLOPE (40 FEET HIGH) •' SURFICIAL STABILITY Assumption: , I = soaked unit weight = 12o lb /ft' 7b = buoyed unit weight = It - 62.4 = depth of submergence = 3 feet ' a = slope angle = 26.56 ° m = 2r C = 300 psf Stability Analysis , 7b•3 • cos�a tan + c t -g • I • sin a cOSa _ 57.6 • 3 • COS tan21 + 300 3 120 sin26.56 • CO526.56 _ 353 144 ' FS = 2.45 89 -81 -173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' C -3 '• DEEP - SEATED ANALYSIS co 300 200 For c -0 iT' . 1_h� 1T +� -I- 30 ' - F•� ptano c 20 z 100 5 0 ' E 50 6 — -- - -- - _- -- Z -' .. .. :. a ' a 20 _ - --- - - — -- . z 0 N 1 0 _' 5 c F No old j 0 I2 3 a 5 Slope Polio b = -col G lope stability charts for 0 >0 soils (after Janbu, 1960) ' Stability Analysis Ac = P = 120. 45 • tan21° = 6.9 C 300 From the above chart, for a C;5 = 6.9 and slope ratio of 2, the Critical Stability Number N = 27 ' Factor of Safety, F = N C = 27 • 300 = 1.5 Pd 45 • 120 ' 89 -81 -173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire C -4 , 2:1 (HORIZONTALNERTICAL) CUT SLOPE (45 FEET HIGH) •, SURFICIAL STABILITY Assumption: , 7t = soaked unit weight = 120 lb /ft 7b = buoyed unit weight = I t - 62.4 3 = depth of submergence = 3 feet , = slope angle = 26.56 = 3 J C = 400 psf ' Stability Analysis , 7b•-Is • cos tan 0 + c , F.S. _ • -I • sin a Cosa 57.6 • 3 • cos=26.56 tan30° + 400 3 120 sin26.56 • cos26.56 , _ 480 144 ' FS = 3.33 89- 81- 173 -01 1 Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' C -5 ' • DEEP- SEATED ANALYSIS 100 300 50 For c -0 ' 200 p w F - oton e , 20 z 100 ,�._. 15 ° 50 , z - — — 20 to 0 o t 5 V F Ncf - ' 1 1 u 2 P, ton 0 a -- Xto > ' 0 2 4 5 $IOOe Rotio 1) .co t' Q lope stability charts for 0 > 0 soils (after Janbu, 1960) Assumption ' 0 Cohesion, C = 400 psf • Friction 0 = 30 ' • Unit weight, -1 = 120 pcf Stability Analysis ac O = PetanO = 120• 45 • tan3o° = 7.8 C 400 ' From the above chart, for a,, _ 7 -8 and slope ratio = 2, the Critical Stability Number N = 28 Factor of Safety, F = N C = Pd = 28 • 400 ' 1 • FS = 2.0 20 . 45 1 ' 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire 1 1 APPENDIX D ' RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1 1 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' APPENDIX D ' RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS • ' r din ' 1. Existing septic tanks and other underground storage tanks must be removed from the site prior to commencement of building, grading or fill operations. ' Underground tanks, including connecting drain fields and other lines, must be totally removed and the resulting depressions properly reconstructed and filled. Removal of underground tanks must be performed in accordance with the ' requirements of applicable regulatory agencies. Depressions left from tree removal shall also be properly filled and compacted. ' 2. Abandoned water wells on the site shall be capped according to the requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies. The strength of the cap shall be at least equal to the adjacent soils. The final elevation of the top of the ' well casing must be a minimum of 36 inches below adjacent grade prior to grading or fill operations. Structure foundations should not be placed over the capped well. The locations of any abandoned wells should be accurately ' surveyed and shown on the as -built grading plans. 3. The methods for removal of subsurface irrigation and utility lines will depend on the depth and location of the line. One of the following methods may be used: �• a. Remove the pipe and compact the soil in the trench according to the applicable portions of these grading recommendations. b. The pipe shall be crushed in the trench. The trench shall then be filled and compacted according to the applicable portions of these grading ' specifications. C. Cap the ends of the line with concrete to mitigate entrance of water. The ' length of the cap shall not be less than 5 feet. The concrete mix shall have a minimum shrinkage. 4. Subdrains shall be installed as discussed in Section 6.5. Clean -outs shall be observed by an Engineering Geologist or Soils Engineer prior to installation of subdrains. 1 5. Areas to receive compacted fill shall be stripped of all vegetation, organics, and debris. Any existing non - structured fill materials and other unsuitable soils shall ' be excavated as recommended by Converse Consultants Inland Empire (CCIE). All areas that are to receive compacted fill shall be observed by CCIE prior to placement of fill. ' 89 -81 -173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -2 , 6. Subsequent to the removal of unsuitable materials, subgrade soil surfaces that •' will receive compacted fill shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches. The ' scarified soil shall be moisture - conditioned to or slightly above optimum moisture content. Scarified soil shall be compacted to at least a relative compaction of 90 %. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio of the inplace ' soil density to the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 -78 test procedure. 7. Fill shall be placed in suitable lifts, with lift thickness modified as necessary to , achieve adequate compaction. All fill soils shall be compacted mechanically throughout to the specified density. Each layer shall be compacted to at least ' a minimum relative compaction of 90 %, except fill placed 40 feet or more below final grade shall be compacted to 95% relative compaction. Pavement base material shall be compacted to at least 95% of the ' ASTM D 1557 -78 laboratory maximum density. 8. Fill soils shall consist of excavated onsite non - expansive soils essentially cleaned ' of organic and deleterious material or imported soils approved by CCIE. All imported fill shall be granular and non - expansive with an Expansion Index (EI) ' less than 20, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 29 -2. Rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter shall not be used as fill unless they are sufficiently broken down. 9. When fill material includes rock, large rocks will not be allowed to nest and voids must be carefully filled with small stones or earth and properly compacted, as ' discussed in Section 6.12. 10. CCIE shall evaluate and /or test import materials for conformance with ' specifications prior to delivery to the site. The material used shall be free from organic matter and other deleterious material. The contractor shall notify CCIE at least two working days prior to importing fill to the site. 11. CCIE shall observe the placement of compacted fill and conduct inplace field density tests on the compacted fill to check for adequate moisture content and relative compaction as required by the project specification. Where less than the specified relative compaction is indicated, additional compactive effort shall be applied and the soil moisture - conditioned as necessary until the specified relative compaction is attained. The contractor shall provide level testing pads for the soils engineer to conduct field density tests on. The contractor shall provide safe and timely access for CCIE personnel throughout the grading site to allow continued monitoring and testing. , 12. Earth- moving and working operations shall be controlled to prevent water from running into excavated areas. Excess water shall be promptly removed and the , site kept dry. • t 89- 81- 173 -01 ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire ' D -3 ' Wherever, in the opinion of the Owner's or CCIE's Representatives, an unstable condition is being created, either by cutting or filling, the work shall not proceed 1 in that area until an investigation has been made and the grading plan revised if found necessary. t 14. Fill material shall not be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not ' be resumed until field tests by CCIE indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. 15. Whenever the words "supervision% "inspection ", or "control" appear they shall mean observation of the work and testing of the fill placement necessary by CCIE for substantial compliance with plans, specifications and design concepts. Erosion Control ' 1. Fill and cut slopes shall be graded and landscaped to reduce water - induced surficial erosion /sloughing. Permanent erosion control measures shall be initiated immediately after completion of slope construction. 2. All interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down- drains and any other drainage devices shall be maintained and kept clear of debris. Runoff shall be directed to a suitable non - erosive drainage device, and shall not flow uncontrolled offsite. 3. A suitable proportion of slope plantings shall have root systems which will develop well below 3 feet, such as drought- resistant shrubs and low trees, or equivalent. Intervening areas shall be planted with lightweight surface plantings ' with shallower root systems. In any event, lightweight, low- moisture planting shall be used. ' 4. Construction delays, climate /weather conditions, and plant growth rates may be such that additional short-term, non -plant erosion control measures may be needed including matting, netting, sprayed compounds, deep (5 feet) staking, ' etc. These measures shall be reviewed by CCIE. 5. Rodent burrowing, small concentration of uncontrolled surface /subsurface ' water, or poor compaction of utility trench backfill on slopes shall be repaired and controlled as soon as possible. ' 6. All possible precautions shall be taken to maintain moderate, uniform soil moisture. Slope irrigation systems shall be properly operated and maintained. ' 7. If completion of new slopes occurs during the rainy season, contingency plans shall be developed to provide prompt temporary protection against major • erosion /sloughing. Offsite improvement shall be protected from site runoff. t 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -4 ' 8. Any erosion damage which occurs prior to the completion of the project shall •' be repaired by the Contractor. ' 1 1 89 -81- 173 -01 Converse Consultants Inland Empire '. PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL':.' NATURAL GRADE ' UNSUITABLE MATERIAL i NOTE: Downstream 20' of pipe at outlet shall 'TYPICAL BENCHING be non - perforated and backfilled with fine- grained material ' SEE DETAIL BELOW COMPETENT MATERIAL ' NOTES: Pipe shall be a minimum of 4 Inches diameter and runs of 500 feet or more shall use 8 -Inch diameter pipe, or as recommended by the soil engineer MINIMUM CLEARANCE DIMENSIONS d ° 0 ; o C) FILTER MATERIAL - Minimum of nine cubic ° O D feet per foot of pipe.See Figure ib for 0 z U O Q filter material gradation 0 O 6 ALTERNATE In lieu of filter material nine ° o cubic feet of gravel per foot of pipe may be Depth and Bedding Q CJ 0 encased In filter fabric. See Figure 1 b May Vary with e p ° ° ° for gravel speclflcations.Filter fabric shall Pipe and Load. ° e be Mirafl 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric Characteristics. ' MIN. 8" MIN. shall be lapped a minimum of 12 Inches on 3' Feet Typical all Joints. V ° o 0. ° Minimum 4- Inch- clameter, PVC SCR 40 or o o ° O o ABS Class SDA -35 with a crushing strength C 0 p a 0 of at least 1000 ponds, with a minimum of ° ° m ° ° 8 uniformly- spaced perforations per foot of pipe, Inatalled with perforations on bottom of 18" MIN, pipe. ' Feet TYPIC TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Project NO. ' Temecula, California 89 -81- 173 -01 for: Mesa Homes F,q a No Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -1a 1 FILTER MATERIAL: Filter material shall be Class 2 permeable t _ material (Caltrans Standard Specification •- y "y.\ 68- 1.025) or approved alternate. U/ k` Class 2 grading as follows: FILTER MATERIAL !; \ SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING ' MIN. 9 CU. FT, ie N.. ,> ' MI 1' 100 3/4' 90-100 PER LINEAL FT. 3/8' 40-100 No. 4 25-40 1 .\ 18' .' O 18 No. 8 18-33 MIN. MIN. No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 / 6' MIN. � . � ;� No. 200 0-3 , PERFORATED PIPE 6' MIN. SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A : Perforated Pipe Surrounded with Filter Material ' 6' MIN. OVERLAP NOTE: ' J"I Imo— In addition to the wrapped {ravel, outlet portion of the subdrain should be equipped with a minimu of O O o� `,'� 10 feet loop perforated ted Pi pe a connected MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC ? oa o to a nonperforated pipe having a OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT o O nrN m mu of 5 feet M length inside oa i, the wrapped gravel. 1 -1/2' MIN. GRAVEL OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT , SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B : 1 -1/2' Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant. SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTM C508 Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) or ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5, or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile 8utadlene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034, SDR 23.5, or ASTM D1785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (pVC) pipe or the approved equivalent. TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL (continued) ' WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ooie�i a. Temecula, California 89 -81- 173 -CID, for: Mesa Homes F qu!e No Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -1b I CUT LOT NATURAL GROUND CO` �UV11JM. _ — — S0P SO1% . CEO B � OR OG % / WEPjHE /// OVER EXCAVATE and J REPLACE with UNWEATHERED UNWEATHERED COMPACTED FILL BEDROCK BEDROCK 1 CUT -FILL LOT (Transition) NATURAL GROUND 1 i i i COMPACTED FILL OVEREXCAVATE and i V`1 / REPLACE with OIL GO � / COMPACTED FILL UNWEATHERED �O ?S E� 6 / BEDROCK �pZ�� UNWEATHERED Y4 BEDROCK TYPICAL TRANSITION LOT DETAIL • WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Proiec:No. T- emecula. California 89- 81- 173 -01 for: Mesa Homes Fgur= No Converse Consultants Inland Empire D - 1 FILL BLANKET ' NOTES: 30' MIN. FIII blanket, beck cut. key width and key depth are subject to field change, 6 MIN. -I per report /plans Key heel subdrain, blanket drain, or vertical drain may be required at I _ •I the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. BACKDRAIN INSTALLATION - Backdrein pipe shall be Installed /.. in Impervious bedrock areas with perforations down. Backdraln ../ outlets shall be nonperforated pipe. The perforated collector should extent the length of the Daekdra in. /. BACK CUT ' BACKDRAIN PIPE - Backdrain pipe shall be ASTM C508 .' y' 1:1 or FLATTER Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) or ASTM D2751, '/ BENCHING SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 , Acrylonitrlle Butadlene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM r BACKDRAIN 03031 SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1785, Schedule _ - /_ (See Detail Below) 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. OUTLET PIPES / �. 10' MIN. EA. SIDE ZNO Plpe, � �.' CAP FOR . O.C. orizontally,. r - ~I ALT. B 30' max. O.C. Vertically .)_ ' KEY DEPTH 1" PERFORATED PIPE r:. NONPERFORATED ' OUTLET PIPE ' - T- CONNECTION KEY WIDTH 2' MIN. Eq uipment size - generally 1 ' APPROVED GEOTEXTILE FILTER MATERIAL NON PERFORATED OR EQUIVALENT 3 ft3 /ft. OUTLET PIPE T- CONNECTION Ig' MIN. 5 % MIN. -� _ 4' MIN. —F — iU `tip ii \'v 1-1/2' OU TLET p1PE .PERFORATED PIPE PERFORATED OPEN GRAVEL 4'0 MIN. COLLECTOR PIPE ' BACKDRAIN DETAIL 1 ALT. BACKDRAIN DETAIL 2 FILTER MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING Filter material shall be Class 2 1' 100 permeable material per State of 1/4' 90 -100 California Standard Specifications. 3/8' 40 -100 1 or approved alternate. No. 4 25-40 Class 2 grading as follows No. B 18 -33 No. 30 5 -15 ' No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0 -3 BUTTRESS or STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P,o,e N Temecula, California 89- 81- 173 -L' f M esa Homes F yure up Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -3 ' COMPACTED FILL NONPERFORATED ' OUTLET PIPE PROJECTED PLANE 1 to 1 maximum from toe of slope to . approved ground 4' Typical REMOVE NATURAL GROUND / UNSUITABLE BENCH HEIGHT MATERIAL BENCH i BACKDRAIN for SLOPES OVER 15 FEET In HEIGHT 2' MIN. KEY DEPTH 15' MIN. —LOWEST BENCH — (Key) NOTES: ' LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change based on consultant's inspection. SUBDRAINAGE: Back drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical ' consultant. ' FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE • WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Project No Temecula, California 89 -81- 173 -01 for: Mesa Homes F , ,? NO ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -a I I ' PROPOSED SURCHARGE ' FILL - OVER -CUT SLOPE PERMEABLE COMPACTED FILL ' FORMER NATURAL PROFILE BENCHED IF >5:1 SLOPE i � TYPICAL SUBDRAIN at HEEL of KEY(See Subdrain Detail below) EQUIPMENT -WIDTH KEY at 2 -FOOT MINIMUM DEPTH and 2% FALL to HEEL ' LOW PERMEABILITY BEDROCK APPROVED GEOTEXTILE ' FILTER MATERIAL NON PERFORATED OR EO UIVALENT 3 ft. /ft. OUTLET PIPE �\ T— CONNECTION 6' MIN. _ \\_ _ " •'...'.'.1 ' 5% MIN. 4' MIN. T L1 -1/2' OU T PERFORATED PIPE PERFORATED ERFORATED .i \ OPEN GRAVEL 4'0 MIN. COLLECTOR PIPE ' BACKDRAIN DETAIL 1 ALT. BACKDRAIN DETAIL 2 FILTER MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING Filter material shall be Class 2 1' 100 permeable material per State of 1/4" g0 -100 California Standard Specifications. 3/8' 40 -100 or approved alternate. No. 4 25 -40 Class 2 grading as follows No. 8 18 -33 No. 30 5 -15 No. 50 0 -7 No. 200 0 -3 DRAINAGE BLANKET DETAIL WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Pfoieu No Temecula, California 89-81 -173- for: Mesa Homes Converse Consultants Inland Empire D -5 ' 1 CUT /FILL CONTACT SHOWN on GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL COMPETENT MATERIAL CUT /FILL CONTACT to be .. .. . MA R1 AL SHOWN on "AS- BUILT' B' MIN. T'c �ARIABL = NATURAL GRADE 4' MIN. MINIMUM HEIGHT of BENCHES Is CUT SLOPE _ ! ! i 4 FEET or as RECOMMENDED by the SOILS ENGINEER BACKDRAIN of SLOPE is ' - HIGHER THAN 25 FEET and BEDROCK Is IMPERVIOUS MINIMUM 1' TILT TRACK or CUT SLOPE to be CONSTRUCTED 1 2% SLOPE (whichever is greater) PRIOR to PLACEMENT of FILL i BEDROCK or APPROVED KEYWAY In COMPETENT MATERIAL / COMPETENT MATERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH of 15 FEET or as —' LNONPERFORATED RECOMMENDED by the SOIL ENGINEER OUTLET PIPE 1 TYPICAL FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P,oien No Temecula, California 89 -81- 173 -01 for: Mesa Homes fqure Pio Converse Consultants Inland Empire D-6 FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE , 10' MIN.. COMPACTED FILL ., / 4' MIN. " ' ; 16' MIN. %. •/ O . GRANULAR SOIL To fill voids, densified by flooding DETAIL 1 ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FOR ISOLAT BURIAL WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PfoieClNo Temecula, California 89- 81- 173 -0•� for: Mesa Homes 4gwe uo Converse Consultants Inland Empire D_7 I�JI l j` i s O r n ° Y �' ,' ��� 'o.. Y. ✓(. ✓ ... r �� / Y � m c pp /t a r '- Y 1 5 : / �' � I x ,� I'InIII Y' - � � f• / ° /y N Ch Zo c 06 d u a /AAA' q `. / I I I I 1 ° .b� i / ? p . r o� 1 r Lr C . , ✓ Yl„ .I � . LU � /. °y Y �� ° 7[\ J ,/ n , � ., o P � o • / /�• E n s C` �I/ �° 1..� •4c ��IO I Ill 11 lf"Vlllrn�r \\° "� •' �4�. �. I / r� I 1/ i /1 Y � �a'! rat - // e r^ / s g .. °O uj / C N �• I • 1.1 \ 1 V1 Owl.. \/ / C \ t ar� r (I `III p I - Y u [L 'IC` O I 1 °° U C + _ "c 3C L6"=c' it o / \ - ' ~A , �_ I ,� ; ` �, r �' LJ.I [A If i Y '•UJr a P oa' X l 4 ill n n E ° Y _ O p C -. 514`— M' /° \'•E 1 I� 1h� I � I' Q t0 Ali • ' y ' li r,' ~ � f ° ° \ \ \: V l0 I N ° � cu E I Jam.. Z `. /. /E W , O CL 1 E W aI C O LL. CL I I ¢ :Q rot oe r,e • APPENDIX E2 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS BY CONVERSE CONSULTANTS '�. DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1998 Converse Consultants • Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences r SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Winchester Hills Residential Development t ; Temecula, CA Prepared for: Lennar Homes 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Converse Project No. 98 -81- 104 -01 February 20, 1998 � ,�° 10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374 ♦� Telephone: (909) 796 -0544 ♦ Facsimile (909) 796 -7675 1 e -mail ccieconv @aol com Converse Consultants Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences • February 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Johnson Project Director, California Land Division Lennar Homes 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, California 92691 Subject: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Winchester Hills Residential Development Approximately 560 -Acre Site Temecula, California Converse Project No. 98 -81- 104 -01 ' Dear Mr. Johnson: Converse Consultants has enclosed the summary report of the geotechnical /geologic conditions that exist at the above - referenced site. This report was prepared in �l accordance with our proposal dated February 13, 1998. Based on our review of available documents, earth materials at the site consist of artificial fill, younger alluvium, colluvium, older alluvium, and Pauba Formation Bedrock. Site soils are comprised of mainly sand, silty sand, fine grained clayey and silty sand ' and sandstone with locally interbedded silty claystone and clayey sandstone. Perched groundwater was encountered in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek in 1988 at r' depths of 16 to 24 feet below the ground surface during a liquefaction study performed by Converse Consultants. ICG Incorporated reported groundwater at depths ranging from 32 to 38 feet below the existing ground surface in 1989. The site is not located in a currently designated State of California Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone. The nearest know active fault is the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore fault zone that is located approximately 1 .9 miles to the southwest., The Murrieta Hot Springs fault is located approximately 1 .0 mile north of the site and is currently not listed as a Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone. However, according to the County of Riverside, the Murrieta Hot Springs fault has reported evidence of active faulting but has not yet been upgraded to "Active" by the State or the County. Portions of the site which may be considered susceptible to soil liquefaction will be mitigated by the proposed grading. Site soils have a slight to moderate collapse potential. Limited laboratory testing and field observations indicated the potential of the presence of moderately collapsible soils within the drainage course areas of the 1 project. Site soils have very low expansion potential and are not significantly corrosive to concrete or ferrous metal. 10391 Corporate Drive. Redlands, California 92374 I�r Pad' = Telephone: (909) 795 -0544 + Facsimile: (909) 796r7675 + e -mail: ccieconv@aolcom Earth materials at the site will be excavatable with conventional heavy -duty earth moving equipment. Based on Converse Consultants 1990 report, site grading will include removal and replacement as processed compacted fills all undocumented fill materials, the upper two (2) to six feet (6) feet of recent alluvium, older alluvium and colluvium and overexcavation of ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet of landslide deposits. Further investigation and an updated geotechnical /geologic report must be prepared. The report will include earthwork, foundations and construction recommendations pertinent to the Lennar Planned Development. Based on our preliminary review of existing reports and site reconnaissance, we conclude that the project site is suitable for the proposed residential /commercial development. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Lennar Homes. If you have any questions, please feel to contact the undersigned at (909) 796 -0544. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS J " M Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph.D., P. E. Senior Vice President /Principal Engineer ' Dist.: 4 /Addressee MSI /HSQ /MOC /bac a t� 98- 81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants •' \CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse Consultants under the professional supervision of the following individuals whose seals and signatures appear hereon. The findings, recommendations, specifications and professional opinions contained in this report were prepared in accordance with the generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principle and practice in this area of Southern California. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Michael O. Cook, C.E.G. 1716 Hsueh -Hsin (William) Chu, P. E. �i Project Engineering Geologist Project Engineer Reviewed and approved by: Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph. D., P. E Senior Vice President /Principal Engineer 98-81-104-01 Converse Consultants \CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ ..............................1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................... ..............................1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. ..............................2 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................... ..............................2 4.1 SITE LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES ................................... ..............................2 4.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................. ..............................2 4.3 SITE GEOLOGY .......................................................... ..............................3 4.4 GROUNDWATER ......................................................... ..............................4 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................ ..............................4 t 5.1 FAULTING ................................................................ ..............................4 5.2 SEISMICITY .............................................................. ..............................5 FFECTS OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY.............. 7 5.3 SECONDARY E 6 .0 FLOOD HAZARDS ...................................................... ..............................8 7.0 LIQUEFACTION ......................................................... ..............................8 r 8.0 OVEREXCAVATION ................................................... ..............................8 9.0 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE ................................... ..............................9 9 .0 SUMMARY ............................................................ ............................... 10 10.0 CLOSURE ........................................................... ............................... 11 REFERENCES .................................................................. .............................12 98.81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants `,CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98 -81 \98 -104 -1 .SUM 4 ILLUSTRATIONS • Figure No. Following Page No. Figure No. 1, Site Location Map (October 1990) ............................ ............................... 1 TABLES TABLE N0. 1, SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS ............................6 4P N l 1 98 -81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants ICCIENT \OFFICEWOBFILE \1998 \98 -81 \98 -104.1 .SUM 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents a summary of the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the approximately 560 -acre Winchester Hills property, located in northeastern Temecula, California. The location of the site is shown in Figure No. 1, Site Location Map, copied from the Converse Consultants Inland Empire report dated October 8, 1990. The subject property, designated as Tentative Tracts. No. 25321 through 25324 and 25464, is proposed to be developed as residential and commercial lots. This summary of geotechnical conditions was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our proposal dated February 13, 1998. The purpose of this summary was to identify site - specific geotechnical and geologic constraints that may impact the proposed development. This report is for the use of Lennar Homes, as it applies to the subject property identified herein. The summary presented in this report are based on an agreed -upon, limited scope of work and are for planning purposes only, Additional geotechnical and geologic investigations are necessary to develop site - specific detailed grading /earthwork recommendations, and geotechnical design and construction recommendations. Reliance on this report by third parties shall be at the sole risk of said third parties. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work to prepare this summary report is as follows: ti Reviewed the Geotechnical Investigation Report, tentative Tracts 25321 through 25324 and 25464 (Winchester Hills Residential Development) dated October 8, 1990 prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire (89 -81- 173 -01) for Mesa Homes • Conducted a site reconnaissance to inspect the changes that occurred to the site -- compared to what was presented in the above referenced report 98 -81- 104 -01 • Converse Consultants \CCIENT \0FFICE \JCBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1 .SUM ] 'Q - q -C 7f 1 7 . . . . . . . . . . ' us 6 f - 7 K u J, 'C 7/ 7. _y. 00 0 — o f -2, '023 C Alquist-Prlolo np ecla studles zone, Wlldornmr branch of Elsinore Fault D 1000 2000 4000 REFERENCE: T_If� SCALE IN FEET CDMG, Alquist-Prioio Special Studlee Zone, Murrieta Quadrangle, 1990 SITE LOCATION MAP WINCHESTER HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT No Temecula, California 89-81-173-( i s I jor..Mesa Homes Converse Consultants Inland Empire • Reviewed available literature on faulting and groundwater in the general area of the , project 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed development includes residential housing tracts, commercial building lots and infrastructure. It is anticipated that such development will include both one- and two- story residential buildings, commercial buildings, schools, construction of streets, driveways, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscape areas, utilities including storm drain, sewer, water, gas pipelines, electrical lines and other appurtenant facilities usually associated with such development. Site development may include slopes and earth retaining walls. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4.1 Site Location and Boundaries The project site, as shown in Figure No. 1, Site Location Map, consists of . approximately 560 acres of undeveloped land. The irregular shaped site is bounded on the north by vacant land and Warm Springs Creek, the east by Margarita Road and residential developments, the south by Santa Gertrudis Creek and commercial development and the west by the Interstate 15 Freeway. 4.2 Surface Conditions The site is currently undeveloped open land with a few dirt roads cross the site. The topography consists of three (3) northeast trending ridges and two (2) primary drainages. The existing ground surface elevation ranges from 1170 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the north central boundary of the site to 960 feet MSL at the southwest corner. The overall site generally drains to the southwest towards the Interstate 15 freeway. The two (2) main drainages are dry but show signs of recent stream flow due to the current rainy season. The drainages are filled with fine to coarse sand. The site is covered with low weeds and grasses with some local concentrations of taller growth in the canyon bottoms. Isolated trees are scattered throughout the site and a row of eucalyptus trees is present along Interstate 15. 98 -81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants • \CCIENT \OFFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \96- 61 \98- 104 -1.SUM 2 Artificial fill was place along the eastern boundary to construct Margarita Road. The adjacent properties in the northeast corner of the site have been graded but are not developed. The Date Street alignment at Margarita Road has been graded but not ' paved. 4.3 Site Geology Quaternary -age Pauba Formation bedrock, ancient landslides, older alluvium, younger alluvium, colluvium, and artificial fill underlie the project site. The Pauba Formation bedrock is primarily an arkosic sandstone with interbeds of clayey sandstone and silty claystone. The bedrock is massive to thickly bedded. Several relatively small landslides are present in the northeast portion of the site. The landslides were interpreted on the basis of geomorphology and air photo interpretation. Basal shear planes were observed in several test pits excavated within and along the i perimeter of the landslides. No evidence of surficial or deep- seated instability was observed elsewhere on the site. Older alluvium occurs within much of the site and is overlain by a variable thickness of younger alluvium and topsoil. ' Younger alluvium is present within the drainages throughout the site and Santa Gertrudis Creek flood plain area. Colluvium locally mantles the bedrock throughout the site with a typically thin vineer near the top of the ridges and thickening at the base of the natural slopes. These geologic units consist of arkosic sandstone with interbedded clayey sandstone and silty claystone; silty sand, clayey sand and fine grained silty and clayey sands. Artificial fills, both engineered and non - engineered, are present in various locations ' across the site. Engineered fill was placed to construct Margarita Road along the eastern boundary, the northeast corner to construct (future) Date Road and the southeastern portion of the site for construction of Santa Ynez Road and a commercial development. Non - engineered fill was placed to construct a small reservoir near the _ northeast edge of the site, near the end of Santa Ynez road and several small dirt roads that traverse the site. 98 -81- 104 -01 • Converse Consultants \CCIENT\ OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1 .SUM 3 4.4 Groundwater , Converse Consultants did not encounter groundwater during the field investigation in 1990. However, during the subsurface investigation for the liquefaction evaluation in 1988, perched zones of water were encountered in several borings in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Depth to groundwater ranged from 16 to 24 feet below the surface. A Geotechnical feasibility study conducted by ICG Incorporated in 1989 reported groundwater at 32 to 38 feet below the ground surface. 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting i Based on our review of the existing information, there are no known active faults projecting toward or extending across the proposed project site. An active fault is defined as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The project site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active fault is the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately 1 .1 miles southwest of this site. The Murrieta Hot Springs fault zone is locate about 1 mile north of the site. The State of California or the County of Riverside does not currently classify the Murrieta Hot Springs fault as active. However, based on telephone conversations with , Mr. Steve Kupferman, County of Riverside geologist and Dr. Tom Rockwell with UC San Diego, recent studies performed on the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault indicate that the fault is active. According to Mr. Kupferman, the State of California and the County of Riverside have both preliminarily reviewed the study reports but neither agency has yet upgraded the fault designation from potentially active to active. Converse Consultants conducted a fault study in 1989 to evaluate three photolineaments (possible faults) to evaluate the potential for site surface rupture. The fault study consisted of the excavation of five trenches across the previously identified photolineaments. Converse Consultants, Dr. Roy Shlemon, Quaternary faulting consultant and Mr. Steven Kupferman, Riverside County Geologist, observed the fault trenches. Based on the observations and results of the fault study, the photolineaments were interpreted to be the result of normal weathering processes and are not due to surface fault rupture. 98- 81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants \CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1 .SUM 4 1 ` • The approximate distances of nearby fault zones capable of generating significant ground motions at the site are listed alphabetically in Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Faults. 5.2 Seismicity The project site is situated in a seismically active region. As is the case for most areas . of Southern California, ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with ' nearby and distant faults may occur. During the life of the project, seismic activity associated with active faults in the area. may generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. The seismicity section of the report completed in 1990 by Converse Consultants was performed to the standards required at that time. Due to advancements in fault modeling and current seismic data the seismicity information for the site will require an update. The following sections provide a preliminary seismic review that will be incorporated into an updated geotechnical report when approved grading plans become available. According to the Uniform Building Code (1994), the project site is situated in Seismic Zone 4. Major damage corresponding to intensities VIII or higher on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale may occur within this zone. Seismic Zone 4 also includes those areas that lie within a zone of major (Richter Magnitude, M >7) historic earthquakes and recent high levels of seismicity. For structural design purposes, the seismic ground motion is usually associated with either a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) or a Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) associated with a return period. A MCE is defined as the maximum seismic event that a particular fault is theoretically I capable of producing and is evaluated based upon existing geologic and seismologic evidence. Various researchers (Wesnousky, 1986) have presented estimated values ' of MCE for various California faults. Deterministic ground acceleration at a given site corresponding to the MCE of a given fault may be estimated by utilizing various attenuation relationships published in the literature. Such an analysis was performed by utilizing the computer program EQFAULT developed by Blake (1996) for various active faults within a 100 -km (62 -mile) radius from the project site. The MCE assigned to various faults are those selected by Blake. 98 -81- 104 -01 • Converse Consultants \CCIENT \OFFICE\JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM 5 The results of the analysis are presented in Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics of • Nearby Faults. Only those active or potentially active faults that are estimated to be capable of generating a ground acceleration of 0.1 g or greater at the project site are included in Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Active Faults. The peak horizontal site accelerations presented in Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics. of Nearby Active Faults, are obtained in accordance with the "Random- Mean" attenuation relationship (Joyner and Boore, 1 933a). The soils profile is classified as a Type B: soft ' rock /stiff soil sites for the purpose of this analysis. Based on the results of the above deterministic analysis, the project site may experience a peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 0.591 g, where, g is ' the acceleration due to gravity, due to the movement of the Elsinore Fault. The nearest , faults to have the most significant seismic impact on the project site are considered to be the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone and, to a lesser degree, the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault. Additional literature research of current data will be required to evaluate and update the potential seismic impact of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault on the project. Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Active Faults ASSIGNED MAXIMUM PEAK �. Approx. MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO FAULT CREDIBLE FAULT GROUND NAME FROM EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION AT PROJECT SITE MAGNITUDE PROJECT SITE (miles) (9) M' 21 Casa Loma -Clark (San Jacinto) I 7.0 0.116 Chino 28 7.00 0.172 Elsinore 1 7.50 0.591 Glen Helen -Lytle Cr- Clrement 23 7.00 0.108 Hat Springs Buck Rog. 24 7.00 0.106 San Andreas(Coachella Valley) 47 8.00 0.105 San Andreas (San Bdno Mountains) 40 8.00 0119 San Gorgonio - Banning 33 7.50 0.130 Notes: Moment Magnitude Mw of earthquake expected for rupture of entire fault length, estimated with slip - rate dependent empirical relations between seismic moment Mo and fault length and assuming the empirical relationship Log Mo =1.5 Mw + 16.1 (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979). 98- 81- 104 -01� Converse Consultants \CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFI1_E \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM 6 • ' A historical analysis using the computer program EQSEARCH also developed by Blake (1997) the site has experienced a maximum ground acceleration about 0.146g during a 6.8 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter 17 miles northeast of the site along the San Jacinto Fault in 1918. The vertical acceleration may be taken as two- thirds of the horizontal acceleration. 5.3 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity Secondary effects of seismic activity include surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, differential settlement of structures, ground lurching, landsliding, earthquake- induced flooding, seiches, and tsunamis. Site - specific potential for each of.these seismic hazards is discussed in the following sections. Surface Fault Rupture: The site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on review of existing geologic information, no known active fault zone crosses or projects towards the site. The potential for surface fault rupture resulting from the movement of the nearby major faults is not known with certainty but is considered low. Liquefaction: An area adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek and an area adjacent to Interstate 15 were mapped as areas that may be susceptible to liquefaction. However, the proposed grading of up to 25 feet of compacted fill in these area will mitigate the liquefaction potential. Therefore the proposed development is not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction. Differential Settlement: The site is underlain by predominantly granular soils. However, these soils are relatively well graded and, in general, in dense conditions. Such soils are not susceptible to significant differential settlement during seismic shaking. Lateral Spreading: Natural and fill slopes within the site, in their existing conditions, may experience some lateral spreading in the event of a strong ground motion. Landslides: The potential for seismically induced landslides to affect the proposed site is considered nil. 98 -81- 104 -01 • Converse Consultants \CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1 .SUM 7 ®, Tsunamis: Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the location of the site, tsunamis do not pose a hazard. Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Based on the site location, seiches do not pose a hazard. Earthquake- Induced Flooding: This flooding is caused by failure of dams or other water - retaining structures as a result of earthquakes. The nearest reservoir to the site is Lake Skinner located approximately 6 miles northeast of the project. The potential of earthquake- induced flooding of the subject site due to failure of the dam is considered to be low. 6.0 FLOOD HAZARDS Santa Gertrudis Creek is situated along the southern boundary of the site. The Creek alignment has been improved and is a lined channel near Margarita Road. The proposed grading along Santa Gertrudis Creek includes raising existing surface grades 25 to 30 feet. This grading will raise the ground surface approximately 40 feet higher than the creek bottom, thereby reducing the potential of flooding. 7.0 LIQUEFACTION A liquefaction study was performed Converse Consultants in 1988 within the alluvial soils adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Based on that study, a layer of alluvial soils approximately 1 to 2 feet thick may be prone to liquefaction. However, the proposed grading will place up to 25 feet of compacted fill over the area and thereby mitigating the liquefaction potential. 1 8.0 OVEREXCAVATION Complete removal of all younger alluvium topsoil, and loose compressible low strength older alluvium, and /or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills. 98- 81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants \CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM 8 ' ' Preliminary estimated depths of removals are as follows: Landslide - 10 to 15 feet Younger Alluvium - 4 to 6 feet ♦ Older Alluvium and Colluvium - 2 to 6 feet Artificial Fill - 3 to 10 feet Cut /fill transition lots will require over excavation of the cut portions of the lots to mitigate the potential of differential settlement. Alluvial areas adjacent to Margarita Road .fills may require remedial grading to provide 1 suitable subgrade prior to fill placement. 9.0 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE For preliminary estimate purposes, bulking and shrinkage factors for various units of earth material at the site may be taken as presented below. Topsoil, Alluvium and Colluvium: The average shrinkage factor for these surficial soils is estimated to be, on average,'approximately 12% by volume, with variations ranging from 6% to 20 %. Pauba Bedrock: Shallow porous Pauba Bedrock may shrink from negligible to 10% by volume when property recompacted. An average shrinkage value of 4% is recommended for preliminary shrinkage calculations. Subsidence in the ravines due to earthwork activities would depend on the construction methods including type of equipment utilized. For estimation purposes, ground subsidence may be taken as 0.20 feet. The above shrinkage and subsidence factors are provided for preliminary planning estimate purposes only. These factors should not be used to estimate earthwork quantities or incorporated into a grading plan. The final estimate of bulking and shrinkage factors for earthwork calculations should be provided at the completion of a detailed site- specific geotechnical exploration. 98 -81- 104 -01 Converse Consultants \ CCIENTI0FF10EW0BFILE11998 \98 -81 \98- 104 -1 . SUM 9 9.0 SUMMARY t The following summary for the proposed development are based on our review of existing reports, site reconnaissance, and interviews. • Artificial fills, topsoil, colluvial and younger alluvial deposits underlie the project site. The thickness of these surficial soils ranges from about two (2) to six (6) feet. • Landslides present in the northeast corner of the site should be completely excavated. The thickness of these landslides ranges from about ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet. • Earth materials at the site are comprised of mainly arkosic sandstone with interbedded clayey sandstone and silty claystone, silty sand, clayey sand and fine grained silty and clayey sands. • The site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active fault designated as the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone and capable of generating significant ground motion at the site is the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault. This fault is located approximately 1 .1 mile southwest of the project site. • The Elsinore Fault is considered to have the greatest potential to have an impact at the project site. Based on a deterministic seismic hazard analysis, the project site may experience a mean peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 0.591g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, due to a maximum credible earthquake of moment magnitude of 7.5 associated with the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault. • The project site is not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction due to the proposed grading mitigating areas of shallow perched groundwater with liquefiable soils. • The potential of seismic hazards due to the secondary effects of earthquakes including surface fault rupture, seismically induced differentials ground settlement, slope stability, lateral spreading, landslides, earthquake induced flooding is considered to be very low to low. Based on the site location, tsunamis or seiches do not pose a hazard. 98 -81- 104 -01 i1 Converse Consultants \CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM 10 1 t ♦ Earth materials at the site should be excavatable with. conventional heavy -duty earth moving equipment. ♦ The project site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided finding and conclusions presented in our previous and future geotechnical reports are followed in the planning, design and construction of the project. 10.0 CLOSURE 1 The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice at this time in Southern California. The purpose of this investigation was limited to assessing geotechnical site conditions for the purpose of planning only. The information presented herein should not be used for the development of a grading plan, earthwork estimate and /or foundation design and construction. A detailed site - specific geotechnical investigation will be required once the final development plans, including grading plans with building layouts, are available. As the project evolves, Converse's continued consultation and construction monitoring should be considered an extension of geotechnical investigation services performed to date. This summary report was prepared for Lennar Homes for the subject project described herein. We are not responsible for technical interpretations made by others of our exploratory information. Specific questions or interpretations concerning our findings ` and conclusions may require a written clarification to avoid future misunderstandings. 98 -81- 104 -01 • Converse Consultants ' \CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \98- 81 \98- 104 -1.SUM ]] 1 1 ' REFERENCES Blake, T. (1996), EQFAULT, Version 2.01, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California. Blake, T. (1997), EQSEARCH, Version 2.01, A Computer Program for the Estimation ' of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalog (Earthquake Events Updated Through 6/97), Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California. BOORE, D. M., JOYNER, W. B., and FUMAL, T. E, 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes, An Interim Report, U.S.G.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93 -509, 15 pages. California Division of Mines and Geology (1994), Fault Activity Map of California and ' Adjacent Areas, DMG Open File Report 92 -03. alifornia division of Mines and Geology (1990), Murrieta Quadrangle, Special Studies Zones, Scale 1 :24000, Revised Official map effective January 1 , 1990. Converse Consultants Inland Empire (1990), Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tracts 25321 Through 25324 and 25464, Winchester hills Residential Development, Temecula, California, CCIE Project No. 89 -81- 173 -01, Dated October, 8, 1990. Hanks, T., and Kanamori, H., 1979, A Moment Magnitude Scale, Jnl. Geophys. Res., Vol. 84, pp. 2348 -2350. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, 1994, Uniform Building Code. ISHIHARA, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes," Proc., 11th Int. Conf., on Soil Mach. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 1, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 321 -376. r 1 • 1 ROLLINS, K.M. et al (1994), Identification and Characterization if Collapsible Gravels, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 120, No. 3, March. SEED, H. B., TOKIMATSU, K., HARDER, L, F., and CHUNG, R. M., 1985, Evaluation of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(8). UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC), 1994, International Conference of Building Officials. Wesnousky, S. G. (1986), Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California, Jnl. of Geophys. Res., vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 12587 - 12631. , Western Municipal Water District (Spring, 1997), Cooperative Well Measuring Program, Upper Santa Ana Rivershed. ZIONY J. I. and YERKES R. F. (1985), Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. r r r r r r 1 1� 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E3 N SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS � BY CONVERSE CONSULTANTS � DATED JUNE 21 1999 Converse Consultants • Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Sweetwater Specific Plan Approximately 560 -Acre Site Temecula, California ' Prepared for: ' Lennar Homes 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, California 92691 ' Converse Project No. 98 -81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 I i� 10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands. California 92374 Telephone (909) 796 -0544 ♦ Facsimile (909) 796 -7675 ♦ e -mail caeconv @aol com 9Q. Converse Consultants • W Over 60 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environment at Sciences June 21, 1999 ' Mr. Bill Storm Project Director, California Land Division Lennar Homes 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, California 92691 ' Subject: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Sweetwater Specific Plan Approximately 560 -Acre Site Temecula, California Converse Project No. 98 -81- 104 -01 Dear Mr. Storm: Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this summary report of the geotechnical conditions for the above - referenced site. In addition we reviewed the Conceptual Land Use Plan, prepared by EDAW Inc., dated April 1, 1999. This report was prepared in accordance with our confirming proposal dated May 27, 1999. i This property was formerly called the Winchester Hills Residential Development. The proposed development has been renamed the Sweetwater Specific Plan. Recommendations from prior geotechnical investigations, as presented in Converse reports dated October 8, 1990 and February 20, 1998, are considered to be applicable to the current Land Use Plan. Revisions to the prior recommendations apply specifically to seismic analysis based on current State of California standards for digitized earthquake fault alignments and applicable maximum credible earthquakes. Based on our review of available documents, as listed in Section 2.0 of this report, Converse has summarized the following general conclusions: • In -situ materials at the site consist of artificial fill, recent Alluvium, Colluvium, Older Alluvium, and Pauba Formation Bedrock. • Site soils are comprised of mainly sand, silty sand, fine grained clayey and silty ' sand, and sandstone with locally interbedded silty claystone and clayey sandstone. 10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374 C�� Telephone (909) 796 -0544 ♦ Facsimile (909) 796 -7675 ♦ e-mail ccieconv @aol com 98 -81- 104 -01 , June 21, 1999 Page ii ' • Perched groundwater was encountered in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek, reported by Converse in 1988 at depths of 16 to 24 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was reported at depths ranging from 32 to 38 feet below the existing ground surface in 1989 (ICG, 1989). Groundwater was not encountered during the , 1990 geotechnical investigation by Converse. • The site is not located within a currently designated State of California Fault - Rupture Hazard Zone. • The nearest known active fault is the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone, located approximately one (1) mile southwest to the site. • The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone is located approximately one (1) mile north of the site. According to the County of Riverside, the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone has reported evidence of active faulting but has not yet been zoned to "Active" by the State or the County. • Portions of the site which may be considered susceptible to soil liquefaction will be , mitigated by the proposed grading. • Site soils have a slight to moderate collapse potential. • Site soils have very low expansion potential and are not significantly corrosive to ' concrete or ferrous metal. • On -site soil will be excavatable with conventional heavy -duty earth moving ' equipment. Based on our geotechnical report (1998), site grading will include removal and replacement as processed compacted fills all undocumented fill materials, the upper (2) to six (6) feet of recent alluvium, older alluvium, colluvium, and the overexcavation of ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet of landslide deposits. Based on our review of existing reports and the Conceptual Land Use Plan, prepared t by EDAW, dated April 1, 1999, we conclude that the project site is considered suitable, from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed residential /commercial developments. An updated geotechnical /geologic report should be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations when the Tentative Tract Maps become available for our review. Converse Consultants CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 -104 -1 .SM2 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 • Page iii ' This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse under the professional supervision of the following individuals whose seals and signatures appear hereon. ' The findings, conclusions, and professional opinions contained in this report were prepared in accordance with the generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principle and practice in this area of Southern California. We make ' no other warranty, either express or implied. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to Lennar Homes. If you have any questions, please feel to contact the undersigned at (909) 796 -0544. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Reviewed and approved by: Michael 0. Cook, C. E.G. 1716 William H. Chu, P. E. Project Engineering Geologist Senior Engineer ��9 \neerinp -- ��a Pow Q p€�ssM o ���cJF -rsiu U Michael O. �Z CEG 1716 Nc. U514e i a At ��' a * Exo. � A -_L s(a re of ' Dist.: 1 /Addressee 6 /EDAW WHC /MOC /bac �i Converse Consultants 1 CCIENT\ 0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98 - 104 \98 - 104 -1.SM2 98 -81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page iv ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ ..............................1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK .........................:............................ ..............................1 ' 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. ..............................2 , 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................... ..............................2 4.1 SITE LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES ...................................................... ............................... 2 , 4 .2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... ..............................2 4 .3 SITE GEOLOGY .............................................................................. ..............................3 4.4 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................ ............................... 4 , 5 .0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................ ..............................4 5.1 FAULTING .................................................................................... ............................... 4 5.2 SEISMICITY ................................................................................. ............................... 5 5.3 SECONDARY EFFECTS OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY ........................................... ..............................6 6.0 FLOOD HAZARDS ...................................................... ..............................8 7.0 OVEREXCAVATION ................................................... ..............................8 8.0 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE ................................... ..............................8 9.0 CLOSURE ................................................................. ..............................9 REFERENCES................................................................ ............................... 10 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure No. Following Page No. Figure No. 1, Site Location Map (October 1990) ............................ ............................... 1 , Figure No. 2, Geologic Summary Map (April 1, 1999 Land Use Pl an) ............................... 3 TABLES TABLE N0. 1, SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS ...... ............................... 6 Converse Consultants lei CCIENT \0FFICE \J06FI1-E \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 -104 -1 .SM2 ' 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 1 • ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' This report presents a summary of the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the approximately 560 -acre Sweetwater Specific Plan, located in northeastern Temecula, California. This property was formerly called the Winchester Hills Residential Development. The proposed development has been renamed the Sweetwater Specific Plan. t The subject property, designated as Tentative Tracts No. 25321 through 25324 and 25464, is proposed to be developed as residential and commercial properties. The location of the site is shown on Figure No. 1, Site Location Map. The purpose of this summary was to identify site - specific geotechnical and geologic constraints that may impact the proposed developments as identified in the April 1, 1999 Initial Study /Notice of Preparation. The geotechnical and geologic constraints analysis as presented in the 1990 and 1998 Converse reports remain applicable in relation to the April 1, 1990 Conceptual Land Use Plan, except for an update to the seismic analysis based on current fault modeling as adapted and modified primarily from the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) fault database for the State of California. A revised seismic analysis based on the CDMG fault database is presented in Section 5.2 of this report. When Tentative Tract Maps become available for review, an updated geotechnical /geologic report should be prepared to develop site - specific detailed grading /earthwork recommendations, foundation design and construction recommendations. ' This report is for the use solely by Lennar Homes and their consultants, as it applies to the subject property identified herein. The summary presented in this report is based on an agreed -upon, limited scope of work and is for planning purposes and inclusion into the site - specific Environmental Impact Report. ' 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work to prepare this summary report is as follows: Review the Geotechnical Investigation Report, Tentative Tracts 25321 through 25324 and 25464 (Winchester Hills Residential Development) prepared for Mesa Homes by Converse Consultants Inland Empire (Converse), Job No. 89 -81- 173 -01, • dated October 8, 1990. v Converse Consultants CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98 - 104 \98 - 104 -1.SM2 7 r E . / I i�r -e P a,k Hot' a I' CA ;> 0.0 > J /Ot r Q� v r w it r ILJ, If OL �P C, % iv 0 1100 "-S '029 :Vi Alqulst-Prlolo special Studies zone, Wlldornar branch of Elsinore Fault 0 0 1000 2000 40,00 REFERENCE: SCALE IN FEET CDMG, Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Munieta Quadrangle, 1990 SITE LOCATION MAP SWEETWATER SPECIFIC PLAN Temecula, California Project No. 98-81 For Lennar Homes % Converse Consultants FIGURE NO. 11 ' 98 -81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 • Page 2 • Review the Summary of Geotechnica/ Conditions Report, Winchester Hills Residential Development, Temecula, California, prepared for Lennar Homes by Converse Consultants (Converse), Job No. 98 -81- 104 -01, dated February 20, ' 1998. • Inclusion of a revised seismic analysis based on current fault modeling adapted primarily from the CDMG fault database for the State of California. • Review of available literature on faulting and groundwater in the general area of the project. ' 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development based on the Conceptual Use Plan dated April 1, 1999 will include both one- and two -story residential buildings, commercial buildings, schools, driveways, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscape and park areas, a lake area, utilities ' including storm drain, sewer, water, gas pipelines, electrical lines and other appurtenant facilities usually associated with such developments. Site developments may include slopes and earth retaining walls. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4.1 Site Location and Boundaries The project site, as shown on Figure No. 1, Site Location Map, consists of approximately 560 acres of undeveloped land. The irregular shaped site is bounded 1 on the north by vacant land and Warm Springs Creek, the east by Margarita Road and residential developments, the south by Santa Gertrudis Creek and a commercial development and the west by the Interstate 15 Freeway (1-15). 4.2 Surface Conditions ' The site is currently undeveloped open land with a few dirt roads which cross the site. The topography consists of three (3) northeast trending ridges and two (2) primary drainages. The existing ground surface elevation ranges from 1 170 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the north central boundary of the site to 960 feet MSL at the southwest corner. Overall, the site generally drains to the southwest towards the I- 15. The drainages are filled with fine to coarse - grained sand. The site is covered with • low weeds and grasses with some local concentrations of taller growth in the canyon ' Converse Consultants CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE\ 1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 - 104 -1.SM2 t 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 3 bottoms. Isolated trees are scattered throughout the site and a row of eucalyptus • trees is present along 1 -15. Artificial fill was placed along the eastern boundary to construct Margarita Road. 4.3 Site Geology , Quaternary -age Pauba Formation bedrock, landslides, older Alluvium, recent Alluvium, ' Colluvium, and artificial fill underlie the project site. The Conceptual Land Use Plan prepared by EDAW was used as a base map to present the approximate geologic contacts of the listed geologic units (See Figure No. 2, Geologic Summary Map). The Pauba Formation bedrock is primarily an arkosic sandstone with interbeds of clayey sandstone and silty claystone. The bedrock is massive to thickly bedded. Several relatively small landslides are present in the northeast portion of the site. The , landslides were interpreted on the basis of geomorphology and air photo interpretation. ' Basal shear planes were observed in several test pits excavated within and along the perimeter of the landslides (Converse, 1998). No evidence of surficial or deep- seated instability was observed elsewhere on the site. Older Alluvium occurs within much of the site and is overlain by a variable thickness of recent Alluvium and topsoil. Recent Alluvium is present within the drainages throughout the site and the Santa Gertrudis Creek flood plain area. r Colluvium locally mantles the bedrock throughout the site with a typically thin veneer ' near the top of the ridges and thickening at the base of the natural slopes. These geologic units consist of arkosic sandstone with interbedded clayey sandstone , and silty claystone; silty sand, clayey sand and fine grained silty and clayey sands. Artificial fills, both engineered and non - engineered, are present in various locations ' across the site. Engineered fill was placed to construct Margarita Road along the eastern boundary, at the northeast corner to construct the proposed Date Road and the southeastern portion of the site for construction of Santa Ynez Road and a , commercial development. Non - engineered fill was placed to construct a small agricultural reservoir near the southeast edge of the site and several dirt roads that traverse the site. Converse Consultants CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 - 104 -1 .SM2 t CL + c 74 sa Z3 C? 5 0 a o E A u 0 00 Y 0 Id z I 0 0 a '0, YJUXIL q Aa.i;j� a cy (Y > c co Uo E 0 0 0 ) ��� \,, f :,, f I S , is �.: ,� 1)Ily)1 %, l �I 1�'� �,g L'.`�'` .,� „�))t '���c.:Jlll ,,ltl � :7 Pt LN M El 12 0 N NX Q qa of, , v; , I [itl , � 1 �6 4� ,J � � / / ,,..� \ il' ,/ � Q: '.;� i tl � I J , '�,q ti 1 1 � 1 r�` `\��� -- A `� •' tt �,ll /'r /; ' ' � � '. r, \� (' I / ; ; ' i� /��; ��.' i 1 :;!z a Ill 0 V , �)) .�T) N) - . l���1 1�l I . � \�� ' A "till r7- 14 il 1 I r, 1 1 III , ,; , ''��1''�I� I I., OF Ji m' Oil 'q VO I ZRNA p 1 1 1 y1 I c 41 � O r 114 4-J ct U U r r �' oil 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 4 4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation in 1990. However, during the subsurface investigation for the liquefaction evaluation in 1988, zones of perched water were encountered in several borings in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Depth to groundwater ranged from 16 to 24 feet below the surface. A ' Geotechnical Feasibility Study conducted by ICG Incorporated in 1989 reported groundwater at 32 to 38 feet below the existing ground surface. ' 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting Based on our review of the existing information, there are no known active faults ' projecting toward or extending across the proposed project site. An active fault is defined as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The project site is not located within a currently designated State of ' California Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active fault is the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately one (1) mile southwest of this site. The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone is locate about one (1) mile north of the site. The State of California or the County of Riverside does not currently classify the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault as active. However, based on telephone conversations with Mr. Steve Kupferman, County of Riverside geologist and Dr. Tom Rockwell with UC San Diego, recent studies performed on the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault indicate that the fault is active. According to Mr. Kupferman, the State of California and the County of Riverside have both conducted preliminary reviews of the study reports but neither agency has yet upgraded the fault designation from potentially active to active. Converse conducted a fault study (Converse, 1989) to evaluate three photolineaments (possible faults) to evaluate the potential for site surface rupture. The fault study consisted of the excavation of five trenches across the previously identified photolineaments. Converse Consultants, Dr. Roy Shlemon (Quaternary faulting ' consultant) and Mr. Steven Kupferman (Riverside County Geologist) observed the fault trenches. Based on the observations and results of the fault study, the photolineaments were interpreted to be the result of normal weathering processes and are not due to surface fault rupture. The approximate distances of nearby fault zones capable of generating significant ground motions at the site are listed alphabetically in Table No. 1, Seismic • Characteristics of Nearby Faults. Converse Consultants CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \81 \98 - 104 \98 - 104 -1.SM2 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 5 5.2 Seismicity The project site is situated in a seismically active region. As is the case for most areas of Southern California, ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with , nearby and distant faults may occur. During the life of the project, seismic activity associated with active faults in the area may generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. , The seismicity section of the reports completed in 1990 and 1998 by Converse Consultants was performed to the standards required at that time. The seismicity information for the site has been revised based on current fault modeling adapted primarily from the CDMG fault database. The following sections provide a preliminary , seismic review that will be incorporated into an updated geotechnical report when the Tentative Tract Maps become available. According to the Uniform Building Code (1994), the project site is situated in Seismic Zone 4. Major damage corresponding to intensities VIII or higher on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale may occur within this zone. Seismic Zone 4 also includes those areas that lie within a zone of major (Richter Magnitude, M >7) historic earthquakes and recent high levels of seismicity. For structural design purposes, the seismic ground motion is usually associated with either a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) or a Maximum Probable Earthquake ' (MPE) associated with a return period. A MCE is defined as the maximum seismic event that a particular fault is theoretically ' capable of producing and is evaluated based upon existing geologic and seismologic evidence. Various researchers (Wesnousky, 1986) have presented estimated values of MCE for various California faults. Deterministic ground acceleration at a given site ' corresponding to the MCE of a given fault may be estimated by utilizing various attenuation relationships published in the literature. Such an analysis was performed ' by utilizing the computer program EQFAULT developed by Blake (1997) for various active faults within a 100 -km (62 -mile) radius from the project site. The MCE assigned to various faults are those selected by Blake. ' The results of the analysis are presented in Table No. 1 , Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Faults. Only those active or potentially active faults that are estimated to be capable of generating a ground acceleration of 0.1 g or greater at the project site are included in Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Active Faults. The peak horizontal site accelerations presented in Table No. 1 , Seismic Characteristics of ' Nearby Active Faults, are obtained in accordance with the "Random- Mean" attenuation Converse Consultants , CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98 - 104 \98 -104 -1 .SM2 , 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 6 • relationship (Boore, et. al., 1993 with CDMG fault model). The soils profile is classified ' as a Type B: soft rock /stiff soil sites for purpose of this analysis. ' Based on the results of the above deterministic analysis, the project site may experience a peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 0.408, where g is the acceleration due to gravity due to the movement on the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The nearest faults to have the most significant seismic impact on the project site are considered to be the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone and, to a lesser degree, the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault. Additional literature research ' of current data will be required to evaluate and update the potential seismic impact of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault on the project. ' Table No. 1, Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Active Faults Approx. ASSIGNED MAXIMUM PEAK DISTANCE TO FAULT MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL FAULT NAME - BRANCH FROM CREDIBLE GROUND EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION AT PROJECT SITE (miles) MAGNITUDE PROJECT SITE 1 M 191 San Jacinto -Anza 20 7.2 0.13 San Jacinto -Casa Loma 20 I 6.9 0.11 , Elsinore - Julian I 14 7.1 0.17 ' Elsinore - Wildomar I 1 6.8 0.40 Elsinore -Glen Ivy 13 6.8 0.15 Notes: Moment Magnitude Mw of earthquake expected for rupture of entire fault length, estimated with slip - rate dependent empirical relations between seismic moment Mo and fault length and assuming the empirical relationship Log Mo =1.5 Mw + 16.1 (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979). An historical analysis using the computer program EQSEARCH also developed by Blake (1997), the site has experienced a calculated maximum ground acceleration of about ' 0.14g during a 7.0 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter 18 miles northeast of the site along the San Jacinto Fault in 1918. ' The vertical acceleration may be taken as two- thirds of the horizontal acceleration. 5.3 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity Secondary effects of seismic activity include surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, ' differential settlement of structures, ground lurching, landsliding, earthquake- induced flooding, seiches, and tsunamis. The secondary effects are considered to be the same Converse Consultants CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 -104 -1 .SM2 98 -81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 7 as presented in the previous reports. Site - specific potential for each of these seismic • hazards is discussed in the following sections. Surface Fault Rupture: The site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on review of existing geologic information,, no known active fault zone crosses or projects towards the site. The potential for surface fault rupture resulting from the movement of the nearby major faults is low. , Liquefaction: An area adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek and an area adjacent to 1 -15 were mapped as areas that may be susceptible to liquefaction. However, the proposed , grading of up to 25 feet of compacted fill in these areas will mitigate the liquefaction potential. Based on the study (Converse, 1988) adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, a ' layer of alluvial soils approximately one (1) to two (2) feet thick may be prone to liquefaction. However, the proposed grading will place up to 25 feet of compacted fill over the area and thereby mitigating the impact of liquefaction. Therefore, the impact ' of soil liquefaction on the proposed development is considered low. Differential Settlement: The site is underlain by predominantly granular soils. However, , these soils are relatively well graded and, in general, in dense conditions. Such soils are not susceptible to significant differential settlement during seismic shaking. Lateral Spreading: Natural and fill slopes within the site, in their existing conditions, may experience some lateral spreading in the event of a strong ground motion. Landslides: The potential for seismically induced landslides to affect the proposed site , is considered nil. Tsunamis: Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the site location, tsunamis do not pose a hazard. ' Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Based on the site location, seiches do not pose a hazard. , Earthquake- Induced Flooding: This flooding is caused by failure of dams or other water- , retaining structures as a result of earthquakes. The nearest reservoir to the site is Lake Skinner located approximately six (6) miles northeast of the project. The potential of earthquake- induced flooding of the subject site due to failure of the dam is considered ' to be low. Converse Consultants CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 - 104 -i .SM2 98 -81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 ' • 6.0 FLOOD HAZARDS Page 8 The flood hazards are considered to be the same as presented in the previous reports ' and are restated herein. The Santa Gertrudis Creek is situated along the southern boundary of the site. The Creek alignment has been improved and is a lined channel near Margarita Road. The proposed grading along Santa Gertrudis Creek includes ' raising existing surface grades 25 to 30 feet. This grading will raise the ground surface approximately 40 feet higher than the creek bottom, thereby reducing the ' potential of flooding. ' 7.0 OVEREXCAVATION The recommendations for overexcavation of unsuitable soil and /or bedrock are considered to be the same as in the previous reports and are restated herein. Complete removal of all recent alluvium, topsoil, and loose, compressible low strength older ' alluvium, and /or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills. Preliminary estimated depths of removals are as follows: ♦ Landslide - 10 to 15 feet ' ♦ Recent Alluvium - 4 to 6 feet ♦ Older Alluvium and Colluvium - 2 to 6 feet ♦ Artificial Fill - 3 to 10 feet Cut /fill transition lots will require over excavation of the cut portions of the lots to ' mitigate the potential of differential settlement. Alluvial areas adjacent to Margarita Road fills may require remedial grading to provide ' a suitable subgrade prior to fill placement. 8.0 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE ' The shrinkage and subsidence estimates are presented in the previous geotechnical reports are considered to be applicable to the current Land Use Plan. For preliminary estimate purposes, bulking and shrinkage factors for various units of earth material at the site may be taken as presented below. Converse Consultants ' CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE \1998 \81 \98 - 104 \98 - 104 -1.SM2 98- 81- 104 -01 1 June 21, 1999 Page 9 ' Topsoil, Alluvium and Colluvium Shrinkage: The average shrinkage factor for these • surficial soils is estimated to be, on average, approximately 12% by volume, with ' variations ranging from 6% to 20 %. Pauba Bedrock: Shallow porous Pauba Bedrock may shrink from negligible to 10% by ' volume when properly recompacted. An average shrinkage value of 4% is recommended for preliminary shrinkage calculations. ' Subsidence: Subsidence in the ravines due to earthwork activities will depend on the construction methods, including type of equipment utilized. For estimation purposes, , ground subsidence may be taken as 0.20 feet. The above shrinkage and subsidence factors are provided for preliminary planning , estimate purposes only. These factors should not be used to estimate earthwork quantities or incorporated into a grading plan. The final estimate of bulking and shrinkage factors for earthwork calculations should be provided at the completion of a detailed site - specific geotechnical exploration. 9.0 CLOSURE , The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice at this time in Southern California. ' The recommendations and conclusions presented in our Geotechnical Investigation Report dated October 8, 1990 and Summary of Geotechnical Conditions dated ' February 20, 1998 remain applicable to the current proposed development as identified on the Conceptual Land Use Plan by EDAW Inc., dated April 1, 1999. The purpose of this review was limited to assess geotechnical site conditions for the purpose of planning only. The information presented herein should not be used for the , development of a grading plan, earthwork estimate and /or foundation design and construction. Site - specific geotechnical updates should be performed once the Tentative Tract Maps become available. As the project evolves, Converse's continued ' consultation and construction monitoring should be considered as an extension of the geotechnical investigation services performed to date. This summary report was prepared for Lennar Homes for the subject project described herein. We are not responsible for technical interpretations made by others. Specific questions or interpretations concerning our findings and conclusions may require a ' written clarification to avoid misunderstandings. o Converse Consultants t CCIENT \0FFICE \J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 -104 -1 .SUM2 t ' 98- 81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 10 1 ' REFERENCES Blake, T. (1997), EQFAULT, Version 2.20, A Computer Program for the Deterministic ' Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California. ' Blake, T. (1997), EQSEARCH, Version 2.20, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalog (Earthquake Events Updated Through 6/97), Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E. (1993), Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes, An Interim Report, U.S.G.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93 -509, 15 pages. California Division of Mines and Geology (1990), Murrieta Quadrangle, Special Studies Zones, Scale 1 :24000, Revised Official map effective January 1, 1990. California Division of Mines and Geology (1997), Guidelines for Evaluating and (I Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, CDMG, Special Publication 117. L Converse Consultants (1998), Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, Winchester Hills Residential Development, Temecula, California, Converse Project No. 98 -81- 104 -01, Dated February 20, 1998. ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire (1990), Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tracts 25321 Through 25324 and 25464, Winchester Hills Residential ' Development, Temecula, California, CCIE Project No. 89 -81- 173 -01, Dated October, 8, 1990. ' Converse Consultants Inland Empire (1988), Liquefaction Evaluation — Winchester Hills, dated September 9, 1988, Project No. 99 -81- 117 -01. EDAW, Inc. (1999) Conceptual Land Use Plan /Notice of Preparation, Winchester Hills Development, dated April 1, 1999 ' Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A. (1997), Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones In California, CDMG Special Publication 42, revised 1997. Converse Consultants CCIENT \0FFICE\J0BFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 - 104- 1.SUM2 98 -81- 104 -01 June 21, 1999 Page 11 s Hanks, T. and Kanamori, H. (1979), A Moment Magnitude Scale, Jnl. Geophys. Res., Vol. 84, pp. 2348 -2350. ICG Incorporated (1989), Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report - 575± acre , Winchester Hills Development, dated October 6, 1989, Consultants Project 07- 8079- 003 -0000. ' Ishuhara, K. (1985), Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proc., 11th Int. Conf., on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 1, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, ' The Netherlands, 321 -376. Jennings, C. W. (1994), Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, CDMG, , California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000 Kennedy, M. P. (1977), Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault ' Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, CDMG, Special Report 131. Rollins, K. M. Et al (1994), Identification and Characterization if Collapsible Gravels, ' Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 120, No. 3, March. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L, F., and Chung, R. M. (1985), Evaluation of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(8). V Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997), International Conference of Building Officials. , Wesnousky, S. G. (1986), Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California, Jnl. of Geophys. Res., vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 12587 - 12631. , Western Municipal Water District (Fall, 1998), Cooperative Well Measuring Program, Upper Santa Ana Rivershed. ' Ziony J. I. and Yerkes R. F. (1985), Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting , Potential, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. 1 1 Converse Consultants CCIENT \OFFICE \JOBFILE \1998 \81 \98- 104 \98 - 104- 1.SUM2 1 1 • ' APPENDIX F HARVESTON HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS INVESTIGATION BY ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 REVISED OCTOBER 4, 2000 ' October 25, 2000 CONSULTING J /N: 10- 034747 ' Ms. Patty Anders Assistant Planner ' City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 RE: Revised Harveston Land Use Map ' Dear Ms. Anders; We have reviewed the "Revised Sweetwater Land Use Map ", dated April 26, 2000 and have determined that the previously prepared Hydrology Report on Sweetwater, dated January 4, 2000, is adequate to be used with the revised land use map. ' The land use map is used to determine the "actual impervious cover ", provided in the RCFC & WCD Hydrology Manual. The "actual impervious cover" is the percentage of runoff that lie will be generated from the land use area. We have prepared an Impervious Area Comparison Tables to illustrate that the "Revised Land ' Use Map" is less than the impervious landuse map used in the Hydrology Report. ' Table 1- Impervious Area for the "Revised Land Use Ma " Landuse Actual Area (Acres) Impervious Cover Pervious Area (Percent) (Acres) ' Low Medium Density 147.90 40 59.16 Medium Density 1 81.70 50 40.85 ' Medium Density 2 61.39 60 36.83 High Density 16.80 65 10.92 School 12.00 40 4.80 Park 53.70 15 IS 05 ' Service Commercial 112.37 90 101,13 Streets 59.80 100 59.8 ' Totals= 545.66 321.55 1� PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION 7725 Almn Par?way. Irvine. CA 52618 -2027 P.O. Boy 57057. Irvine. CA 92675 -7057 • 949.472.H05 • Fax 949.472.8373 ' Oi;ices loca;ec :hrouehou; Cahicrrna, Araona s Idevaca P www.P.oF.corl 1 • Table 2- imp ervious Area for Previous Hydrology Report, Dated 9/19/99 1 Landuse Actual Area (Acres) Impervious Cover Pervious Area 1 (Percent) (Acres) 1/4 lot per acre 148.04 40 59.22 Apartment 16.31 80 13.05 1 Service Commercial 343.18 90 308.86 1 Lake 38.12 1 100 1 38.12 Totals= 545.65 419.25 1 The "Revised Land Use Map" will result in approximately 23% less runoff than shown in the Hydrology Report for Sweetwater, dated January 4, 2000 (Appendix " F" of the EIR Technical 1 Appendixes). Runoff quantities will be further refined by detailed studies substituted at the tentative map stage. 1 If there are any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 472 -3439. le Andy Gong, PE i Project Engineer Water Resources 1 H. I pdata l31747g131 Winchesterllanduse. wpd 1 1 1 `I 1 ' • Master Plan of Drainage HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN • ' HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS INVESTIGATION• ' September 6, 2000 REVISED: October 26, 2000 ' Prepared For: Lennar ' 24800 Chrisanta Dr. Mission Viejo, 'CA 92691 Prepared By: 1! L `toben cBeirt,William °Frost 6&c9ssociates r Professional Engineers, Planners & Surveyors j P.O. Box 57057, 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92619 (949) 472 -3505 Fax: (949) 586 -6531 ' Contact Person: Bruce Phillips, RICE 38635 4 e Andy F ' Andy Gong, RCE 59484 No. C59� A RBF JN 10- 034747 Fin. t 20, o; t s O CM LIF�P N\P r� '• Table of Contents 1 Section 1 Introduction ...................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 Objectives ...................... ............................... 1 -1 1.2 Previous Studies ................. ............................... 1 -2 Section 2 Existing Drainage Patterns and Facilities ............................. 2 -1 2.1 Description of Site .. 2 - I 2.2 Existing Drainage Facilities ........ ............................... 2 -3 Section 3- Hydrology ......................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Methodology .................... ............................... 3 -1 3.2 Results- Natural Condition ....................................... 3 -2 3.3 Results- Proposed Condition ...... ............................... 3 -2 1 Section 4- Concept Drainage Plan .............. ............................... 4 -1 4.1 Assumptions .................... ............................... 4 -1 4.2 Proposed Storm Drain System ..... ............................... 4 -1 4.3 Street Right -of -Way, 100 -Year Storm Event .. 4 -3 4.4 Impact of Development on Existing Facilities ....................... 4 -4 Section 5- Storm Water Quality ................ ............................... 5 -1 5.1 Storm Water Quality Alternatives .. ............................... 5 -1 Section Hydrology 10 -Year Storm Event .................... ............................... A 100 -Year Storm Event ................... ............................... B Right -of -Way Analysis ......................... ............................... C 1 t Exhibits • i Existing Condition Hydrology Map .............. ............................... A Proposed Drainage Area Hydrology Map ........... ............................... B Proposed Landuse Map ........................ ............................... C Proposed Condition Hydrology Map ............. ............................... D Proposed Storm Drain Layout Map .............. ............................... E Typical Street Sect ions ......................... ............................... F 1 r t t Section 1— Introduction • ' The proposed project is located in the County of Riverside within the corporate boundary of the City of Temecula. The project consists of about 520 acres of commercial, business park and residential uses. The site is currently undeveloped and is bounded by Interstate 15 to the west, the Winchester Highlands Business Park and Santa Gertrudis Creek to the South, Warm Springs Creek and the Warm Springs Specific Plan area to the north and east. Figure 1 indicates the site vicinity and its relationship to the surrounding area. A majority of the site is tributary to the Interstate 15 Freeway and a battery of existing storm drain culverts at this location. Overall land gradients are moderate, averaging from about 1 to 5 percent in stream courses. Ground cover is endogenous grass with fair coverage, erosion does not appear to be a problem in the streams or on the adjacent hillsides. Over 70 percent of the site is tributary to Santa Gertrudis Creek, either directly via A.D. 161 improvements or by local storm drain systems. The remaining portion of the site is tributary to Warm Springs Creek. Runoff from a majority of the site passes beneath Interstate 15 to local facilities in the Northstar Business Park and the Signal Landmark Business Park which ultimately discharge to either Santa Gertrudis Creek or Warm Springs Creek. Smaller portions of the site are directly tributary to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Warm Sprints Creek. 1.1 Objectives The primary objectives of this study are to develop a conceptual master plan of drainage for � Harveston Specific Plan and identify potential adverse impacts (if any) resulting from the increase in storm water runoff associated with site development. The report will also identify, on a preliminary level, the required storm drain infrastructure and appurtenant facilities to serve the site. Specifically, the following items will be addressed: • Identify hydrologic criteria to be used in the evaluation of the site. • Estimate the 100 year discharges for the site in the pre- and post- development conditions for master planning purposes. • Identify the existing storm drain facilities on -site and those potentially impacted by the development off -site, and assess the adequacy of these facilities both before and after development. • Identify, on a preliminary basis, the storm drain infrastructure required to serve the H a H m m er Plan of Drainage Section an�esn 1 -1 Introduction proposed site development based on the City of Temecula design standards. Identify potential adverse impacts from the increase in storm water runoff from the site after development and propose solutions to mitigate these impacts. 1.2 Previous Studies Several hydrology studies have been previously prepared for the area in association with past development proposals and proposed infrastructure. The following studies are identified as significant in understanding the proposed flood control system for the project area or the history of the project: 1. Master Drainage Plan for the Murrieta Creek Area, Zone 7, published by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, dated March 1986. The Master Plan of drainage provides a description of the regional Flood Control , facilities with preliminary channel section geometry. Regional facilities adjacent to the site include Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. 2. Drainage Study for Rancho California Commerce Center General Plan Amendment, prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, dated April 1989. This drainage study was prepared for the General Plan Amendment for an area that included Winchester Hills, Campos Verdes and The Regional Center. The report provided existing and ultimate condition hydrology studies for these areas. No data generated in this study has been used in the current analysis. !, v 3. Preliminary Drainage Assessment for Winchester Hills, prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, dated September 29, 1989. i The Preliminary Drainage Assessment for Winchester Hills was developed in 1989 for the subject site with the same objectives as the current study. Due to numerous site plan revisions and changes in adjacent development, the study is superseded in its entirety by this report. 4. Hydraulic information from improvements for Assessment District 161 associated with County of Riverside Drawings. 5. Conceptual Flood Control Plan for Winchester Hills, prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, dated October 17, 1992 and revised December 7, 1992. Master Plan of Drainage Section I Han 1 Introduction y /7i Tel �l /oe% — _c / Seale: 1' = 2.000' neevfa >a: "r�_ s Warm �d_ ��A. Springs A \ m = � Specific 1 ors Area"MB� -� G � - Rust2t r 9 \ '0`; /69 Harveston i ar � 'p'• 9 � C -i•� RId 104p�.$�t a � P \��CSClVOI: gm Res ri � �� PROJECT SITE 1 FIGURE 1 �• VICINITY MAP IN 25801 12/93 2 1• Section 2 — Existing Drainage Patterns and Facilities 2.1 Description of Site The project site is comprised of about 520 acres of range land with moderate relief characterized by broad canyons draining from east to west to Interstate 15, which is a physical and property boundary. Existing vegetation is native grasses with fair to poor coverage, separated by numerous dirt roads and trails. There is little evidence of erosion due to the moderate relief with slopes generally ranging from 5 percent in the upper canyon areas to less than 1 percent near Interstate 15. Hillside slopes range from about 50 percent to less than 10 percent. The existing condition hydrology study contained in this report is intended to document the original condition prior to the development of Harveston Specific Plan and improvements associated with A. D. 161, to serve as a baseline to assess potential impacts to down stream storm drain facilities and document the changes to the site hydrology as a result of development. A 42" and a 48" RCP laterals has been constructed as part of the San Santa Gertrudis Channel improvements, to drain a portion of Westchester Hills. 2.2 Existing Drainage Facilities There are no drainage improvements on -site with the exception of the completed improvements within Margarita Road and along Santa Gertrudis Creek as described above. Storm water collects in one of two primary stream courses and flows westerly to Interstate 15 ■ which it is intercepted by culverts. There are four culvert batteries at Interstate 15 serving the two primary stream courses and two smaller watershed areas. These batteries of culverts comprise of storm drain systems A, B, C, and D. Each of the culverts are constructed with a headwall configuration. The existing culvert batteries are shown on Exhibit A. The two primary on -site stream courses are intercepted by System B and System D, as shown on Exhibit �- A. Drainage Area "A" on Exhibit A covers 173.90 acres. Drainage Area "C" includes 213.30 acres, the areas for the remaining smaller watersheds are shown on Exhibit A. The culvert indicated as System A on Exhibit A is a 24" RCP passing beneath Interstate 15 and discharging to a 24" storm drain constructed in association with the Signal Landmark Business Center. The storm drain system continues through the business center, ultimately discharging to Warm Springs Creek. The storm drain improvements shown to the south of System "A" consist of three batteries of culverts (Systems B, C and D on Exhibit A) that are intercepted by a storm drain system paralleling Interstate 15. Two 96" Cast -in- Place -Pipes (CIPP) collect discharge from the ' culvert crossings, the first battery (System B) consisting of 66" and 48" RCPs, the second a 24" Master Plan of Drainage Section 2 Haneston 2 -1 Existing Drainage Patterns and Facilities I RCP (System C) and the third battery (System D) consisting of an 84" and 54" RCP. Table A, • r below, summarizes the culvert sizes and the estimated capacity of each battery. The Table indicates columns for "Inlet Capacity" and "D /S System Capacity" to fully evaluate the "as- constructed" capacity for each culvert. The "Inlet Capacity" column was generated using equations published in "Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 5" for an inlet control culvert condition. The inlet capacity is an indication of the existing system capacity with a headwall configuration unless the number shown in the "D /S System Capacity" is less, whereupon this value will govern. The value shown in the "D /S System Capacity" column is the design discharge taken from the "as- constructed" drawing for the facility or a value computed by a hydraulic profile. The inlet capacity is provided as a check of the overall system capacity. The culverts crossing the freeway are steep and, in many cases, inlet losses may control the capacity of the system. Accordingly, each value is shown in Table A, and the lesser of the two will govern. However, the greater capacity usuall associated with the downstream system capacity may be gained if the system is enclosed and extended, thereby eliminating the entrance headwall inlet configuration. Under these conditions, the "D /S Capacity" column will govern. Table A 1­10raulic of Existin g Facilities , System Culvert Size(s) Inlet Capacity D/S System Existing (cfs) Capacity (cfs) Discharge (Q100) A 24" 39 30.7 27.1 B 66" and 48" 470 540.0 266.7 C 24" 36 N/A 35.7 D 84" and 54" 700 630 366.7 E 42" 85 - -- - -- H 36" 60 * Systems E, Fl, F, and H drains into Santa Gertrudis Channel The culvert systems indicated above currently have sufficient capacity to serve the undeveloped site. In each case, the inlet capacity and /or the system downstream capacities exceed the computed existing condition discharge. The culvert batteries previously exited the freeway and discharges to swales ultimately tributary to Warm Springs Creek or Santa Gertrudis Creek. as appropriate. Subsequent improvements Master Plan of Drainage Section 2 . Harveston 2 -2 Existing Drainage Patterns and Facilities Wj I 1 � i;• have created a closed system from Interstate 15 to discharge points in Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. Evaluation of the downstream system capacity relative to the flows computed for the proposed development plan are discussed in the Concept Drainage Plan section of this report. Master Plan of Drainage Section 2 lie Har eston 2 -3 Existing Drainage Patterns and Facilities �• Section 3- Hydrology General ' Two hydrology studies have been completed to assess the change in hydrologic characteristics before and after site development. The existing condition study, shown on Exhibit A, assumes ultimate development in the watershed. The proposed condition study, presented on Exhibit B, also assumes ultimate development of the watershed, both upstream of the site and within the project limits. The ultimate condition study, provides design discharges for the site storm drain infrastructure and values that may be compared to design discharges used for downstream systems to determine the impact of the increase in discharge on these facilities. The ultimate condition hydrology study includes off -site flows from upstream development within the Warm Springs specific Plan area. The location and magnitude of these flows entering the project site has been noted on Exhibits and A and B. Technical references for these flows were noted in Appendix A of this report. 3.1 Methodoloev The hydrology studies were completed using the Rational Method, as described in the Riverside County Hydrology Manual, dated April 1978. The Rational Method is a physically based numerical method wherein runoff is assumed to be directly proportional to rainfall and area, fewer losses for infiltration and depression storage. Flows are computed based on the formula Q =CIA, where: Q = Discharge in Cubic Feet Per Section; C = Runoff Coefficient, based on Land Use; ' I = Rainfall Intensity, Inches/Hour; A = Area, Acres. ! The runoff coefficient models the amount of flow that reaches storm drain facilities versus the portion of rainfall that infiltrates to the soil. The runoff coefficient is dependent on the amount of impervious cover and the rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity is a measure of the rate of the rainfall and varies with the watershed time and concentration. The watershed time of concentration at any given point is defined as the time it would theoretically take runoff to travel from the most upstream point in the watershed to the subject location. Discharges have been computed for 10 and 100 year hypothetical storm return frequencies. Rainfall used in the studies was taken from the Riverside County Hydrology Manual for the "Murrieta - Temecula and Rancho California" areas. Basic assumptions and criteria for use in runoff computations are: • Master Plan of Drainage Section 3 Harveston 3-1 Hydrology • Soil Group B; ' • Initial area size is generally less than about 10 acres and flow path lengths less than 1,000 feet; • For the developed condition study, street capacity was not considered between subareas. This provides conservative estimates for flow rates and storm drain sizes. Final design calculations will take advantage of street flow capacity within the criteria of the storm drain system. All structures must be protected from floods resulting from 100 year runoff. Conveyance between subareas for the natural condition study was via open channel with the velocity regulated by the Natural Valley Velocity Nomograph, published by the Los Angeles Department of Public Works; • Land use assumptions for the proposed condition study are shown on Exhibit C. 3.2 Results - Existing Condition The results of the existing condition study are presented on the hydrology map, Exhibit A. Discharges for 100 and 10 year frequencies are shown. The 100 year flows for the 4 culvert batteries are summarized in Table A. The computed discharges compare favorable with those published in "Drainage Study for Rancho California Commerce Center General Plan Amendment," previously referenced. Based on the values shown in Table A, it is apparent that the existing downstream storm facilities are adequate to serve the existing condition watershed. Debris allowances were not included in the development of the discharges given. Debris may tend to reduce the capacity of the downstream system; however, debris production potential from the existing site is low, and there is some debris storage area available upstream of the existing culverts on -site. 3.3 Results - Proposed Condition The results of the proposed condition hydrology study are shown on Exhibit D. Current Tract Map No. 29111 & 29111 -1 and Tract Map No. 28184 information was used for the areas tributary from the Warm Springs Specific Plan north and west of the intersection of Margarita Road and Date Street. Therefore, discharges entering the site from the northwest were computed based on the tributary area shown up to the project boundary on Exhibit A. Planned land uses were applied to these areas and pipe flow was assumed between the hydrology node points. This approach will produce conservative discharge estimates since the length of pipe run between subareas is reduced when compared to actual development, thereby lowering the time of concentration and increasing the rainfall intensity and the resulting calculated discharge. The computed off -site flows are indicated on Exhibit B where they enter the site. A4aster Plan of Drainage Section 3 Harveston 3 Hydrology r Table B, below, provides a comparison of areas tributary to the Culverts at Interstate 15 both before and after development. Table B Comparison of Tributary Areas ' Before and After Development 1 System Existing Tributary Area Proposed Tributary Area A 16.75 Acres 18.90 Acres B 279.50 Acres' 387.96 Acres' C 21.50 Acres 13.80 Acres i D, E, F, H, and I 582.40 Acres' 480.95 Acres' G None 4.40 Acres � Notes: (1) Includes off -site flows (2) Proposed Tributary Area "B" will be routed through the arroyo or lake. The tributary area to Systems "B" and "D" is the result of a conveyance of flow from the northeast corner of the project site. The reduction in the tributary area to System "D" is a result of the Margarita Road (A. D. 161) storm drains, which direct portions of the upstream areas to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Systems "E" and "H" were constructed as a part of the Santa Gertrudis Channel Improvements to serve Harveston. A hydrological summary for the proposed condition can be found in Tables "C" and "D ". Table "C" provides a hydrological runoff for each individual subarea for the 100 and 10 -year storm events. Table "D" provides hydrological runoff for each link node, this is to aid in the design of the proposed storm drain system. • Master Plan of Drainage Section 3 ' Harveston 3 -3 Hydrology i Project: Sweetwater J/N 10- 034747 F /N: Win_hydro.wb3 ' Table C- Sweetwater Hydrology Summary Subarea Area (Ac) Q -100 (cis) Q -10 (cfs) Subarea Area (Ac) 0 -100 (cfs) Q -10 (cfs) 2B 6.09 17.81 12.00 2F 0.65 2.93 2.00 3B 13.13 34.09 1 22.75 3F 0.35 1.31 0.89 , 4B 14.13 33.41 22.16 4F - - - 5B 15.72 35.66 23.59 5F 8.51 25.39 17.25 _ 6B 3.53 10.74 7.30 6F 1.04 3.10 2.11 7B 4.56 11.86 7.95 7F 3.04 10.68 7.26 BB 1.64 5.58 3.80 8F 7.61 23.07 15.50 9B 0.48 1.63 1.11 9F 1 0.47 1.25 0.84 10B 4.81 1753 7.65 10F 1 1.61 6.22 4.23 11 B 1.35 4.10 2.79 11F 0.93 2.81 1.87 72B 1.76 4.16 2.77 12F 1.10 4.10 2.79 13B 1.76 4.53 3.08 13F 0.52 1.46 0.97 14B 2.70 7.70 5.23 14F 1.27 4.57 3.11 15B 3.01 10.85 7.38 15F 4.72 14.57 9.91 16B 1.26 3.58 2.43 16F 2.31 7.95 5.40 17B 16.25 35.72 23.73 17F 5.82 17.75 11.96 18B 2.06 6.22 4.23 18F 0.56 1.67 1.12 19B 2.37 7.84 5.33 19F 2.73 9.19 6.25 20B 2.27 6.29 4.20 20F 10.32 31.78 21.44 1.38 3.97 2.70 , 21 B F4H 1.42 5.19 3.53 228 8.18 24.59 16.71 1.40 5.11 3.48 23B 10.22 27.75 18.69 1.06 3.89 2.65 24B 2.03 4.97 3.37 25B 5.22 16.12 10.96 4.50 15.13 10.21 26B 8.90 24.81 16.72 11.72 34.67 23.15 2.60 5.99 3.91 1C 6.54 24.93 16.97 9.08 18.40 11.84 2C 253 846 5.76 0.93 2.90 1.97 3C 4.76 1412 9.51 8.27 20.31 13.55 3.22 9.96 6.77 10 12.93 33.81 22.16 0.42 1.18 0.80 2D 5.13 10.55 6.93 2.43 5.80 3.86 3D 12.98 1 21.48 13.35 4D 2.17 6.49 4.41 1E 4.73 11.96 7.83 5D 2.48 6.61 4.49 2E 8.84 18.80 1 12.07 •' 60 10.87 17.89 11.12 3E 8.96 19.47 1 12.71 7D 14.42 22.80 14.10 4E 8.03 15.96 10.31 8D 7.11 16.37 10.70 9D 0.88 2.86 1.95 1 11 7.41 21.83 14.84 10D 11.06 1 25.55 16.86 11 D 5.20 1 13.36 8.76 1 I 10.85 30.31 20.59 12D 8.72 19.11 12.31 13D 2.45 1 7.79 5.30 1A 4.66 15.76 10.72 14D 11.66 33.11 22.25 2A 14.28 40.79 27.37 75D 1.11 1 126 2.21 160 2.49 1 7.69 5.23 1G 2.34 9.57 6.51 17D 7.00 1 20.21 13.64 2G 2.10 6.36 4.24 18D 1.85 5.11 3.47 19D 6.84 16.51 10.80 L1 13.87 34.85 23.23 20D 15.56 32.14 20.64 L2 14.2 40.46 27.68 21D 3.66 8.60 5.56 L3 2.67 7.61 5.21 22D 1.35 2.74 1.68 L4 7.17 19.34 12.63 23D 2.72 7.18 4.70 24D 6.26 13.90 8.93 R2 0.65 1.47 0.98 26D 7.52 9.33 5.53 27D 6.25 17.07 11.09 2 1.36 4.89 3.33 • 29D 2.08 5.82 3.87 30D I1.36 4.33 2.94 3-4 Project: Sweetwater J/N 10- 034747 FIN: Win_hydro.wb3 • Table D- Summary of Hydrology 10 -Year Stor0 -Year Storm Node Point n c rs 10 Remark Event (rf5) 50 106.37 159.44 ' 85 4.91 7.21 75 146.30 219.28 The arroyo will limit the maximum outflow of 234.84 cfs to satisfy the maximum flow that will be 105 357.18 542.21 contained within the R 205 392.15 595.41 295 442.86 672.65 356 442.86 672.65 V 356 1 26.56 39.35 Surface flow into inlet 360 1 22.16 33.81 365 29.09 44.36 369 166.88 247.25 368 207.02 309.97 370 21814 358.00 377 10.70 16.37 Secondary outflow, to the Lake (L2), to satisfy RIW 375 239.73 362.59 reou rem m 65 1 1.95 2.66 70 25.86 57.85 ' 400 46.04 68.35 I 415 48.14 11.48 380 339.13 501.63 590 344.21 528.29 I .- 620 1 35.47 528.29 655 3566.34 547.38 V 665 21.73 31.97 730 44.32 64.80 670 5.71 8.44 705 9.82 14.58 1005 13.17 19.62 686 26.48 39.05 674 21.44 40.67 I 885 42.94 64.66 1015 1 2635 39.33 Notes: 1 Areas of excedence will use Lakes to detain runoff to satisfy Right -of -Way requirements. 3 -5 '• Section 4- Concept Drainage Plan 4.1 Assumptions The concept drainage study presented herein is intended to serve as a master plan for the Harveston flood control infrastructure. The proposed system shown on Exhibit D will provide 100 year flood protection for the improved site and receive 100 year discharges from upstream tributary areas at ultimate condition. Some assumptions were made in developing the plan, ' which are outlined below: ' 1. Facilities have been constructed in the northerly portion of the site in Margarita Road. The storm drain in these areas, contiguous with the project boundary, is designed for ultimate discharges. Hydrology or hydraulic data from these previous investigations is ' referenced on Exhibit D, the proposed condition hydrology map. 2. There is no significant impact to the regional flood control facilities serving the site as a result of development. Regional facilities are defined as Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. The proposed development is consistent with the Master Plan of Drainage, prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD), and the proposed improvements for Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek, indicated therein. The regional facilities have been, or are scheduled to be, fully improved to convey 100 year discharges by the time the project is constructed. 3. The project backbone storm drain was sized based on normal depth hydraulic calculations. Backwater from downstream systems was not considered in sizing the facilities. Local storm drains and inlets were not sized. 4. Storm drain pipe sizes are based on 10 or 100 year storm event whichever governs. 5. The 100 -year storm event will be conveyed within the street Right of Way. 6. The 10 year stoem event will be contained within the curbs. 4.2 Proposed Storm Drain Systems. 10 -Year Storm Event • Master Plat of Drainage Section 4 ' Harveston 4 -1 Concept Drainage Plan The proposed storm drain systems are shown on Exhibit B. Nine principal drainage systems •' are indicated and labeled as A through H and F -1, respectively. Following is a brief description of each system. System " A " System "A" serves the northwesterly corner of the site in the proposed commercial business area. The proposed pipe size is 24 ", serving about 18.0 acres. System "A" discharges to the existing Culvert "A ", shown on Exhibit "B ". The system may daylight prior to the Caltrans right -of -way. A closed system to the culvert entrance at I -15 is not required. System "B" System "B" begins along the northeasterly project boundary, continuing southwesterly across , the site, discharging at existing Culvert "B ", as shown on Exhibit "E ". System "B" consists of a 66" pipe and will continue through the Caltrans right -of -way and join the existing culvert battery consisting of 66' and 48" pipes, creating a closed conduit system. An off -site tributary ' area of 116.7 acres will contribute flows into the system. On -site detention facilities (i.e. lake and arroyo park) have been included to reduce on -site discharge into the system. System "C" System "C" is a short single line storm drain serving a portion of the proposed commercial business area. The proposed 30" RCP, which must continue through the Caltrans right -of -way as a closed system, joins the existing 24" culvert. The pipe size of System "C" through the proposed commercial business area may be refined (downsized) when a final hydraulic analysis, is prepared. System "D" The existing storm drain, A.D. 161, on Margarita Road begins at the intersection of Margarita , Road and Date Street, continuing southeasterly along Margarita Road and outlets into the Santa Gertrudis Channel. System "D" begins at the northeastern portion of the project, where it conveys 77.1 acres of off -site flow into the system. The proposed pipe size begins at 63" and ultimately joins the existing 84" CIPP at the existing terminus of Ynez Road. Pipe sizes range from 63" at the upstream end to 72" where it joins with the existing conduit at Ynez Road. System " E " Master Plan of Drainage Section 4 • Hwwston 4 -2 Concept Drainage Plan Svstem "E" is an existing 42" RCP which will serve about 30.6 acres adjacent to Santa • Gertrudis Creek. The lateral was constructed as a portion of the Santa Gertrudis Creek 1 improvements. No modifications to this system are required to accept the proposed site discharges. System "F" The design of System "F" has been completed as a part of the A. D. 161 plans for Margarita Road. System "F" serves the proposed commercial area and a portion of the existing business park or residential area adjacent to Margarita Road, discharging upstream of the Margarita Road Bridge at Santa Gertrudis Creek. ' System "F -1" System "F -1" has been constructed as a part of the A. D. 161 improvements. This storm drain system originates at the intersection of Margarita Road and Date Street, and continues southerly for about 3000 feet until it discharges to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Pipe sizes for this facility range from 48" to 72 ". System "F -1" serves future developments located to the north of Margarita Road, as well as the residential site proposed as a part of the Harveston development located at the northeast corner of Date Street and Margarita Road. Relatively small tributary areas along Margarita Road, as shown on Exhibit "E ", are also tributary to this facility. System "G" System "G" (off -site) is a proposed system which is proposed to serve the easterly proposed residential portion of the site, discharging directly to Warm Springs Creek. Depending on outlet conditions, an energy dissipation device may also be required. System "H" System "H" is a proposed system which is proposed to serve a relatively small area of the proposed commercial area along the easterly property boundary. The proposed pipe size is a 39" conduit tributary directly to Santa Gertrudis Creek. A portion of this system was previously constructed with the Santa Gertrudis Creek improvements and no modifications to the existing improvements are required. System "P' • Master Plan of Drainage Section 4 Harveston 4-3 Concept Drainage Plan I System "I" is a proposed system which is proposed to serve a small area of the of the propsed single family home/ school area. The proposed storm drain will tie into the existing System « 4.3 Street Right -of -Way, 100 -Year Storm Event The configuration of the streets are designed to convey and contain the 100 -year storm event. The major (exterior) and the minor (interior) streets have between a 0.5% or 2% slope, a maximum flow rate can be determined. The typical interior and exterior street cross sections are inputted into a hydraulics program, Flow Master, to calculate a maximum flow that can be contained within the Right -of -Way, Table "El". A street flow was performed using Table "El" and Table "C" can be found in Table "E2 ". Street capacity is based on street cross sections shown on Exhibit D, Section F. Table El Maximum Flow Rates per Street Right -of -Way Street Slope, % Maximum Flow" (cfs) Date Street* 0.5 162.91 Date Street* 1.0 230.39 Date Street* 10 325.81 Major Streets 0.5 304.17 Major Streets 1.0 430.17 Major Streets 2.0 608.35 Interior Streets 0.5 90.57 Interior Streets 1.0 128.08 Interior Streets 2.0 181.14 Date Street has a center median, maximum flow reflect total street width. ** Street capacity is based on street sections shown on Section C. Exhibit F. 4.4 Impacts of Development on Existing Facilities In all cases, except System "G ", the project storm drains discharge to existing improved downstream facilities, either directly to Warm Springs or Santa Gertrudis Creek, or through off -site mainline storm drains tributary to these facilities. Exhibit "E" indicates the outfall Master Plan of Drainage Section 4 Harveston 4 -4 Concept Drainage Plan • Table E2- Sweetwater Street Flow Analysis Subarea Area IACp -100 (cfs I -10 cfs) Street Flow (cfs) Notes • 2B 6.09 17.81 1 12.00 5.81 3B 13.13 34.09 1 22.75 11.34 ' 46 14.13 3341 1 22.16 11.25 5B 15.72 35.66 23.59 12.07 o a ree ow= e a ove Subarea streets flows conve m o ne arro 0 68 1 3.53 10.74 1 7.30 1 3.44 78 1 4.56 1 11.86 1 7.95 1 3.91 otal btreet ow= I Re a ove su area scree s flows conve m o a arro 0 ' . 88 1 1.64 1 .58 3.80 1 1.78 9B 1 048 1 1.63 1 1.11 0.52 108 1 4.81 1 11.53 I 7.65 OR - Total Street Flow= g THe a ove Subarea streets flows convey into the arro o 11B 1.35 4.10 2.79 1.31 12B 1.76 4.16 1 2.77 1.39 13B 1.76 I 4.53 1 3.08 1 145 14B 2.70 1 7.70 5.23 2 47 ' 15B 3.01 1 10.85 7.38 3.47 ota treet ow= lV.UV I he above sul5area streets flows conve mto a arro 0 168 1.26 1 3.58 2.43 1.15 178 16.25 35.72 23.73 11.99 186 2.06 6.22 4.23 1.99 198 2.37 7.84 5.33 2.51 208 2.27 6.29 4.20 1 2.09 21B 1.38 1 3.97 1 2.70 1 1.27 ' 228 6.18 24.59 16.71 7.88 238 10.22 27.75 18.69 9.06 otal 6treet How= The above su area street flows area equate to a conveye through the interior street at 1 %, max. capacity= 128.08 cis. 248 2.03 4.97 1 3.37 1.60 258 5.22 16.12 10.96 5.16 268 1 8.90 24.81 1 16.72 1 8.09 o a ree ow= 14.85 1 ne above sul5area sir ee ows areadequate o be conveye through the interior street at 0.5 %, max. capacity= 90.57 cis. 1C 1 6.53 1 24.93 16.97 7.96 - '{ 2C 2.53 8.46 5.76 2.70 3C 4.75 14.12 9.51 4.61 Total ree ow= Adequate conveyance Ifirougli Syslem 1D I 12.93 1 33.81 1 22.16 1 11.65 2D I 5.13 10.55 6.93 3.62 3D 12.98 21.48 13.35 8.13 4D 2.17 6.49 4.41 -- Sump Condition will be convey through storm drain SD 2.48 6.61 4.49 - Sump Condition will be convey through storm drain 60 1 10.87 1 17.89 11.12 6.77 7D 14.42 22.80 14.10 8.70 8D 7.11 1637 10,70 5.67 9D 0.88 1 2.86 1.95 0.91 ota tree ow= I 5e a ove su areastreet ows areadequate o be conveye through the interior street at 0.5 %. max. capacity= 90.57 cis. Provide overflow to the lake (L2) 10D L1 .06 25.55 16.86 8.69 11 D 5.20 13.36 8.76 4.60 12D 8.72 19.11 12.31 6.80 13D 1 2.45 1 7.79 1 5.30 1 2.49 14D 1 11.66 1 33.11 1 22.25 1 10.86 15D 1 111 1 3.26 1 2.21 1 1.05 16D 2.49 7.69 5.23 2.46 17D 7.00 1 20.21 13.64 6.57 1 18D 1.85 5.11 3.47 1 1.64 19D 6.84 16.51 10.80 5.71 20D 15.56 32.14 20.64 11.50 ' 21 D 3.66 8.60 1 5.56 1 3.04 1 Total ree ow= e a ove su area street flows area equa a to Be conveyer through the interior street at 1 %. max. capacity= 128.08 cis. 4 -5 Table E2- Sweetwater Street Flow Analysis Subarea Area (Ac p -100 (cts) Q -10 (cts Street Flow (cfs)' I Notes a 2D 2.72 4.70 2.46 24 6.26 13.9 0 8.93 4.97 25D 0.65 1.47 1 0.98 1 0.49 Dial ree ow= 9.00 1 he above su areastreet tows areadequate o be conveye , through the interior street at 0.5 %. max. capacity= 90.57 cfs. 26D 7.52 9.33 5.53 3.80 270 1 6.25 1 17.07 11.09 5.98 28D 1 1.36 4.89 3 .33 1.56 ' 29D 2.08 5.82 3.87 1.95 30D 7.36 4.33 2.94 1.39 T otal btreet ow= 14.100 1 ne above su area sireef Ilows area equa e o e conveye through the major street at 2 %, max, capacity= 608.35 cts. 1 F 1 1.20 1 3.65 2 a8 1.17 2F 0.65 2.93 2.00 0.93 3F 0.35 7.31 0.89 0.42 4F _ ___ __ __ otal bireet ow= I he a ove su areastreet ows area equa e to Be conveye through the interior street at 1 %, max. capacity= 128.08 cts. Sump area will be conveyed to System "F" 5F 8.51 25.39 17.25 8.14 6F 1.04 2.11 0.99 7F 3.04 70.60.6 8 7.26 - 8F 7.61 23.07 15.50 9F 047 1.25 0.84 0.41 10F 1.61 6.22 4.23 1.9 11 F 0.93 2.81 1.87 0.94 4 12F 1.10 4.10 2.79 1.31 13F 0.52 i 1.46 0.97 0.49 14F 1.27 4.57 3.11 1.46 15F 4.72 74.57 9.91 4.66 , 16F 2.31 7.95 5.40 2.55 17F 17.75 11.96 1 5.79 18F 1 0.56 1 1.67 1 7.12 1 0.55 I UL61 OLIUCI ow= 29.28 The above suoarea street flows area equa o 6e conveye �. through the interior street at i%, max. capaci ty= 128.08 cfs. Sum area will be conveyed to the lake (L2) 19F 2.73 9.19 6.25 - -- 20F 10.32 31.78 21.44 21 F 1.42 5.79 3.53 1 1.66 I Conve ed into System "F" 22F 1 1.40 5.71 3.48 1.63 Conveyed into System "F" 23F 1 1.06 1 3.89 1 2.65 1 1.24 IConveyed into System 7 H 4.50 15.13 10.21 - -- ' 2H 11.72 34.67 23.15 3H 2.60 5.99 3.91 4H 9.08 18.40 11.84 - -- SH 0.93 2.90 1.97 0.93 6H 8.27 20.37 13.55 6.76 ' 7H 3.22 9.96 6.77 3.19 8H 0.42 1.18 0.80 0.38 9H 2.43 5.80 186 1.94 T otal reet Flow= e a ove su areastreet flows area equa e o e conveye through the interior street at 0.5 %, max. capacity= 90.57 cfs. Sump area will be conveyed to System "H" 1 E 4.73 71.96 7.83 - -- 2E 8.84 18.80 12.07 - - 3E j 8.96 1 19.47 12.71 4E 8.03 1 15.96 1 10.31 I 7.41 21.83 14.84 71 10.85 30.31 20.59 46 Table E2- Sweetwater Street Flow Analysis ' Subarea I Area fAcl 12 -100 lots) 11-10 fcfs Street Flow Icfsl' I Notes • 1A 4.66 15.76 10.72 = 2A 14.28 40.79 27.37 1 G 2.34 9.57 6.51 3.06 2G 2.10 6.36 4.2a 2.12 su area street ota tree ow= e above flows area equate to a conveye through the interior street at 0.5%. max. capacity= 90.57 cfs. L1 13.87 34 .85 23.23 L2 14.2 40.46 27.68 L3 2.67 1 5.21 L4 7.17 1 19.34 1 12.63 ' Street flow is taken from the difference between the 100 and 10 -Year Storm Event. 4 -7 locations of the proposed storm drain systems, noted as "A" through "H ". Areas tributary to •, facilities downstream of the project have not been identified as they have no impact on the proposed systems. Sufficient review of the downstream facilities has been completed to conclude that the proposed development will not adversely impact downstream areas with the required modifications as noted. As discussed in this Section, "As- constructed" design capacities of downstream systems are not exceeded. ' The storm drain systems noted as "E" and "H" on Exhibit "E ", discharge directly to Santa Gertrudis Creek through existing culverts constructed with the Santa Gertrudis Channel improvements. Preliminary hydraulic calculations indicate that storm drain system "E" will have sufficient capacity to convey the proposed discharge (See Table "F "). Storm drain "E" , will need to be upgraded to convey the proposed discharge. Proposed system "G" discharges directly to Warm Springs Channel. No intermediate existing facilities are impacted by this System. , Systems A, B, C and D discharge directly or indirectly to the culvert batteries at Interstate 15. Table "D ", below, indicates the proposed discharge, the inlet system capacity with a headwall , configuration upstream of Interstate 15, and a backwater system capacity based on the design discharge for the storm drain systems downstream of the freeway. Table F Impacts to Existin g Facilities System Proposed Proposed Inlet Backwater Comments Discharge Discharge Capacity Capacity (Q100) (Qio) (cfs) (cfs) A 56.55 38.09 39 30.7 Upgrade or replace existing storm drain B 672.65 442.90 470 540 Require on -site retention C 39.35 26.56 31 50+ Upgrade or replace existing storm drain D 547.38 356.34 700 630 Sufficient system , E 35.43 23.01 85 - -- Sufficient system H 114.34 76.06 60 - -- Upgrade or replace , existing storm drain Haster Plan of Drainage Section 4 • Harveston 4 -8 Concept Drainage Plan , System "B" will exceed the capacity of the outlet structure. Drainage Area "B" accepts 116.7 • acres of off -site flows into the system. The project's lake and arrovo park will be used to detain 1 the proposed 100 -year storm event runoff from exceeding the existing outlet structure. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. ' Systems "D" and "E" have sufficient capacities to convey the proposed site discharges as constructed. The closed system, or backwater capacities, are less than the inlet system capacities shown in the chart above, indicating the system receives strong backwater influence from downstream. Subarea 1D to 8D will be conveyed into the lake (1-2), in order to contain the 100 -year storm event within the Right -of -Way limits. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. System "H" will exceed the capacity of the existing outlet structure. The existing storm drain ' system will need to be replaced or upgraded to convey the proposed discharge to Santa Gertrudis Creek. ' Mitigation may be to replace, upgrade or reduce flows from this development to a level that will not exceed the capacity of the existing facilities. Onsite retention may be utilized to, reduce flows to acceptable levels. Systems "A" and "C" will not convey the proposed discharge, assuming a headwall configuration at the upstream side of I -15. The existing storm drains may need to be replaced or upgraded to convey the proposed discharge through Interstate 15. • Alaster Plan of Drainage Section 4 Han 4 -9 Concept Drainage Plan Section 5- Storm Water Quality • The proposed specific plan for Harveston is located within the Santa Margarita Regional Drainage Area Management Plan (SMR- DAMP). The SMR -DAMP requires the proposed project to be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ' ( NPDES) Storm Water Permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project has the potential to result in a long -term impact on water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Volatile solids in urban runoff can originate: 1 from accidental spills or deliberate dumping of lubricating oils or fuel oils; from emissions of engines during normal operations such asvehicle exhaust particulates or drippings of crankcase oil; from dustfall or rainout of atmospheric particulates; from spilling of crude or refined petroleum products; from leached or eroded pavement; from natural seepage on land; or from natural biogenic sources. The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact on ' water quality due to the addition of volatile solids to the runoff. Stormwater flows from the proposed conditions of the Specific Plan project will be subject to the NPDES permit process. Through the NPDES Permit process, the County and City of Temecula currently requires contributors to non -point runoff pollution to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for pollution. Under this program the developer is responsible for identification and implementation of a program of BMPs which can include special scheduling of project activities, prohibitions of certain practices, establishment of certain maintenance procedures and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of downstream waters. Typical elements of such a BMP program would include the use of oil and grease traps, detention basins, vegetated filter strips, erosion control measures during construction and other techniques to preclude discharge of pollutants to local storm drains and channels. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for areas larger than 5 acres, the applicant shall submit a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the developers ' identification number. 2 Prior to the issuance of the grading permits, the applicant shall provide a Water Quality r Management Plan showing conformance to all NPDES requirements (enacted by the EPA) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management • Master Plan of Drainage Section 5 Han -estop 5 -1 Storm Water Quality practices, erosion control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. • 5.1 Storm Water Oualitv Alternatives 1. Catch Basin Filters Storm water runoff may contain quantities of oil and grease from the ' use of vehicles. Catch basin filters could be installed on the on -site catch basins to adsorb these contaminants before they get into the storm drain system. One type of catch basin filter is the Fossil Filter developed and manufactured by Kristar Enterprises, Inc. This filter utilizes a natural adsorbent material called Amorphous Alumina Silicate (Fossil Rock) to filter out oil and grease and also maintain sufficient flow rate. A typical sketch of the catch basin filter is presented in Figure 2. Exact design of the filters may vary according to the characteristics of the proposed catch basins. A maintenance program would need to be developed, if possible to make this practice practical. Such a program typically includes periodic inspections, debris removal, local area cleanup, and replacement of filter adsorbent materials. An entity would need to be identified to carry out the maintenance program. 2. Catch Basin Cleaning Cleaning of catch basins would be performed regularly to remove debris and reduce pollutant concentrations before the first flush during storm seasons. Cleaning would also minimize clogging of the catch basin filter and underground drainage system. This catch basin cleaning practice should be at minimum provided once a year before the wet season to eliminate debris accumulated during the summer. 3. Storm Drain System Sianage The Standard "No Dumping" signs from would be posted at all the catch basins on -site. 4. Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Education Information regarding the City's or County's mobile collection program, or a stationary collection site if the City or County has , one in the area, or businesses in the area certified to take in such waste could be given to new home buyers by the homebuilder at the time of new home purchase. If a homeowners association (HOA) is formed for this development, similar information could be disseminated ' on a regular basis (newsletters, billings, etc.) through this organization. The HOA and homebuilder could obtain information on programs from and coordinate with the City's Public Works Division. ' H: Ipdata 134747.g131 Winchester)winchester_3. wpd Master Plan of Drainage Section 5 • Han 5 -2 Storm Water Quality ' M FOSSIL FILTFI TYPICAL FOSSIL FILU COMS!NATIJN • TRENCH DRAIN INLET CURB /GUTTER GRATE INLET • Tlet M6TAYAT1011 21"M A 16fi1L MM TMRIMIYf TM FLA11Q TO ' AtIDM' ME i1LTEA TO" LOO 1= TO CAM TQ TTIOM W WR ATTACH TO OWN WALL TYTTH CwGRE AMCH0T6. FOSSIL FIFT 1 STANDARD FOSSIL FIFTFf ADJUSTABLE FLARED END SECTION FLANGE EXTENSION EIORM pIY1M OUitil AOAltTAAU FLIAN / QI[MSK)H 0 111M TO FOM MICR u ROIO HUOIII 1 41 S RTO p.� ' - TIE AMMTAELE tt GE QTEMSM EOIEM ATTACMW TO M FOSSL RTER TMITIOUT f7AMGL WE ES TIC HLTTEIO TIO OCII WTIOM TO Q Qm All A 1101113UMD Of CATCMM YT OElM OF TIE FOS" MTER ILTTW TIE 011 M 0E PLET. .— ROY ,m,o pv uff n n TO NOwwO OTTO MEAN. 1 Master Plan of Drainage Section 5 �• Sweetwater 5 -3 Storm Water Quality cc Wu Ilk it TR SRO � au A a CV. �F r J r 1 V� 1� r - l it A c 006 \ N I I¢ r! MiT 1 � � W VA t v �� ' t I r ♦ r/ - r / e Y ¢ I / J .00 t _ r. i v 1 A Vr In i� r - m f I �j. rl .,,��� •.i.`Ic �A Y1 - d i V . V _ A �A 1 N / 1 S � 1 L 2 t l 1. V v r . A _ _ i / rl 7 V •('�a 1 p t 1 tii irl zj _ r rl �, `\ i fit\ � t �.. i \ i� � t l •,~� f / W � N �• � / lr: 00< 00< i eno won U4U ,. ' h h or < +n No< g A N4,6 . w o z � nn 11 1 �a N �a 00 U. N Nr o �> 00< W � ^� N6 v. 00< 00< ' W ANN 00< 80< GO< 8. ® o Ire � � a� gar �r r• i � � � � ® s Nr � � t® © #« o e »ems aCa , »a m #c m« + \0 \m � u z < > 2 c / < j \ % \ z Li b § c e $ f % % a- LLJ $ j z ■ I = u ■ 00 k- 12 § .| N q / E -q 2( \�# Af I c | \ £ � Eu � H � E�� 2 RN �</ 64 2 \ m an an w m M m ..._ ,�. d. ... • l :1� 4 r IN ;\ 4 ■ ' Winchester Hills Exhibit D ® Hydrology Map 1 i 1 e 1 w tu c o c Con � p X . E o w Q o E N o s ca o m m LU i Z N N 0 m a :r- ° n J a X O Lj- w > N N 1. C 4 ' i 5 O ` A W O¢ Y \ \ 01 ,/ = 8 \ 1 � €� I � U IV 1 Z ¢ . G 1 - - O Co 1 I I t .N I 1 O ♦�� /�j O 7 W O �C� ' N \ C4 r ZD FFnn 1 O, ? 1 a �� 1 wV OWQZ C' UC � `� W 1 I 7¢ O s 1^ •- ,� 1 W O co ` . W N F LU O oaz Paz =� / � `5G O� 1 Wm� 1 wN� gyms 1 �a^ Cw 6Z i i U n � 1 ♦o • 1 111 N 0 I i t Al Ar t L o N � e ■r � r r r a rr r r �® r r r r r rr Harveston Specific Plan Section A Hydrology Analysis 100 -Year Storm Event 4` 1 1 1 1 P, 1 • `�`\ I X N` M� I ' o ° �A s ° Q L 3 n II O V W 4 C h L v i O ry i C Y V R V f � W W N? I W X t 0 O 1p q > L11 L W° E N C W- d ^ 2• t `a W O P W V X Z n W C O ^ W¢ 0 4 n_ Y Z I a 4 ry Z W 0 M1 Q .. O P W O O u_ 6 I O g ry W a 0 t W( .] p N E O O 4.aj -° yV Y N S I.� ^ W .. F S i� X u 6N SV A« IZI •. 4 LL W � W I I II y Z ti II f O i II > N L A p II r 4 M °� W_ c > I N U N ¢�¢ Z' E . 6 L_ O W a q> n • Q � E 4 K W� F V N � I• I . W F F W LL y� 4� 6 O a C Z W N -.> O W 6 • L l i Q F F u 1>.1 u O F O O 4 E 4 K Q a O u V F 0 0 4 F 4 K Q 2 V; a 4 G„ 3 W 6 �+ 4 S F 4 _ O 6 ' 11 y �� 4 n F O Cy O£ F Z K� fQql 6 • u i O li � f W E Z 1 O P W E V Q Y I li F Z C V W £ V {{..11 W¢ V C .• W a • f n 'I N Z V£ �' £ y1 q V q � O 4 p W F .'] O V= V F F 4= II � V• £ V G= • E W° o 1 o =o WW _ � �� o 1 W ° ° _N �u ° °�3v c u o 'a o a V im° i o f_ m y -• 4 V 4 i O i ��jj - o= F .F '� K Q"> C v i O� i M i- C o .V ? ; 4a Y� u b I o O .. W j W n e F n� S e o 0 0 y o r 0 •. �.. e 4.. f. ` D E tl 1 F N I= II Z O o a • o �� u> E N z. R o i w W W �. o p�° u u~ k E '`. z' .". M1 � p- n N q£ �� o u i o u 5= N W Ij O O W O tl V 4 W I C N a O a K Y 1 •• W W N N .. .. .r n vl .. C 4 m • F o N N U O K Z S 3 V N O V Z ZI Pi � I A e e a !sF j ' _ w ''mi W me W 3 z a 4 N ry `rte 4 . I'X Z i S 4 • Z i O i£ K j 2 l i _ V y1 N fgail L' O ' i O ' i iKr O rW I Y O rl � Z ti v m V O i II I X QQ Z w �i !�II�I13�iW�m o Wo iii a `" - � - ' W S 4 C F N r£ A S 4 7 4 W 6 • N = 4 U W 2 V q o J C y II O a Y W �. 6 II r II r Y II N 3 a m4 4 .' II m V >> 4•£ 4 "�8V- 'ad��� „��q >N� o I ow AI w� ° al 'I ' o I v I ° ° u v 11 11 PI N I ,- o o ° «x- W o N u I- ' 1 W ! O II W w qW In o h o O I 4 N Y O o Z ry II II 2 W O 4 1 0 4 ry W m 2 X Z e W O ry ~ O II Z ry W G U W I O Y _ F C W G m F Z O N_ V v, G .-1 I W Z ' I U II > W_ {-. £ O F N_ C h F� II _ r F� I O A _ L I .] .l w O j n F¢ h .'�-r 11 ' � 5 ♦ 2 I 2 O 'r l i W W = = I.W� 4 I 0. � i O a 5 � w yr � x � � n r _ •� O 6 = 4 — ' m L• . £ I O a I II • 4 . O l ? Q U> 6 L S_ V O K G K> N • IS I = A A 0 -> W 6 J GI 1 I • J I m �( � U I C U m Z Y I' ! . I Illiry miW iOi N i m N 4 m 4 O p r , N ,<- 4 N m 0 V h V — .. O V • Z l i ^ V Z ' W C : 2 F � = a W n 4 V C O a O 4 G mi W m 4 O O I O : O W 4 Z N V U O i rQ Y^ OV N OF � .]1 a Q ELI 1 Z ' w A F X U V° N Y Z yl U O V W< w o e 4m t>.. Z N N IZ.1 0 6 m N w 4 II i _6 w lal Z I W tN- Z In .a , u C a O E X = • O S Y Z W^ y m O X I•. A W In 2 1 n W •. V u N N II I .� 4 Z I ¢ F 3 O O x `o o v. a a W Z G F 1 N N • N II I F [[ II W F ° W G 4 a it V, Z I I K II • I i O it N .] , �^ C 4 v C u u 4 N 4 a Z C j� w N 4 II N_ g d a£ O Y • O n •' A F F , v 3 j o �. • O II x£ 0 i A F W y N •^ F u O U N F L V Z rvJ •• `O N O - O W N O F F Y O h ° p O R w m � 6 NEW v Pi V 11 u� — 61 u640: I v q W ' q 3 • Z Z ry e O Z F 4 W s w W N 2 F _ m Z o ° ft W 4 a O qw q a ° I` L C L1 II T Z, V ry 4 Y V o c 3 C O L • w£ II C 6 . lu F e• V 4W 4 S 4 W O It O W p W v L. p L V V Z W W .O K a 0 f i Ll O £ I t O Z W O W O Q ly • O 6 �i > u n. , O i Z y O N _ F Z G yd _ ry U lu j r'. i O N w O N ♦ d ' w O �.. V Z n 4 S— WU' S r i '. a L1 Y C 0 a 4 C o. W 6 V • 3 . O • Y - n n I 1 ' d o - 1 � oY �4 c :Wao - - 1 n ry m O C " 2 F0 2 1 G V n u W N O m S °° O 2 W V ry O W _ r m S I S S . Z V N ry W F O X • O F 22 Z2_ £ w 1 WI F , f~ w F . ~ O —^ F e W N; m 0 G Z "t . in Q F Wq j. • = — Q W Y— r ry W G > G 6 r4 6 3 V> F •. W N W ` ( O O X �] y O ry O O S ?' F u y m O w nVW. O m V N V 0 O F W O w u1 •g S M O w In S z a > W Q Y h1 4 V LI '� o W f N Z m O W O L- W G 4m O _ ry ry W W 4; S : Y. ; 6 W .3O] O K Q Z > U Q V 0 e' j ; m 6 j uu W j C O > w O ^ N 4 l N f O W V 4 Y F 4 a. 4 4 2 I.1 M1 V w Z e f £ $ N ¢ O i V n n I O V > X 1 ° p Y II I f N F s> 6 v m a i 4 O 4 V S S W — V —" — F ^. • W m— ry 6 M1 . Z • .; i OOOOOO CZ N 2 �-. O 3• W 1 1 RI o 1 I- w W a v w 4 N o u o^ ry v 11 - 4 V Y_ N _ - u v p m • ry ° K a gg V p r � M , 1p m 's '' z W o o v 1 o z v I z a F °" o o N it ° `o F ° N L_ W o w m W 1 w Pi 1 �rosW...si�: m o4 r; °n i l u - l a�ar -; W >'' N X F O D O S l n : Z; O; £ 2 p O u 4 0 M W Z S zQ N 2 1= 1 \ D O N F 0 f 3 O O O> W F W T p £ 11 y � F _ LL_ O W O O i 3 O p G 2> U 4 K a O_ F 1 XI : > V W N G j 0 V W N F 3 0 W po O W^ 6qq 4 u fVV O N f �v N a V ° — 4 v 1 C M1 .� V 6� 6 • o� WW f R G u O i C 4 ¢ N 4 f W 4 y C y O ,FWn 44Y C u N 4 O S I f iW .l 6 S li U x K F y 1 v 1 11 1 v 1 M1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 11 V = 1 W_ o O Y : O I X Q i� Y 4 W o O iw U O ry Y ' V m x - F O Y u!= i 4 '� O m f O 0 ^ Y a r 4 O i= Z O]= Y1 !^ W p ? O Y O N O Q .0px I II F \ ; 11 O V . Z � � x Z I ¢ 2_ � • 2 i O I O p O W . Y Z i u Y .. ¢ S p V u a i ry ^ S X= O W O? W W O y O S p S^= u .^ W Qy � •• S i w t• G¢ u W Z W o U ' O p 11 bl 3 I�i1 } ^ G a ' Y p • 3 Y F N 1�.1 O g •.]. 4 4 j Y •, 1 i Y > Y F~ N I al �i w o w O S v 9 F Y I U U O IP I O G O O Q 2 Q I 4 4� 4 4 � 7 4 j m p 3 Z 5 2 Z S O O • C F J : _ u W q W C, a, W S u ti = Z i X O £ P : 0 z o Y • _ oj al � = _� u F � _"' xg� ba'��I ��ii $ �I u o a i o oW. ; V u r x `' "• 5 z^ w r i u r i I Ip w 1 I rvl 1 n V S Y V $ w F O O O • W p S M F= O F K OF M ^:= m W O t == P ry 2 ! LI O • O_ m N z O ry 2 V I Q 4 F 1 ? O 4 V a I v 1 m p 4_ F •l F. v ' V Z 4 r Z w p N u _ ry P w w Y r _ O F r vFi zz w , i Y 1 4 W O O A 1 ^ O • O= F m m Y 1 2 W II • 2 4 S G• w W w V N O K y � l i K : F Y L m d Y? U P 6 7 U y � 0 . P W yQy 3 fJ ` W F • V C Z yq O 4 R K 4 5 W 1 V W W I ry 7 4 ✓d V S C N S I r P u Y Z: 41 I .. ry C.i U OO A u ' O . f 6 h • O II • 44F r Z S W m Z Z• N i$ q O ; Y • O ! Y p n O O w O N$ ^ 3 V 6 N Z V W f 4 I 1 d v v I r I Y Y Y e w O W• 4 v � r N W p Oy W O 4m yq of N � In W 6 O: r - � q 6 r 4 rc_ 'O I � v F I C 0 � ¢ H ; : I~il 0 0 ..1 .i _ W > W >. o' 1 E m m $ 6 O ` U :I _uo V wx ❑ w 3 `. °_❑ .. 3 � - _ FV j Y w F S r f ' ^ O ` •• Y• m O � .f C C V I o u b o to " • F '. N q K W W 4 m F O m Wy ry u p w O y V S V • F F ti 41 0 L 6 V X q u w x - w i 4 w L h U W W W O r P p N >} .l 6 6 . 3 S¢ d .. V £ u • ~-• W ? Y 6 • n W € O S w p N N p • O { i ^ II m F y 0 Z v N r a v O 3 O F - I n I C u .i O rvl n - o • r p O O O A V n U ry II OW r Wu r'=" !- 4 6 ry ry v O L1 p ry = b °OZ uu ,u 3 0 1 W ry i 6 n N n ry C - C 1.. m 4 0 Y ry L r] >_ 6 G I 2 W h W r •� F N = O ' O yi U 0 0 V " O W N O - 4 O O e O • O G i i 2� V W D IGI S W > a 3 G I U O 2 Y r O o 7 V V V N/ 1g4.t 1W. W 2 V L Z 2 r£ 0 i 4m Q Y 6' j 0 F W W 4 • 4 W ~ V S 'J m I- j 4 Y O O o W r' ° W N W f 4 . S O I I F O l F" W Z W 2 A F tl r . _F N I O +� 4 Z u I 2 p O y OO .] I x yy]] O W_ O 6 K V V p 6 j r 4 W O> u> o l F N N U W v " V ! • O S Y ¢ LI M Y ,O W • y � Y O Z L j .] W r u 4V a V 4 1= W O j V v I Q > t 2 f. f V u 1. 1 U .] 6¢ W .1 .. �4 3 v O i£ e K O C i i[ W V V 4 4 . j W 5 IWiI 1"•• O i s W £ Y a a F 41 a F=> a W 00 4 4 W O W U • Z / 3 1 / • 2 l i I e F " W} O Z O O 2 O 4 n II 4 r F Z _ �' p W a V N N O F W O OI r Ua_ o o o W. W U , = a _ I V ; a _ r V W I 4 V W x F 4 F ry Y n Q v 1 N I V q 4 n 1 Z q L1 1 3 O O s I U G •t - ry o ❑ i W _ °o ry ry � ry o, n o = r~ v 11 O O W O O 7i P W o \ o o o oo 4. o 'o W a O 8 �s: W 1 I I O i� n N .'� v O i� a I � � O • rv � O° O i u l m o H ry A N Z Y I Z x j II 1 4 vl W j 1Vi1 y O n O r O O J U ry F 6 Z O �°£ I Y O - ° n o 1 - j O V £• '� / O O n s O N W 12 W W LL u pN I LI i 4 l Y O O F • I. I a N/ 6 �1 „ O 4 .- F ¢` 1.. Y W l i W i . W I O F. 4 �^- u U W ~'> • of a ° a o .. o o j 4 y 4 11 4 �� ° . Y W V ¢ � W t• 3 • S U n P j V i> d M1 U • o S IYr • 3 r K 1 F_ N N 1 O' .1 •t • 2 W O O O Y 1"' •_ O " N O O / N p L 6 6 V a O O W U '� C N m 1 1 � A m o o i m s w <0 - S 2 > C: o• i O O : 7 C o O EI F m O O n £ O r¢ O a O V U t • O N r S a�� x �W o q V rv V W Y r Z 4 n C u Q O O V Z � O S 4F_ ry 4 �I r �x �4 �° W — W oo^ Wa vN 4VW O 4 F O q Z 6 W L C d� O X . S C N w_ � I L x �• D C S 4 -• 6 p I ry £ Q j F - Y -• K W r ry Q oI N J O Y O 2 O 3: N 2 V 6 O N Z O' o S N V d I O 2 I d i Q ! i Y n u 4 pll mWO W o s ° s 3 Y ry Y O o I I u 1 11 1 E 17 Z O R d O F W e y - £ X W o V o 0 K F o V N 44W N O Z G O X O O 4 v O U m O_ O O = v u o ¢ _ 4 Q' o G o O y A Z / r� L Y v 4V C F 1 j O x o d V ° _U O F d d W q Z 4 V O C > > i 4£ u c_ h F• _ ry = F Z h O v x W ¢ 1 ' - w " W r `n G a °• _ r w -_ W li o o l o l I z W 9 ° o W N .. - z u> F- N o o Z. g II z l z z x r o o f £= y II z l F p lu _ - x` N o 0 0 o r °• x z ` o ° a r o z 4 8 ` u "oo >a W ,'a ° — ° , o. l i a x a > W a- W N i F W 0 u o c Y a a o e. Iil EI aW zi u�.. O c Qq VI� N•]NW N.70 i6 2 I..W j N W jIY.1V �I.. W N gg 4 d Y F M 4 N N W W ¢ W Y C 4 4 O W V a o o Q l a- z d m° Y �`3 q a 'd n n �d o- m m > y{ I- u p u W u S a a N = I a i o • o I A M1 o. V V . 3 C Y . Y F Z> W .] 4 4 3 X Y¢ Sul N o N F N F u 41 O w Y I V ..l D Y V l U 6 .I N d N N s N .X d K 4 u u S G O F S m o 0 o w F O G o O a t - O n m o z o 0 I P • i yW N 0 V ry V 2 O m W �P A z l£ u v olou ol� ouo�Zm ° x F oioi of o C t W —_ �_„ � W•° w W �� n W "i � w i -= i c N — W i c i 4 �� i i F i y� j ^% P � 6 m ry m — V� 2 U S Z � S� O i O ' i O P 6 � 1^ W� " O I � S P • O i I� "�� 3 1 r W } I £ O� 4 I S M ' 2 n 2 I O P ^_ O O � 2— S • Z� a 2 1 12 � n . .. i 6 O 4 F. S I n .� i S A p I F 'n 2� 4 0 4 C 4� O V W : O " . p i C F O i � X� •_ 4 � 4 F V N N£ Q 4 O W N Z 6 N ' 1p I I aI V 0 W p S N 4 N 4 W u 4 V ; U II V v G p ry 4 4 ¢ e �� z 4_ ry 4 4 m � 4: •• � a 6 V n 0� z 4 . \^ ry O 4 S n o O a F W e u ul W a W i P ' W W I" V ry 4 F O O O O I Z Y O 4 ^ W F N _ V N N n > 6 II ry i m i W o o � o ry $'on _ z b o pro, .}i: a W 40 ° zme O i zl mvu 4 4 W 4 O4 1 N z • = 1 . p Z p ry O 4 2: ry .ai 4 ' I� W I O i W II V ; o VN A A W a i .. W W ° j • .� n - U S r-ef - - • 1 v 6 L C O: 4 6 , r W x • W> O • ! 1 I � a¢ ry �W -W M1w Nry 6 a ¢ W � - W W ry �j q 4 4 w ¢ V O l a F j• i .-. 4 n' 4 4 m ._] S >: ry q 4 6 ry 4 4� . 6• N 0 = Y� v O 0 r i F i } m O O U a £r M1 J m O •• fi l u O V a : u O w O , 2= W O_ P ry E O =` ,o N : N O �o ^ 4• ° r ry v� F 4 a _ 6 L 0 W Q l -' ry V W J .£. • ^d 41 m N N P i Y X �✓ W- O Z 3 . • - � �- j 1 U ° O w P Y O 4 � 1 o N• 6 O N ry n W Q M1 m Op � I V I ° W m 6 u V ml - � I N � � Ypi N � W O_ � � 1 - ry W 4 � w W ° d I O I I .^. - N O y - O • Y ry W 4 W • N • ' • • W . . r N • - • •G yq . y� � E O 3• N V G r ° ry ' Iii S NI _ vN m xNIr V x T di 11 1 v IC.1 S F O G> W i u i 1 F h F to 4 W �- a ' O ° z: um u °_ ^£ I u N o r 6 u W a C 0 . W O W I - O- a -- O • N II N N r G x i - W , N T G C 0 W Z 4 a N 7 A • CI W r II ' F `� .� Yal 6 p- V N. W O F '. N a E my' M1 .] >> ¢> K S 4 y 4 3 3 A li 1 F F 0 £ C C> i O G w 0 O O I 6 0 W Y O N N O j r n M .....1 O O W U F � • 1 II • i n r N I n • 1 x <J i I I i c1 ' e o u r Z G 4 'Y tl Ll C . W= A W Z m 2 Ll . V O m . 4 4 Y • 6 O F X ' } — f ' O — W j — W £ f C ` 4 W M O — • = = — y1 O V L y w G ^ Z m Z O 1 O O .•� I? I' QO �x V O V i K e— I 0 2' 6 Z 4 Y O n_ i Z O 4 0 ry _ M ,°., O ry Ta I F' l i LL P 4 2 N 6 m . L' ry n L. 2 Y Z F '. L1 . / N W J .. w N W O F O wu ry W N_ O .� N U W a• 2 — W a F' t> m . 0 > V L X Z O V O O i q '1 � I I �-• Z. 4 O t 41.1 O 4— S I LL W f F F O a ' F W 4� > W .^� I A A O O_ 4 y 1 W U W p y O Q 2 V Z¢ O 6 4 O L. S L W •• ? 4 m ^; I; e ¢ II p U4 X VWV GO Y, u, W 2 ^ ;y K ^ S W 1 Y Q 6 F< 1 6 •` V/ Q V V �j Z W _ O , V/ _ O 'tli 3 1 i / ; 1 I� n f 2 7 0 .1 4 6 3' e f /1 i 7 j C_ s¢ 4 W O O V •, 1 Y uI o , of W��o : , A 3 WI of ' ICI LL s r ' w. > o O ry q 4 1X r w> 4 w ' ' E'• _ O Z F = ,° O O b O ` •. Q a5 : i U p m ry �£ — O O O O Z Y L a O u O _ = ii W ry cW j l� Vx ry V ry rv� ry n i0 m „ V V Z m O l u Z m Z N Z Z f= N o o ° 3 Z r Z V o L " j • w £ LL m o =z. LL ry y w w W ¢ Q w. ¢o: N£ 4 4 N o . 3 . Z u ; F 'J J V w O O O O 4 O A ll y ~� . N 2 u X 0 3: y F jI I x 1 i ry of O m N N~ C Q O r 0 =� 4 3 4 W W n > C O Q Z S 2 1 V; • 2 Q Y O V° S W a O J II U^ Z S W W 7 W Y q W 6 � 4 O • O l i O IS IF r `0 1 io n�o' ' i- im4uo_ 4.WZ �amo .sel W h o n mq m Q_ IS II n i 5 1 n � Z 11 W O m rv � 6 A Z O m o x ry �_ q W t F 4 Z Z y W F tl O 4 v M1 V II Z 2 4 L W ' I u u F M1_ o i z o v 4 o z �'.. r m - o °4 i 4 c_ c� I {- _- •. 4 O W O 4 N i 2�� W Ca? � C u O + a- . F O S. . u M1 K O u W_ W j 4 41 � •�[ 6 - VV O w Z C C 4 Q N Y W W Z L 5 1 1 U N O yy N W S yC! Q N ¢ Q a X Z x F y y Q N 1 W Y 6 W .l I:1 N 4 w j W 4 V �] u� 6 i S A p 1 O i Q � 4 j � a 6 •Oi W V .] � a C i��� 4 ¢ Z Z� Y U ..1 M1 M1 w 4 C C a W W N m V C 1 Y^ N 4 W V V Y V W Z w W x 7 I 1 � a oa u i 8 W N y O • y, F . j W v w O F O O .� 6 i Z V N H 4 i N F W D I 1. W r ry i x e O � ^ as 3 v IF 1 ry - O' 6 ry a 4 v V M1 11 ry ry It, W> W a w W 11 4 O- 2 4 v W ; 4• N 4 4 4 V p � 0 � - •Ni O K O V U O 6 O r O C 1 = o o� ry x _ o of ota' 1 4 u W Z Z p 4 W W W= N Y S 1 ry _ 4 -_ I> o i z o G ; £ m H ? N W a X N z z Y K V _ H ry O = 6 aM1 f I 4 V O 1 i m I O .O_1 N 6 _ 3 a 2 I In 1 4 z L 4 O •. • fW- 4- 2 I '� F e_ a l Y M1 V Y H n O= 1 ¢ Y .. W • W '� 6 Z tl O W O I F W Z u F 4 u C 7 j m p m j W W O S O C 4 � 4 VN q ili (N� Y I O x ..1 :+ V 7 G N 1 11 rn • °.' H Y y 4 8 U 2 4 6 ry V u O LI Y O f i x^ W 0 6 0 1, N ; O W Y O • H S M1 W • r7. 4 m W 4 4 V O 6 4 1 O= I1 F V W 4 W Q N u •Y X • C i Y a u� It NCI ~ O • ^ ~• • I y O e ' N ' n •' Y L O 6 Y 4 6 1 2 : Q 1 n • O II M1 v6i L. 6 I • r • ° n ¢ � 11 w ry j �e N auw is - W o m2 2 _ I 4 - O o N Y y - 5 F W W 0 W 4 Y ^ 3 Y U yt m W W V 4 ry 1 F I¢.1 .] t > Z O F W LI W 1 U° W U 1 W j j f G 3 a OF Z F 1 F O Y O n fi W w O ¢q n P F Y i S 0 K §L v N 6 N O V N n V O O N S S q O O y S V O U df `rv°S 1 N V N N O O V ^ _ N S F y w U u _ y F_= N_ I W F a O IY•1 o g u W W x O W F a0 F S¢ Y W F z V� S .> ; 3 C O 3 F V S N 6 t0 O,- O t 3 F! N n S • 2 F j 3 V N O O I WI..11 F° 2 W m 6 1W4.1 N 2 •n L. V u ° 2 4 a O a F a Z- y • i W 1 4 N Z li 2 F Z 6 d _ 3 O O O O O F O w O O V O O 3 U •+ w O 3 4 O W F O �o W S w O '- O O U 2 -¢ O W •] \ W C C F K O W O N O F V r l V V .°] > O_ y V° Q w 6 Q ° I•. F tl F_ V V W S O_ V W < _ . ^ W 1 W 2 W w Y 4 2 O Z O W W Q° ti y 6 q Y 3 W¢ Y Z f F 3 O F 4 6 .] o s C W W S 4 F y ` > 6 W Y Z Y G C O } • U ] I O 4 > N O V N Y .^ w C N F 6 I O V N I N I I F u vl N ~ N F N S C y •l ¢ F W O p V 3 1 . y y y N In y I S 4 6 N O N 4 6 0 � N N 0 ° I 4 O S •• Y O N I w� O V F N I O~ O O v 11 rvl P WI I WY u 4 J OI �W q 4W y >O N N W ' E O C F } K O 1}-. 7 z Z 4 S• r = ry n ° 4 L O O 7 / ry 4 K 0 Z S O -1 a j .• i F Z v0 C r 3 : a Z 2 v Z q Y S O Y V L n _ F? n - n V z - •N y S A • y j O G o V 5 I i w 11 ID I V 11 Y n l i =/ G F z N i ¢ I O 4 O W P F W O Q O 4 W V N I I ° S I • W i el l O W K I W - V V y 4� N O 3 N i K w m 5 3 V 3 7 U 4 h� •. N� K N 2 u } 4 O 4 � F O • �I 4 2 N £ O £ - N F Z O: y ry ° 4 6 K 2 O r F u 4 4 F W .l W K C O y u n Y K W W S [[ W 2 w S 6 V II l ~ F In W In In 1 Z O A S Y w u U S 6 6 0 U F O• C Y 4 3 a O .: d K 3 V • O tl F O t . 3: ~~ S O OY O / O u y S - N O ° ° 1 � r' �3 w W s - a a ' Oi N L ¢ aW ry y ... w I vW ' ^ — C ry v Y v u V w 4 ry F w n b ` a ^ d ry m i 2 v> y j n i q > q a .i W �O o •• O C i F £ O i ^ V W 'i 4 N 2 K 6: " q 4� I U O i h' .� ' i 4 e ° V � 0 4 � i 6 ` F 3 FVV I A W 4 �/1 F W O— " Z p 6 tl W 1- V L. i I P P I.� 4 F- V 4 O LL Vp 6` 6 I O QQ i w p p as u i g w 4 y1 e :; O w w =u 5 N : J I A A N l = X 4CUOnn. II I ry oW - i - �o I N N • F v V _ F F 4 6 n c O n U 6 Z A tl! D o V o w> W� V 1 X j� Z� m O S 0 'I w :' 4 o 11 i w yy u i ��' 6 z f L,1 O Y • 2 a— • O WF_(n1 O 6 Z w Ou W F ¢qW 4wW a w q OY _N yq W N'. El 4 w i 3 ^ N 'i O L > • ^ Y K G y V 1n F" f _N 4 Y W .i 4 .+ 4 4 - 3� 3 I Y F- N Z u o S •.t 4 4 3 3 3 i W F- P� 4) o 11 w F I Y N W e•1 O �� F O 2 W l i O U� a m ¢ 4 W V �� I 1 4 4 3 F- N 1¢+ e O O ¢ O ¢ 1 �� L- i. 6 S¢ n N n n I Q' i .. vl V I C vl • % F O� W W} � 1}- - F ¢� u F 4 ^ W V O F W S i W 3 O F' ••[[ W e 6 S , 4 w 4 O W W O S C pi 2 - - . V V 4 O 1. 1 4 � U C I� NGN I £ W vi W q > 6 M F 'n U 4 6 4� C �•1 � u � VU O N 4 C G F W W V 1 4 1 - >> S V 6 I V -' X YI F F 2 Q O W 5 vFi 6 .q m 1 � O fF•1 Ll .• 44 O S W > ' 4 6 W ° W N m F W O L N ~j N O . O F U vl 6 0 Z O U • N N 2 4 6 U O N N m 0 j 2 N o I q c � g _ V i C I A m M Y O O 4 ry OW A 4 O v 11 C W n j W: 1 W 41 tl F 4 W 4 W F j W EI O F F 7 O O V Z rFi 'V O S 7 W W E m = 4 _ n n Wg�• 4_ N I I > , 1 0 1 W O Y I G m W ^ U • F- n F• - H 4 n F m ' W imli W VD J . Oy: Y n. VO O� ajo F W O O n Z yl ry .1 i Z - _ _ _ge ¢ i F S u O F S ry : W Z F� tl 4 I - W 6 O ~ U N Y' a ¢ Z L F L 3 m O O U .] W U Y O W 3 H 3 O ' O WW W M F Z JO xO I 2 U G 4 L 4 V y 4U1 a O li . U W 6 Y 22 J • N : O i II N - W ¢ W r I F• 4yq ry W O U 1 ¢ i 4 N O I S F 'i S F � V N W q > F' w . U I q W u W I F Z fJ g F ,Y 4 4 • V N a U V A A m { w W C 4 F o I V 30 n tl S W S F I F F- S 4 4 I I O j i I n. In F a 4° V In W 1 o N e f rvl W. o IS U V R W V NI O a• W� It W ry It n V 6 �o 4 _ n _ rI A ° I 4 4 L W o Z u .. £, Z O 0 • o r i p Z F O `£il 4 • o r r rli O r i 2 i W_ ry ry 4 F p F O O O O Y F W W • _ o m r4 Z Z W S ry • S O V O II f N rY n W r £ N W44 Z _ z In Y J U 2 £ ry N V rr'r ! S O l l1 4 O ..11N1 = M R O n r i V n W h W I H • W r Ill j W ..] o X 2 u r • - Z V _ - II _ Z F • O 4 Il l • O . y y y a V p • O Z O r O 1 a 3 A Z U V N u F 3 S 2 r a Z r l.. eUj Z F F n O W 2 p 4 Z 2 n 2 d O W W n W W O e.. • O l C • W 6 lal a W V£ 4 F W 2 C� 1 4 n • O S K N .`.• I.. O q I I r-l q F. In 2 V_ P W W m 3 4 r W X F r W FV' 4 y yj 2� V W � �Wi W W O z •Wl In W Z y O W J 4 V O d r W O O m ll 1 6 O ' 5 f O q O 1. I r Q 4 OI� V 4 S _ ry W W r V X d r V I] .0 ru ul u E • d a C 1i y F Y Y � ' p r� . a S 4 N • O I •' 1i NI j W V a 6 O^ O r X O 11 •, Il i II •• F 3 1 O i •,• O Il 1 .. I II • ry I 11 � • I a W W n III W I, O O £I > > m p E O i 2 2 W In In m OV Illr l 4 l l n F N> W r n I i y I .1 0l Zlli _ O Z U ' C l i 6 Il l K r i II •¢ S S Q O > l6 Z} U 4 u K II O Y £ K W N V O W O W m f • F O i z l li O I j 1 O l f I li 4 F YI O 4 r f 4 5 ¢ 1 0 m � W a C F X 1 0 1 11 Z f O N V1 1£ I a o 1 5 i 4 ®Oi 3 nII �3 All 31 nFNZ oV�46 3 - • �I± £ �V f ' O 1 It A I • W I 2 W N l N Of L O �. > 4� Z0 O i A �i N� O N� O Z F • ' O I`i l I r I I ll I l l v o o W= W w m I £ p i N � Y I \� i.. 4 W V' o V W YI � n I I.. � I o � V 4 W i y y 4 W m q Y n 1 0 F C V 3 � l i Q i II X 0 2 K W 6 4 u W 4 4 of A W O Y W u Q W N u I.i - r C V O O u E O 4 Z F ^ ^ II p Q W �1•JI . �O ry i O W O ♦ O - V Z z 0 L.I Z 11 K It 11 - L o F 4 Z Z S O n Z Y O K u m f r P ry ry ry W - It O= ry n O a G Q I r m W P F O 1 II - b m j F It 4 I F o U F K N O 7 F> Y = V W= O 6 z e a- m F E z -O O l i O iYl W O I li S I? S W 4 a ry S Q a N F m J Z N M- E 4 I u 2 4 y� Y G- > v I • S W N II F^ u 4 S - O { O W v S O' F V_ d N W W y 4 W W C£ C d 3 V 41 Y ♦ W W '' W p VWi z V 4 �> I w p O W N Z V O ^' G O 6 F 4 C 4 a- d • 4 i a N 4 W O W O G 1 0 2 Z 3 d O F 4„ F 3 W Q u 4 C A F 3 4 I� O Y1 D 4 f 3 I W K rl 3 W - N O j V W W • V � a V I ,♦ F V' � 3 a 3> W I I X � h 4 p ♦� i z l F f � 4 F f L C W y� O I£ u N O O u O a • N M C G S Y F Z Z e w E o N .] >> a' V G a£ 4 O E 3 V 3 Y W 3 F W W W W V • Y Y£ £ V N O Q CC t O O O a d> 6 a 2 O F J j b N O N - 4 O > 6 a F 4 O F D O A I I � m II I ' ry o11 - o 0 >- F S w ' V F � O I I p I < j � > 4 C W O p 1- r ZN 4 O O G 6 ry O O m � m S F ry I N _ V h p F a U m O S Z O W 1 V 44 LL W u 4 4 2 Z - W S W O C 1 ! w O II O '.0 N SSSSS I Z N 4 h w W 1 _ v 1 0 �o .0 - 1 .. V w r . O - I Y Z f O 11i 6 - II I O W C ; I W �• £ N Z i l Z q IcVK�.IMgZ O 6 N W 4 u .W] U I• W 6 W 2 F O O ` Y O 30 6 u 1 4 - G 1 - ^ ' V O m N f n N O �I 5= 44 N W o K � W II S� u 0 4 p C a s g Y it tK •S 41 a O N W W 4 O 0 5 m N W C O f a V 4 4 W LL> = a£ 11 1 W a 1 1 K 11 X W Z F u > 1 4 p A I ti O u m F i< w m o p 2 6 4 O L O . O .0 •' 1 i 11 O 1 i . O 1 II In 3 L1 0 I it II i� I x - 11 I a s 11 v ry yW' I ; Z u = V P U o 4 I F V ry n � ry N 1p N .V. 4 ¢ W 1 n . F j ,O W 2 e F � li ,I C l i � P : O i S x £ K . p • O i F v 1� 0 O a q W Q m v • £ L F n V d Z V n W Y 6 n SSS i 1- V N W 1 ion iyil5u oia u° n — '��. N ° F� �^ _ N • — ry � I n W V W r _ _° _ F ry W W o i. 1 o u o � z N_ F� F n t• W a W o 4 s u W F e w o> I W V u W W i j i 33 o m p F s o 3 O U Z 4 C W D � S � F 1 4 � W O . 2 4 - W 4 O Y u W K W N W i V 6 4 (� N[ p, y w. O H W u r w N N y> 5 ' o . N L 4 N• 3 A 3 1 • 3 l i W 3 0 L N O N 4 'e F u j O o N N O F : 4 A A x O N O yl uF O l NI L I v ry 4 3 W- O Y W O m ij I °IwJ I O OA VOm NW• pl ego: _ 'I °poi W S •• O yl S ri O q w C N S w V FC F... Q - F Z u •n n O K L W 6 N n u w I O F? r v O i W o 2 u o m m l L: b a O O . Z 2 F_ F l i W II G O W N W r f L 3 • W N L W n V 1 : I W i G I� o. V" ..l W W 6 W N (o/. � _ W F N 4 Z: N V i O. Y O . � ¢ 1 4 6 l i O_ I II � W O O u O 4 k- O I I O Ip Z N iO • V I Z . O W O 1 I 2� n V 4 Vr Y M1 4• N p r W Y • , , W p W 4 O I�^ O J W l U C Y} C E_ W N — W ° O .� a O 2 4 — 6 O 0' } C O • _ O U U ' , _ O F Y • M1 v N_ ^ r • u W W 4 N a N W O S m v 4 ^ J � W O D i ° F O � r W > Z 4 W V L V u i K i 0 4 V 00 S O n WI = W ry _W W 4 S O v r Y I 1 °vtl�m M1 "W =F -5mzmFFO�o' W �- O 4 Y� S rv � C[ •. ¢ 4 - W T - O V 2 O O 4 F Z P O T ° II Z _O A M1 N S II O W 0 6 Q> } N_ V N C O • 0 1 0 1 W W = W p U z W I.1 V m < W W j V r' P W I 4 S C a ° Ir. W i W[ O W O L p F Q 6 W K 4 � D V G O 4 F� Z [ I L ° 2 Y 1 � C_ • a 2 U P ; m 0 a o N o a y I O z U 3 6 0 M1 O I W s I.'. ^ WWWW ry 2 K v W s Z 6 I�u N.S. .SiWm4'�4 G N Y ♦ U Y K -� � r.. C f 4 6 A� F } C •.t YI � W F a I O[ Z y O N N O• Y o I F Z> r V ty V N Z V W = W S V> .] Q V V ..[. WO > N V 1 Q W .. 4 u V F F .l • 6 >> � 0 K m C F Z 6 j 2 • j; n `I L W V S F N .. .V • • N r It. � "t WI 1 i m ry U o r r W a 4 V r N N P u X 1 x - x Z n C o v £ p3 to 04 "u aoi m oP — p c p Z N n ' E C u N L .. 2 M1 = O v ° F • O I Y O I � O Q 4 Y T m O 4 V} O 2 W V q aa O v r¢( it 3 u li $ V I° Y N= m u O W O W W _O l i ° V I li i� I Y RR 2 N J m In F Z W V 6 G W Q 4 6 F¢ .1 x 3 N F p V N M1 Y N i 4 p� L1 6� W G C� • q = r v vNUUi i y F n r(N/ i 4 u� I 0 • ° V 4 -> 0� ^ m O L O O • O O O I A II N 3 W •. m F O O O 11 A 1 A I A A F u V n� • i p I Y I tl � p I Y I u Or 11 2I F 4 I - - ' O^ q Y y 2 e 4 ,• n 6 6 ry n j 7 C: .. - Z _ h Y O i S� O O •> C O n - SS F 1 W o. o�oX Wi��3m i oir' c god a� o O 4 F = li 5 3 V O z O O Y • v a Z 2 n v 3 O Q W F C W i V u ' v i v y 4 4 F; m F zz O ' N 1 z } z 1 O _ a W ; �- • F F - y F r ry W Z 4 F U u r 2 � Z Y X W I � F• F• N S_ V £_ JJ F l i 4 N O I�" O i O Y� i- .30] v O V� S Z W Y : 2 i 0� 4 N p n o m � K� .� � 4� W Y" • Z W W 4 ^ n r r 4 V N KW 4 > u W S 2_ U m 6 z V •• a j V O 4 Y1 C : 4 fl Y N N Y 4 W 6 j W 0 4 G 4 0 4 4 3 4 C r 3 u V 3 t J V O 2 4 m KK E 4 W O 5 V C W II V� Q Z ld QQ - W � Z 5� G K Yl : V i Y. Y L • U C F a ]qL[ O j Y V o! L V X OOL S R a K X Q Y F •d F OF 66> C V L 0 6 V 1 Q - £ W _ N S N _ F O+ • Y1 a ry W _ L . 4.1 OW ' v Y . • F m 4 W .] G 4 : S Y £ Q N V £ W~ V ^ M. • W m < • 3 NEW of I I 1 I i O O v 11 w u S n 40 a o a s O F? O ¢ O V V K • == ov r•, £ Q H O F o? O 6 Z q 4 4 Y 0 p - QW ry ry tl v y 6 4 V Y I W II S O n W F m II O n a O 2 V a . a vI F u Y W ZZ X • C i; .4. i 4 u I W = F V~ 2 W £ n II a r Y £ L �I I" O W_ u. 4 w u W 4 I�'•. W o - m x o` n a D " • - �.. W� 6 i� i L l� o i � W- L i III N p s � s W F- � W m ..� � I 'I z it a o q l i O W O v 4 o o Z O N n o z n o i V 6 W L K a V L L -1 ' Q ! • i I Y I X 1 1 • I N I p — �` „ Y 4¢ n 4 w w ' . • .. ry 4 4 Ck 0 I i Y x I v 3 Y n n h ry ry W O n � Y � 0 Z >> �_ • _ � e . O � o w Pi f V 2 ` O r F P N= m O •-= ry n ' j£ - O P ry Oy Z. V F 4I i O M C O I Z ' I } � £ A N r~ P W Z o.. W O 0 w } , F •`. N O 2 F u m 2 W g 6 w F 2� 1`I '� U o W' ° _W- =isll oW_ � °'E w W W_ F° i: c u t• >¢ Y a m �°¢ w e w o l _ o W O 1 r u c a l H ° w o` N n �� nl W j� .� O K •• Z_ vl i j � F s . O W� O¢ � K� W O r 15 rON N iN � w 4 W V 41 A 11 V Y F } w U r n q W w_ S 1 W ^' 4 6 ' I II • r Ir • I 1 Y F F 2� o N .] �� 3 i , S w V £ V - F- F V= h� w y 4 H O i � N I o V ii a m° ry w W a> o j O O 1 1 ° f N S V 4 O W x_ ° V ..i S O— V Q F > m 4 W W ^ r O W O° O It I v 11 W_ 1 w i m 1 i ; 1 IWi. W 6 O— O C I O I X 4 W y1.I1 I I I Z i£ Ip Z I Z XI 2 1 2 i^ n 4 O O W 4 O r _ � r V n � � W_ .] W .� O j ✓1 y C N� I • F W F 4 h> w f K U u 6 r 4 Q F Z 4F1 1 W 4\ u V a 6 W Lg4q1 ul • v 4 e ' C�C W6q a' � V I.. > _ r1 r — U 0 2 . w W W F W r$ I W W 0 . W O Sn ..t u ^ a — ✓r w Y i O Z W ¢ d �W' .] _ W F 4 W W a P •° ii "' £ e O ¢ , n a¢ n 4 Y F W 6 u V Q S ¢ A 0 C N I 7} u V .: y>6j ¢ L. 1 v 1+ i • u i Fzw- m ''wd a r r • • II 4 4 O 1 V O O O O U S =• i S 4 3 O Z O W ! O p � 4 i • � W ' EI n n O£ � 2 i Z i O i YA � Z � S I • Z� v I�� � 2 ` S Y • c W• VO S F O Z m O W £. aY V V V'•' � loo I� I'a AQF o _ W rx Wlal W = 0 x — v O S' : O �S Y : 2 N I 2 O l 4 j•` W . -• A O=. W U x 4 00 0 • 2 Z q p .' ' - ry 4 Q W 5 4 .. N i 1 Y N I� Y N ' 41 • m 6 N vl i= � W I Y I ~ O 7 . W'� W V N W V 3 W V i IJ i S i L1 Y . S I�. : S I G Z Y • p 1� Y • S i ¢ O xl 4 N S� O �� 4 4 ¢ i O. N ' •� n 4 • • . x = II S E� O . • ' • • ' Y II N 3 I o 4 m j . S €WO I A A V 6 I A I` ; �• 7 ml 1' 6I 12 E 1 4 0 - W��• n v 1 i I O OI COm II 01-.Y a¢ O �• P'm x vmi y U 1 y £ j N W 4 U W O W £ e N W LI Q W m 4 W m S q p q ¢ C 4 4 p 1 K ry L 6 n • �] 4 0 51 b O F W F LI � W G W V q 4 F O Y W W 3 Y : 2 2 n n a Z 2 a 3 O W F Z � q N S � n 4 I= v 3 U ¢ W S • Z Z S 4 N W y - n Z: N e x a- _ W .a .`• y m Z Q F= Z 'o •¢ .] 6 ~ i . . W a 4 ..1 6 G o t o itl W £ X O W W n 4 W L O 0 Z 4 I 1 6 i V O W O I F- : 6 M C 4 n W u¢ 4 W O i V 0 U O W z O 4 b F ?; Q• 4 N +. 1 \ i y 4 4 K 4 4¢ r 4 • o X Z O m O S p p £ C F• : G j Y� O i C V P 6 � O x W m �� W Y O �� w J F I V I .. 3� � W P = F 0 41 W S A F S O f O 0 3 F S y U 4 OF _ •A F? .O.t N 2 S . O S • F- Z D I n i' • al N � 31 F -- 4 i u W F L N ! O C W 4 4 p yF ! U Y 1C O .• n 4 1 U 4 :: ° W o •, N 4 F o° o F u$ m W e o r o o g rv ° p o 2 Z N w W 4 0 w N O - W S Y 2 Y O • ^ m F , O p O O 4 I lu yy • 2 . Z O c I O F j O W W N O LFI w G VV S O L N ^ I W 6 4 W I V N O 4 I L O j Z 4 2 w y �[ 41 ' F " O e a p 2 6 e W N 4 F .i S F 41 N W O 2 1 W W S _ w 4 4 4\ a O w 1 /1 Q ry W p II O w- O V W 3 4 a O O y N „ U II 4] S K V V q 6 I N L V V O O - 6 0 i W I O U 3 6 C 4 .2O] 1 F_ 440 I w 4 0 P V a Z F Z U Q S N f W F 4 .] O q W N f O F a f A W 41 F N N W 4 O F x S w¢ 1 u N 4 14.1 N F O o II C I. W_ Y 41 .] F 4 W 4 4 C N w Q > F F ¢ V ? a Q 4 y S > N U- II 44 W 'L ^ N ' 0 • u H pp W O N> Q > <> C 4 . 4 W O 4 V 3 Y N N N • N N Y 4 a N N _ O 6 O O S G 6 6 N F 1 4 i N O O a O j O O N ° F W 0 1 a I a F W Q W 0F2: NN I 0 I.. 4 ° U V U 5C I _ I v 11 _ W p N x u u� I W >.�. s m v Siam _orv° = -- '0 !zaW W a o f olo w X o �e .. 4 - N 1 a o o` s, N W F o 1 m z x W m N o m F �_ F o 0 u l u" z z u ° ° o u r o l o u - ¢ z i l l V N C Y Z U a 6? 3 N O W 4 3 G 4 1 W I w W 1 I G Y F w 1.. P m m ry O V L 2: 4 m V U • ° _ ° F Z° Y ry u 4 4 W W U 4 ¢ .] • ° F I li U: ile VIi %A11 Y4F N £ F V 4 4 N N j O G 2 I N 31 N W1 I . s = S Z ZO 2 p F s u a - li - 41 _ N r j r 1 `vo • 6 i li -1 ' O O 0 e N L F 4 N 11 1 V 11 I S A u W 6 C C r I o I 1 N ry 4 N C 4 r N 4 4 ul 11 z C li V i W A O V m O 4 Z O li O V O Y I•. .+ o S F O= o F= 0 4 4 0 ul S ry 4R t J O e T 4 Y U m Z= ry m 2 2 ry n O W Y 4 n Pi 5 W 0 _ Y 7. 4 .. V� ^• i m Ni 4 O II Z >< q N F N N r iOn Ni�i N1 6F F . r- m Z U _ m I. . � ry ¢ry U4 V u y; V m^ Z N i 4 tl V Z O , n 2 Q m• X' S n Y N O N ' I^ II I � S Y � O �� O i 0��� 3 Y R 2 y � 0 1 0 M � �O O • O 4 w V I S 1 2 I Z • Z I O A u O Z O� O W � 2 1 S e L 4 • w_ � a O Y F V 4 4 O '£ It w •. •_ w N N w z 4. N 4 4 Q W N ry ry W V Q L. O V Z G p Q • a u V N q 4 4 4 - � 1 6 O 0 ry O £ I • O C O 6 4 O Y C w F h U C X Q 4 W .. N I I S 2 6 C ry Y W .i V ^ Itl II Y I p 3 p 1�•1 O .] N 4 • j £ N m V £ N m .. U ♦ F . • 6 ¢ m ^ 4 F N F . G W o N O F n II F O Cb D 3 N 6 0 . W 1 1�v 6 12 '� W S S i N 1 X u 4 O. 1 F �Y �aN 4¢ w,� ry 6 4 6 W VWA W . 6 F O_• 3 2 Z ry G Z Z ry O W F� git N G Y W p O 6 W? N Y p 6 • _ O Y p M• F w- Q; 2 0 M1 2 1 W L V W A X V F £ O 4. _ r YW ¢ qq WwN ry W w� NI W .Oi U£- v 1•. F RRO - a 1 V 0 a 6 _ •u i G; W C O_ V n o G n 4 W W LL F p W G Pi yO1 O z W 4 N££ ry 4 y p O V V Z• O O 3 1 4 W 1 i � I t V I u b o w � j ry O W> N W V • ` 0 o 6 i 0 A Z q 4 4 -� W_ 4 C In 4 1 Q S W ry f 4 < Kw K 1 . 1 O i A N� 4 .lI W F ..I W • O d r m' W Y N V m m^ V F I•J4J 4N „ 4 F O S O II b .a .] W .. W m FO p • .] H _� O O 3• F Y U 4 O F W 4 4 U' M1 F i I r I . Il i i 4• I 0 y W . O£ v N 4 Y 4 : O O P 0 0 r O ' p � 1 C m 6 4 0 0 4 W F?• W W < 4 I y 1Y — V 4 X 0 > S W W Y O _ O V • O ^ v 1 W O, W 4 X ' E O t- N . f 2 4 •' S m — C S W e 0 _ C `u S m 4 O 1 O r O P O p r O F X W N G 2 2 m m 4= V 1J W 4_ • F r ' I G I B 0 _ W 4 o F 4?• : U z O N 4 n U 4 m Y m O V Y W n n 1 t• X m F 4 V W w U • Z 1 i m Y ' O £ X 0 1 O =, F 3 z �s u ° g: � �4n `� zi. al£ r[ :�:'�'• 0 6 w y p y. j I•. r Y O LI o, n l 1 O V F p p V C O W C G O w P WO r G yy QQ vv�1 a V n Y C F a Y I Y .Q n . m • F 46 N W a y • r V • n e • I II F 0 D P !6 W N C v 11 o W _ V U L. V O O O mi V =j VW °=a t 4 4w e Eo 6 — W b I Z u O O 1 £ v w O V O O_ O V G S 1 S ' W o O ` O n L= Gm 4 V O P L' r� X W 6 1F1JJ W m ££ V a 6 WF O 6 a P 4 m . e m O i N m r 1 Ix 4 o O V C W 0 d F V m N 2 F V o 4 O — O - O U S 0 O e X 6 �1 0 F 2 L1 O , a L O F u 0 P V — V O V 4 z i r O C u 1 O tJ S S F A a I I 0 1 4 j W + - y W¢ la.. •F 4 . ul d H y r F I • O a a o Z U 4 6 2> 1 rr, 2 W C 1 • U P S W . 6 O 4 0. a ! 5 o ' 1 - a r N I r p 11 4 3 3 Y W 4 i AO.r W 0 0 3 3 1 . 3 I m . a _U W 4 C ql V 1 Y • O ! e O O - O r P O 1 x • r x F^ w 3 W O A j O W> a u O j w4 " Lp6 W��a�a p 1 m ' a 1 v O O S H V m W A .. 2_ 11 X 2 W I = p V aq • Y K p 2 ° W W O a O = 1 N ¢ 4 ¢ 2- 1 W O v O • r O O O ^ 5 _ .. £. S m- lu S O Y . F . O o ^ • N= N- i u O LL - a• U � ~ n N � y. - - W Q 4 Y Z ^ _ - LL U Z- • F a Z II — =�H m LL W 4 LL ry W LL O O- II II Z = O 0 O. LL N N ` 1 > yy� W 4" d ¢ � W. 0 1 O LL� F- J 4 W - n - W N U O W LL O L 2 6 u i Z F O w P W .] 4 4 3 i £ W - V £ 44 W � U . F• F .] o W . � m .. ry � '� .i „ � o � 2 � W 4 = � W - 1 ° SW_y�ol y i�W 4° • . I A Y~ ZO ¢ J 1 'ROW 1 a� 4� � b v U W i W W W O ^ 1 ry ry li ^ V V q _ W 1 W a pWP 4 4 4 W x 1 O O^ I a W 1 . 'v w v W O 1 1 w 11 y~ o £ n I X m o 7 j 4 J P -= L .~. £ In 7 6 n O 4 u W m O H W ; •Z Y -. > F O O- F F N I° ] IU.1 U 1 N Y O •• F W= O ' N H ^ 9 .Wi Z O 2 O P II 4 6 1 Z F w P O O t- O 2 .] O 1n II a �c F- W - W £ 1 O; O¢ Y W 1 W N j W a V V S j C u 6 C 6 6 W W X IPi. p •£. x W .- u rt u � � m 1 4 Y C 11 1 4 G° C W 4 C O u ° O x> q W W h V ¢ 4 Y 3 V 3 2 u O N h I•. 0� 0 OOOV N N D 1 U n J 1� 1 1 1 I — W ° n • N° O W W m V V U U 6 n y Y N m A 1 4�• W 2 C : j t A W N O M1 f O u O n 0 4 i £ 4 O 4p£I : o • 0 1 4 1 rv _ C W O O � II N q W N 6 .. � O : 2 i S � 2 i v • Z I Q � Q •_ � I 4 U r_ a • F u O — N u ° £ ry S O 2 N m N �+ A N O• u ` M1 • F 4 N F I tl Z • W A W m W N S G; O e : a 1 N . G W Z •• . • O f A F> W Y O 2 w W 4 >4,, F_ V O . I£ e O p O 2. 2 •. V p N n • Z V I . = I _ j f .] t y O Z 4 Z 4 i _ i£ A i� Y • O .i ° _ y 4 O F• 7 C W W N O w O £ A O Y pNp A a W W U G W 1 � W W _ 4 2 _ a • 4 I W 1 � O F 1 4 W 4 ^- V W K > V 1 V O u W £ W U s a 0 6 i 6 W A 6 1 6 > } D u o y o 1p 2 3 6 d > > � ti_ S W J 4 — f e W O u u 6 1 i O I p f F 4 Z f W a C � 1 O 1 • O i F- Y 4 O x ' O 4 4 F4• 2 1 e f Z 4 >> O 6 ..1 >> C C 4 W, 2 V 2 1 • 2 1 a . 2 1 . e_ F 2> O N J 4 4 j 1 O N 2 v v O i o u N C C >> y O O 4 1 I `u p � W 0^ u N ° F I � of 1 I p. II v 11 F- Y O 0 O O p 11 V X416 _ e !G ' 1 G O: ry Q4 6G, V N 6 • n 4 Y O t.l F: W 6 Z N ° A J o. F n Y e N• W y• ° z p ' m 1 3 ° u m ' ° m s a 6 4 W O 6 O 2 a q — a N 1 tl V N 1 pq, • N f • Y 'J'J� > G V �[ Z O j o m 1 O C F: LL 1 . 4 V O O i W W 0 i YI I' u O i£^ 1 � W W � 6 . 2 p f ¢ � 1� I O i Q F II J 4 •� N W � O CW _ O y6 2 W w;^ A 6^ I Api. O V J e .] 1.1 W 4 N u • a 1 C Y F F • O' 6 a ry a Y 6 N C J I I ° A A 0> 3 N L1 LI 6 6 O U 3; : 3 1 A A M F Z> O o 4 • O 1i Y ° 1 Y • 1 . O a F O 1i II O V O 2: • 1 " V d p F W W I 6 h U 6 6 F . F • 'J L1 O 1 1 i x:30 O a; 4ee N F Z Z W J ! 4 Y • F 2 F Z Y S F O ut a S O 1 v 11 • O A W U m O F' T F V m .] y V I N y 4 W. O Z O O O C 1 .. 6 e F N I= n O F 1' • I o S F V V F W O O ' i> IF u e °z Wes— zm l . _w� N U 1 F LL Z p O_ X O N • O 1 r 3 X£ O F > yFy�� . O 'I ^ p m L > W • Y} I m £ W 6. 2 2 x } • i 1 2 0 W O W 2 W 2- F W O 6 6 w L O X N P O W_ . ._ a 4 V N N• F 2 y� 4 W W F Z qq + � I O U f I O I . W I • 4 I I � F 7 W w 4 I` e W O - S w V F W n Q N wI U X O I. 0 6 J p y : O j Y O l Y : O r F 1 4 W O p .l W 4 6 i6 O 1 •1 I F a} ad M1 N a n V ° Y I ; ; a Q > d 4 v� W G M1 V a I A m G W F S V F a NEW n °I 1 nl I I li 11 a o I it = W x r ° z W u W u W u ~ O O W O W O i Y I 0 4 Z x O m i 0 1 LL 0¢ N 0 4 ry N O m Z g M1 F P J O m Ipl � e 2 m ,' m � O I V .^. O £q O � U Z _ F u w 1 F 'IX o f C h _ O YYV 6 Z I O Y LL F- m C .-. K K .] 4 W • O to ' 1= Ii W Y S I W W a O i O i W ^ l N c° W S O Y V L= 1 t i Z S W ¢ c � .W 3 w W .. N 4 ry 3 a K � 3 W• ; p- q • m N o W - F _ a n F o F _ w - o o W ry = o 0 1 o ` P� I G I I II - ' I o , U 4 W j 0 U m 2 O ry ? F O N a > F- a - .. _ O !_ • m E .. 2 Y O O r S m F N R C W �.. O� ry m��� W O F F F p O • F� O V y 4% � O_ O In W O W W P U Z _= c •_ O e - y . _ Q _ m ry LI .J 8` OF 4 4 O f. W 4 I ` 6 4 C L = $ Q 2 ry 6 O 1 W Wi. w 'n O f O+ a U 0 W R F£qQ' j yN• tl Z o � P � 2 0 m I O g ry O C m .. a F ry . O O C O_ Z I m P W O V m O O N W Z F W F_ rn 2 2 F_ K .I G Jj F � F e IF.� I Z V? 4_ .] F .] a` '.1 v 7 i a N N 4• V 4 L. Z . 2 - �¢.. Y. c. 4 W 'n O W N F = W 4 4 .] F• 7 C N O m 4 4 N a' 'Y N n n W F 4 C a a � V� S= U m d Q V n� __ i O= m y I^ d X i W O F- F V W W 4 E 4 C F 3 I W Y O Z 6 O 6 G � 4 4 3 L. C4. r 4 4 f 3 p C ~ 3 m ry 2 V: 3 . F 4 • U W 2• IS N ] m 4 W F K i 0 Y Z F £ O N m O_ • y O Z� In 4 I U X W y W V � W > C V .� .y]I V Z W p S 41 W, u" W O W V x Y F 2 gg > > >� N£ 4 h 3 V : 3 f R S U £ V • -'`• ♦ a m � of I o >i a a o ux Ng L z!ol o! wi'a_I m Na m E as z' - SN �o P °`�� E� W 3 n O r W S Y N X I Y O Ir - 'l I ¢> ^- Z O n o N O 4 q ? F yI S Z N Ong Z �S� _ . ^ i. Z.� ON Z � F4 O O GWFO.yy]II �.Y .] I C > n F W £ L • Y Y O u Y :" O W O 4 � U 6 l 11 i n it W V ; ^ N U V ( I> 2 3 O W U it _V W 4 W K W O 3 R W aa • O W > W ^ N f O 4 I -¢ tl tl V C Q W� i �' 4 w y CC R Zq 4 w w o F- m a Y 4 4 x • I N ` F. m N > O N .a 4 4 11 a d 3= o 3 0 �r I �' W o <° 11 p 11 I 4 =1 WW o Xe Y .. tl a w w i a i N - w K • S o ql F W O F O i O V W G 4 ' O F - F tl i .] O lat y .. S • Z b Z 4 tl O V O O U 4 O c S U O W W N 6+ U I•. O O 6 O p 3 n O o g £ Y `•'o ! G 4 x u = m O i n 4 F I 4 4 _ m SSS O . 6 • V m _ a r C O II 4 4 F l i W q qq O m Z Y u m W .l O P K O Y O �I O u u O w r « n N? o tl Y a N Y ,. O S Y S o= m• f .] N F W S W w tl , O tl F r > a , m o F O 0 I•. > -_ Y U r O_ m 4 2 - Z I X j O r 4 2 W y S 6 m F L I of - C F "«: ` . '• N f L i S Y 0 = u a W� «= � W a � i= a o a r Y O Z V f u V W £ r/� q •] O- L 6 N f j W V r W W > N V O Z p O S i f j S LI N N n J S F N v u m a a; F u s o I I' 4 n p yFI 6 tl tl Y n m �_ N tl fryaJ O A p tl F 4 0 0 - 6 vFi vq W� o S+ F w q W Q > 6 4 Z u 11 - - l i = Y •i F 2 _ n l i 3 F W - m 2 0 - e U m L m W Y n .• 5 W u O .l N- X O f N W t Y N O m 1 - L O 6 Y O 4 o N O m u W F' •.1 - I O ry a w V m Z •• o- u W £ Z 1 N W r 3 4 u u Z n w N Y w M1 W N W r Y Y O 4 N F o V r m M 7 C W w Y Z i O F V x d �1 - S Sfi Z i I O i 0 A A W F V O i F W II C Y u O a m W j Y U O • m a S S '`-' N y �` O i O K N 6 l i u O Ii i .`. 4- N £ W O a QQ m G D p Ilyl u. W F O R a 4 q r.• F F 4 4 •tl W I V II F O N w rn ¢, V Y V W W _ Y 1�1 V yI V S Y Z Y 4 A I tl O O O vJ a> 4 OO - N S _ ^ m O ?• >• O 4 G W m K � O U a O F , W W 4 W V �. M1� I � •• O v � I i V� 4 4 - r C C F 4� N j • I II i II � A • I 4 ' H Q i I L' n o o V V U 4 O 4 O a S 4 F LL _ C u 4 I j i v o U O o z o n e w 'o` e X ? � c i w o• X i 4= — o O O V 6£— e Z— n 2 � O N _ n_ 2 2 .] O h I S x— n Z Z •] O W e H Z• 4 O O W— £ f Y ^. W O W O L. — S F x M• 4 O O — u Lo • W i O I .] „ I.1 £ G 5^ G N C W I� f W i O tl .] N S W S ,• S C N � W V i� M U i � l .'�. N W � K j 4 r/ C 1 Q 1 O q I l x 4 • .] ' C ¢ 1 u .] 4 4 O a 4 .I 4 Ga 0 4 U .i G P T, C .� 6 i a i 4 •¢ 11. .l 6 4 ^ X Y 4 F 4 o � ^ tl 2 1 n X�4 su °o 8R� si�l o tl Xy�ij Mm , Wz R _ �� : 4' k_�5�, p��o 3. of W I J J II I Is - o Y om . _ • p a _ - .`.'. 4 V C I m F W 4 p l G Y O .yO] I W a I z F • O W u 4 W O I y' Z m n 6 1 ^� 4 1 (,i1 W ri L O 4 N u 4 ~ 2 N O 6 W 4 O e V W ] y W O C 1411 ii > L U 41 ^ e K • OI GG II _ L � 2 � ¢ U X ] ; 3 4 3 > N O i 4 4 n u _ 1 L � 4 W `I S VV ¢ qq Qi n I II • I li • I II • � x I 4 ul j ':d I C V s I E 1 � V O v G 4 4� n i O I E I 6i W M1 W V � W n O ia_ p S W 7 V X 0 0 4 6 4 O 4 tl I Z ql Q W p W O I C of W i a > Q > K V N• 4 O Y 3 _V tl O a Y A O r r✓ 4 I.l .l I 0 ; I O V v Y 11 n- - W O O O 1 4 v U w- m c� v � LLO W£W F - m O W Z Q - .I a 0 1£ A F r11 I V_ 2 S G U O q S Z O U ¢Q F �j .tl[ 1M1.1 I I I W 1¢.1 O C 1 G ry F 66Qq - y1 F '• O O N .q.1 ~ . 1 M F 0 O F A I O Q W W o G A .`. 1�.1 •• 4m W_ Q > I 4 m V W N _O 1 1 0 11 Y i+ 2 Y 2 V .. W 1- O tl l O; W Y W0 u W 4 ' W N W W V a y F_ O .. _ i C 0_ W W O W V 4- O N v+ tl N w i G C •..- - N X O �+ V w C i U W p 1 � i Y F_ Z 0 (L �.] M1 F W F W W K 4 �- C R 1 C I a •] � C� W V ..l W 4 d I � X T YYYYY YF111111 i F Z 0� W O V ii u p W 7 S WWW � U i Q� p, Z W 1 - > N 4 �i ^ I I Y 4 444444111111 r W V 44 47 W V >> ' U 4¢£ 4 O F 3 t 2 1 Y F F w > O 0 4 4 3 1 1 F N ^^ • al 1 1 ° 3 2 a £O V v 1 < G W A I A . 0 L ^ U v v Oi S d `•S o0 1 1, 1 L I n tl W li ^ W o o , o V V V I v 11 O� O A O� O 141 IA -� n Z v ^{ Y Y Z 4 N 1.1 w 1 � 1 � w u N' . ^ e F• N w W �1 ^ ° u L W o 1 Z > W 6 U 41 ° 4 x • C S tl Z 4 0 W W o 4— W Y O S • M F 1 4 W lu W> V V O Y iZil 4 4° 6 O 4 O 4 N e 6q VV 6 Y N I Z 4 j W O 6 p W O 1 lk lk U W 6 6 4 q O�— yi8 11 .fY.1A.1A .IM1.Itl.11l 1 j vl -N ~ L �I C r n u y Ou m 4 V I p V U ° V 1 4 ` G 3 e N W 4 N R O 1 a W ' W a O F m m. 4 V i Q i G; e — •• a 4 z 4 4 O t1 �� Q e V 4 � m i .^_. 1 b n I I W O 1 O F O W W H O• '� N i N E o .o a5 W 4 .. ° O W In C I n L. ] h : W i X° Y 4 i P' V • Q 4 > W w F, vl W— O O N W O O 4 y 4 •. W V — 0 ° V V O O t I °� 1 i LL i' 0Wa v 11 .. O Z P W W r 2 Y p W 4 P m O • .. O Z i S Y O r Z r 4 II O y V ° O V 4 F '" N •_= N o f o W°d w m a ; o i r£ r" °d a x = i• m n ° - m W m u z j _ °° -'m n imi ol£Y o izn zz ° su - �o It Sib o4 x = W rvl W J p j 1 V 4 Y ' 6£ I ^ - o, W P L K E G Y Y O h K .I I 4 • O, O 6 r II A PI ' ° N y G 3 r II . 3 r Ir • 3 4 3 4 • 3 Y _ O m W C u 4 G • 3; P 2 W .. V = 4 _' O O r O F L j .. O N . O O N 4 + O N O G W N l 4I m °o = m IP 1 — o m 4 w m= � r _ � u O O O > O r - F 3 u •__ m Z n ¢3 W .] 4 n F v n W r 2 I .l I W Ic o I — W4 _ F _ � r d I U P Z °, p S O W t P u i m^ � O O L O N W 1- = N q W -_ m o- W C o " o W r x = o w m F ? n W i•. N W e i 1 £ U •. � '1 Z_ U n Q K O q W I V In u 11 l •\ p .. v� a. N N¢ W N U 4 G 4 6 L ~ L W 4 - U U L c, ,5 .] 4 C i 0� N O V- W O• y� W G r O Ix 2 W v t u= 2: K£ W F r U I � W W � fml In W Z• Q WW of Fm _" Wao_., 4 2 U SW6 V r�9 F u N I F I z K C O b m 4 O I O. o Z m O I O u O I O Y W f£_ y O f £� � C p W- ZZ i 2 F u� o 0 1 W� W • Q i p P N � O I•' W W p U� g W- LI V rn •� i C I O i a� e t- 2� 0 X £ OO � i S e I W P S 2 u n 6 Y_ V P a F_ m 2 n GN C S Z K n j N P y W O . W u ^ O < N J Z [- F F• 4 4 q li • > W f 6 w a o. V 2 :I • II O^ a O U O ti� N J O F O N O S• :/r 2 V a �. v 11 v 11 ij �I i� ° m F YK V r O O U W o O r yr > rn �j v S p - .. .. 3 0 o VO• S O O: U Q ^ m O u c _ E q I_n 2 v n � V 1 b I K40 �• Ll2 n 61 O O O� O y C I OW �O W W K O - .^^ O O O V u F w o K C O W ._] W 6 •¢ I O I 5 i G Mi G W 4 L1 a W> V W O I I.. V ti 4 W O O 1 y Q � I • O W Z Q p _ ry O V p W W a L N 4 a 0 Y y ^ CC N= 4 y' 7 i ,• V W N N ��� J O p •� 5 i S I I � i C I K � p�� � W C ¢ i p •• i O `w O� g O C f C I ' f K f N W o y N V I I ! W O o, u a a A 11 • 3 I- W V S 0 O V I Pi • 41 S a LL a V o V V V u u ' NI ry X I n } O u 4 S U .l 2 x O Y O x- 2 Z O O O° 2 F O O Y O O W ' i GWOi: - w 'ow °c p s6 �o i m n ,d W`o -Y Isa Iw" ° z Ixe iaim �o' Ion w 1 dx: m1�`�a o i 6 O Q: F W_ u = N • O I K l e O I S li � l i W I C W O> I�il W O V N � I Y O i Y j 1 Y O Q W N 4 w W N O i N F N 2 Y p= a u W W Z W V 4 C N N F N S II G x £ V u • ;¢ v u C r 4[ i S i 1 6 n= 4 m g W g '° 4 .7 W O 4 t 1 6;� Ni O '� Z• x w W 6 ° c i C Y a Y 4 a O t 6 u 4 O a. I Y X O a V 1 n K �X 4 Y p w CQ g F' 4 4 i U 11 m C yq 1 11 Pi u w 1° Y V v O W O O N 0 F O II . n •' Y F O 3: F u O W V L NEW vl o I C s . I I V ' x u i - I a o F= o _� x u O C , u o{ 4 W w I ii w o= - 1 = i m a ms • ° � o X W 4� �° p o � u x � Y u m: w v � ry w O- ° 1 x f`Y Wo46gsFWU ° tl W ` WW o a E i c w K O F G L. N om_> • P 6 O l Y Q w W Z Q yy K W • 6 "- W j 6` F V p N -, £ 4 F 4 O u 4 G f O W W m s S N w� w V o I y Na"w N w WWI F °N¢ °Q waW° � GI v � r �� >acQ. °o os `d w > p -F po.° pl 1 i 1 � d - 1 1;� mNm o 0 o e o �c m 1p 01 of3 O It 3 o F V F W q F O - I N u _V n tl Z V C Z _ — �• i� 1 4 W D f- p N 3 Q— O .`. . tl• F vi _ • 2 O F 6 2 n II f m R Z 2 1 V tl j tl i V tl tl 1 0 O O 6 In Y W O In 6 m` I S I � 2 -P O N _ p in p W O Y yOI W_ i Z I O 4 S- m � \oi � f W W W GG F� 4 Q W 4 W N L O F • 6 2 U i� II O I O q F I II 4^ V W Ll O ¢ j K W O 1 . 11 Z } m _ Y I W C F Y C 1p O O V N V F W O W .] F Z V O O U N h O F I 'I I 1� I tl 4q K ¢6 W F O W Y , V L F It > a I � a� o 0 oz r j V O r G _ r S O V F F � 2 ry .] W� L� •. u , m -. O _ _ j �W O N S Otl O n_ O i 5 X _ F_ u V r p O£; C F I u O r i •1 i O i W le I II F O F � N In O W 4 L ^ 1 4 F U¢ V £ O O I ry O W o o U _ V C� 1 4 L W i .• •�• N 7 F ¢' O d Y V O £ 4 W O C V r O u' - W W F Y . U S Do Ll a • ry m C q { 4 tl P N Y N G Z W ry 7 [W� V4 a 6 _ W W Y 1 u X W C � V q 4 6 l i O I li u i O £ V p O a. S F O 4 p 1 W tl 6 U F tl V 4 V u ^ m N h In 0 6 4 F Z O w F O O N F n O �i i II i n I II 1' s K y Z Ci ry Ilz Z .O t _ w w pl O G Il £ G 4 C F S p m O • u O F u¢ ? 4 X n O - O O F E F i 4 ' Il C O Z V � O ... 4 O I , 4 4 4 p CC W • _ a; a 11�V Uo 3' _ Fun : F w 2 o f^ N 6 r y G � Z Y N _ Z o X i> II Q u I ~ -� ' - Z : ' w � 4 I Z � m ` ? Z O � • J - � m " W Y F, � I • p i y P Q- ^ .. Z r. _ W F £ m O F ."- ' - I O Yl I F I O I.. 4 �" � m �" �• w 4- � V" p I O i a S ' I i O 1 i .l X Ipl f ~ L r 2 W V W V Y Z I W?- c K Y O V ul u a 3 V � 2 V v W W li m O i i Z ' li S L G +1 •W- q m p u Z a i; I F a m p - O v W . � Z¢ a � W N O p S W w N 4 V 0 U V Z, 0 3 W U 1 i K I 4 V 4 " I 6 W K F I� O O _ q O vl -1 4 �; 'I• a '' I C iI Y Q� N -' T C ..1 6� 6 I O II Z� o t £ 1.11211 - 4 � a y G L ry j W •l a 1 U S m n O 1 li F t 3 1 O " K . O 1 1 " v F • • .n m a\ C 3 1 n 3 1 ^ ti I 1 I I q m 0 4'• ry W V o n V V 6 fLL S _ a" _£• 6 O O n V� U- 1.1 > 'y v Q w U W u O v i • • u .] � K 0 C G o p £ O O W W S 3 - r 11 £ o S O n aye � w o i l 1 '10 Lam" o 1 - s 2 p Q • y 4 4 LL ^- U W C O 5 > J N 4= - o C= N : o W O£ 1 1 . ¢ O ¢ I V O F O O 4 F C 2 � 11 F 4 • N 1 W 11 � W i F O I W • G 4 ^ y4 2 ry p O d ..1 5£ 11 ; 4 i L G K q W F F W W_ O v1 O- v1 K W G W V F F 6 Y 4 F F w I O ¢ O S 3 V 3 N O > 4 4 y 'O O C>> 0 0 3 7 p K" I _ OL ry _e t2 z N - -w al W� x oW u�� � m O • a O V ' •_ - 4 O' E � _ O h U o - 4 O - 7 4 - W h i�~ . _O m � _O r O F Z _ Z s U+ O E I Q W a $- O G QQ i i i • 4 I S O w I `� ' I D A W -� W O - W F w O £ ry E J 3 m m s f - U m W_ i t ' y 4 u ry I c m N_ tl , O_ m l V U Z O O m O O 'r 1 I W Y F In w m .O V F v. qqq u m F W } IZ,. f_ f. o Y h F f .� A A- Z .• E A 4 N f 0 Y « F Z i Y_ G W L u IOiI ' W N O 0 \ O U - £ 2 I ' II 2 i� ' Il 4 W� W £' W m N S K N • ? I V Y Z I£ H 2� W 0 W Z O O 4 I V I L L- '- f I O� t F W m<- > P '� Z W- - V- _ u O •• 4 W +. Z 4 - Y I•. vl > U O x c O 4 F 4 � � W N � V v 6 U m 41 m w O C i G G I O Z t 4� - . a 4_ O N; i u c ry Q 6 - O �' I a A Z i .] L U V G 4 Q m £ L W 6 I O 14.1 N I J oI Y 6- W W 6 O G U 4 t W a C Z F 2 4 U ..1 f f W F G '. C F p O o Z f O N _O Y 6 E f r U � U mo f m W W W p V K n K w F LL V • II C N W -' £ w- • Y p' 2 1 ..I 3 O N c O O = Q U> C O 4 N QE 4 W I m F O c O O F O t O v. h II V C 4 - O 2 1 - I v II W w - W o - N e Lien C iWY I£o V 11 p = : a _ �' _ qq W_ p O y O W V� - O W •• N N N 1 4 W ¢ F J •i - W q I.. rn i n tl A I A f u ,fj w c F 3 W I Y 11 u `p O o - 0 0 0 O O 6 O j .O] II Y 1 114 ' • i m o ulv Yrl N — c £ p 4_ I' o ry V p i V mo p W, W W O L W e t W .a £ N� • Z i P 4 � " W— C e = S N L m I ¢ Y ^�• t — N� O;� w Y y V W .`. C � II 1 11 v £ II u 4 F X N 4 W 5 tl w O w O tl F W O 6 R ' S P 4 O O 4 2 0 3 6 O Y 4 3� V N 3> O W O Q F OW q O; X > IgC,q.1 Y 3 V 3 U 3 4 W U N I F F 4 4 N • LI O O O V U x 4 i� 4 1 rvLL 1 I o -- I p U e V V � r O m O x n p W F e— W N O$— 1 01 �W O = W ~ V L IJ _ G 3 u' 0 O £ n —04Y O_�Ory �C! L —O ' f a t to ' NI > .1Z� • W Y II Q X 4 N O U ' I W u F — • O� o l O I F 4 _— u w> m N _ QF o t p K ;'s- -a N I£r N IW;o r3ao a o Ww - • \ o o. ry ° I i w l U 'o w °o:asw cW - p w' p,F N F FxW N 3> 4 �G( V O¢ S 0 5— O .~.. — O Q O V 6 F- I •• 1 1 i P . -4 I v C > O - � M - - N > � • I 0 0 n O _ = n° 2 2 G = O v n S O O O J £ 4 F O O W } 1 W ~ 2 2 W _ • i q F N - Y N 0 ^ ' W F W; -- 1 v 11 ry 11 j z F £ - O J O V C O J F _O s N O W W Z 4 F O W N 2 z 4 N 2 ¢ t• w W U N O, a O Y ' V LL n v W V_ W O Z A V O 4 O W v O 4 N n v 4 w W N O u N N F 3 fW.l O W 4 W K T = V m 6 Y? V m a u m C 0 V m Q V 4 u u 2 p U 2 4 j l E m v j 6 4 V W O C O C 6 £ 0 q S 11 n I Z ry ° U 4 VLL N } O W S L ry LL C LL 4 E V W Y LL w I�l ° • 2 A 11 ¢ y F J O S W O O 2 Z V LL F 0 3 Z V W I 01 io o p W x o w° o -< a. o14. 2 ° _ Ll a `�4 7 0" j o s o m 3 a - o .. - -LL L - W W 61 ry _O ~ O ' 0 0 ' �l i O i O O O u o O O O Z N. 2 n0 I W V w OOFW!t li ¢ F Y::U04 W `boo N V' = ^Ic Wsa° °s • c ° n W f �j .Q. C t C ¢ q Z q W y li o 4 Y< w M O LL wl W J W 4 ¢ n ¢¢ F K F £ W N VI N a : 3 3 u rv- Z i 11 o u V Z 4 j 0 0 ' O V F Z ... O 4 OOW n I e • � II i II � I� I II 1' 1� ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'ROW i i N 1' 62 q w O 1 LL i i 4 Y 40 Q U e Y N¢ 0 i 4 � • C i a 4_ � ~ 2 Y O li 2 i ii _ 4 O i , .1 O r W p i� O Y e£ •� 4 I O u � v w 4 ¢� y ¢ 4 F W K M G F of Q S Z 6 4 q P 4 O Y x C F z? o�- 1 1• 1 Harveston Specific Plan Section B Hydrology Analysis ' 10 -Year Storm Event 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 • I I ry 1 O C> F — 1 F N— 6 W _ � O qq V % nj . O x p W 4 O O .O-1 tv ? Q S 4 6 O O 1 1 2 Y O I O u 4 x ry N W Y t F W o Q O p • V I � F O a o o m yF o �o a` a d lj 11 W I F I O A LL 0 4 1� S" Z p m V a l£ ro ; ¢ P W O f O _ 0 W O r O S ry N C m u 4 — ..1 O C O 1 A o Z r.l 1 . _ �_ .. C W a x M N V W o > C_ — .] F> 6 0 Y N' K N Y • 4 V A > > m A j W F W L L W y O� F a O i u rqql rn i O 4 L W Z> V 4 6 N Y W p Z— L N= Z> U C L C O 4 W j O 6_ F p y ¢ Y1 m 6 ' i O W ..1 V In ^ W F C O W a4 qC 4 F g 4 4 m F U C6 �J UU O / C ,uQ a N O OiSI �I F_ q W ry hry O G W¢ W L O .f 4 G 4 L y V LL> = ' �' u S G • £ 4 C O Z • W N` Z > § .> > • 4 5£ F O a O g��o�M1 01 'aa ���g�.' O ai >> o u`oe', j — ' �o = a, ' 1 N u o "9° m'u " _ 14 a� W r'`>, E °�� � .", r m � u az lo > LL O U N n C A b — 2 r II Q H r V i t m Q o 2 a o o l e r. l" o ° e -° a u a 1 u '� W o _ .F. o _ 4 p V> S Upppp, • 2 0 1 L. S a O O ' o 2 • of C a U f• N •• r.l V 6 O O N r N N Z u Z W y x W a W _ O v £ ¢ O W R. Z O 6 In W W LI U w Y W O i O V g j F 4 1 6 b M1 1 K 1 a Y A 11 o KKKKKK 0 0 0 0 0 S N O r F N i 3� i i i O to V I II i I PI i - - v 11 �v � Y Wpp V , V I " ° N In ( Ji _Z N_ n O F O F X : 4 v = N iyl -✓ONi I Z A z W I W Z B w p e o � W Y i�� N � a W O I _ � 4 � X' •_ W L. ° O - 4 °° S .n F 4° = a N ~ O W y S v W O 4 I o[ F w. I ~ F U • 441 m_ >C, F Z Y m O 2 O lzi1 .] O In • r V p> . ¢ L 4 O 1 N S C N W -^ W o� z� s o ° o Q I.. ii a ^ S . > 6 U 0 1~• 4 III w U 4 O 4 v F It O 2 V_ 3 6 C 6 C 4 O - J W W i a n X 6 V o 6 Y S y U W , V Y F• Y W_ Y V y1 V A A I : S C Wa o f . o' I A �SW'4as�0 1 1 <:„�.° - NC C it I pi _ ° X o °oW m _ A _ X o , 1. a n ° :I Yo —we 3 ° u o v,w o Fa W o Y'u W °dm [2 O 0 m F N o — � W � o ry N o It Z m^ W O II j ry 4 qq qq Z J O O G C ^ O W li Z O 4 n °. S ry l F 2 0 4 Y S ry N W F F 2 F N V w V W 3 ` O L - i V n> .] _ W .� F 4 O '^ N S K N . _• v i t) it < W , ..1 J O I 2¢ � � ym, 2 I >i'iwc -v L'N -z >�3 osc _ate In .3 F F F l 4 4 '� , W F m G M F W - u: a V r F F• W LL q W W W N . p O i a m Y a v i i s u _' Q � _ , o = > N u• N u££ F�+L•' 4 W o 2 W W l u , Z6, W -> Q> Q - O N Y >> d °- F F 5 .. F () G O z 4 4 O F aI ^ ��u: a d "uN a' N W ° I. ° u F a- N r 1 i • J � 1 Js 4 - s 4 a s oif° -`ox m II ? YII 4 a G O F Y J V' O L O V• O ^ I` F O S U 4 O V ^ V O O K �- vOi W O • F I .] O w X Z _ O i O Y i O• i N e O V N = V q S Y� O i ..1 f ' Q C S ' I _ p r I O 4 4 W l i � u j; Z v = O - W I O 1 4 H Z n m! 4 A- + O ' J N I i V Y I� N F• 2 - -- N 6 m n i a i W 6 6 0 � S v O V D °x ' : 0 r � _ o ° z c o N o 4 X £ £ £ }^ .' W x P X i C f Q S a ' V i Q 2 n • V i� P V i O Y '�Ei£ I I } N R W G 2 O a l i £ li a .W] OL C I a Y y 44 F O T ° C l 3J G W 6 l i 4 X} S V C 4 4 Z u V 4 W F Z G W ' O Y O Y.l o f • 3^ Y 3 Y • 3 X Y f 4 0 .] 4 4 • 3 Y O^ 4 4 S 3 Y F W N Ga F N O V x i C N N Y 4 U I O ° F Y- W f ~ •• O j UN i-..7 V I o ry I V o. o o 0 0 li'I a u o W S Y V J Y a W • U m V N C a d W ¢ 4 W f• � y K I i p o � p ° N 4 a¢ul >• 4 �.O O U C i W 4 lo IP ' E L O x - 6 O • K O ' V 4 - O O S O O - V n ry O O 41 -0 O u r 2 W •_ W � 6 O i= P £- y O V S m _ p ¢ .] C: F u• O �� I O I F O n W x O S W S A N L C w 3 .°] n - n • 4 i 2 • C N Y O L 4 N f 4 ¢ N - V 4 - N 4 4 W w i f` 3 O 3> 4 V W W F K i O, ' 0 .. 4 V n l g W .- j W IW.I -' • W yQ ^ °] J .] W a N 4 rWi p • . 0 3• x V F � I 0 I Y I . • I i m, II I 6 N • u O } 1 W u I — e Y F N : O S • 0 F w V O 4 V I 1 o z — � o w O I Q i w w 4 2• 3 _ O q O y: : Y m ry C W I , Z F U � ' � Z F U W u O j ..] > W G W W= V w N O F F y� � I V O =� F O W� F = 3 N 6 W N O_ S£ 3 W p 3 O C Z� V 4¢ � — 4 . 4 i V! � Z N 6 Z Z V N L 2 V m I ( ¢ • W� 6 W e O p A e 1 W e °° e! .. o m i S F o _° s: h 3 `1 i c'I r II m 1 I - _ m u m c e m r e O 1 v 0 O 0 0 O O m e m u V ~ V V x> Y d 0 r O U O K F F 0 A Y 4! j l ✓1 V O O F v O V j e 4RV 0 0 fl F V .] O W N V 1 6 O .� .l - O L N 1 N N m I.. £ W i •• O Z O LL_ 1 0 _ F 4_1 N 0 O o U II O W O O I ru 4 � I.. C 4 �yQj q N 4 14Gq1 „ u O I.. V 1 1 2 V A V - O x N N Z W ¢' Q ¢ m ¢ 4 W W `_.. p W j S L W N N • 5 i 1W.1 N r J V .] 4 F a g a O 4 it 4 n y •[ F O IJ V W K a 1 i V 1 W u N C it Z O 4 O V 3 3 3 _ N O N W G N Y G 6 N 0 O u N N w 4 O A O O V N 1n O 1 1 U N N O n O N O i I I o j •4II tO � O O V I O O V �j _ — v 11 c = 1 0 • I o f< ry P e o o o 2 x ;— ' O 4 G £ o W b V e 0 0 o O } o 0 2 o Y i m li t 4 C � C V f Y Y m P W O ip 4 i 4 O� � O _ - _' X u i 6 IN m 6 u m . 2• ry i 0 'i i K I I X 4 6 ? P X^ I= II W O F w .] O „ £ I £ I 4 A S I H X .. 4 O O T I £ i 4 I • 4 u� u 5 ¢ p W O 4 — � 2 4 Z W i 4 'e V I O II: 4 m Z s O 4 V 3 4� ¢ I 6 ' i L1 P a I O P 4 W S•>: 0' o ai�9 P _sF C W ai� aiVY 6i��9 x� tl C Y Y N 4 h LVCt U C, K ' w `n 4 4 • Y 2 7 Y -X 4 4 : 2 II • 2 I. • 2 X O O y F — j am V F u a j G W C i O W r W~ W r v I N o ' 4 ' ry yl K P ry m w O y W • W � l i � Op I £_ IIM m IS-• q• V V U V V I S G u 1 O�LL — OF F r LL o m 1 c O r m e u m W _ u ❑ m m C z i a X = o u m" i w a. r £ _ ° V IW K O O 1Y W LL N 2 z LL N C i W 4_ 4 W w ¢ ? Ij G In UU W V 2 w ¢ O^. m I . .- �> •'] '� 3 0 i' li C ^ j m 6 " J O L • W . j C V O K 6 N I£ ' II y N W F p II • ml LL G Qw 4 LL I v I _ W_ W ry = C V C F• W .a LL O O i • u m l u _ O O 1 O n 6> i w O y u 0 S l u 0 �"' E` .] • F — V 4 O 3 .4 n II • 3 _ LL' W LL A n I: • I Y I P I • I I I 1 I N� P, 1 W i - q 2 q � 4 r 4 C m 4 1 � 3 m 1 E I e J ry O G� W: >' O ¢ O V U %q Y O_ W • G� .� I I C C F O O 1 1 v W W Y, W Y W Y[ p O�� w `d o I"- -- 4 u a i i W u _ a i u e 6 6 u v 0 4 - W` °z i m i u i °- F A 11 ai N 1 � W W5o g u O I x ' I ' O � � W 5: _ U• i S ' e O . O . •> O �'I ° J F O i - F i F 2 � ~ G � ry G Y O I Y = a u� S ry Z j .. 1 x m u W u �� ° z `zl i s W oN: ,. £ m e _ _' o '= .'`-. r4 u o m a W W� x r o ` m 2 � 2 '~ r ik z u � o O 4 w O Y V V 6 u i; tl ¢ c O 0 O § W 2 • Z F c L U p _O : ;G o O 4 0 O I i H O F • N 6 O J .. 4 SSO 1 '1 1� 1 ' u Q l CI V IF I C y In F O i S 1 � C o '- 1 j Y � .• li ` m 7 y I 4 0 W x : 2 I p4 � c � X - �s v 4 'p P C- IFF s W " F 3 FZ 0 a O O 4 w Q w O= C 0 r./a.� m F (� •. O . . O ] W N jN� G n ' V n O. .] vOi r ¢ W y 4'[N 6 1 : U Z c� 1 N u C W F L C w 6 .i 4 V O i W O ^-• a 3 F Z O j O4 Q G= a° Y U V K C ' 6 QQ 1 F N • N~ 4¢ N O V N F W I] L O O O i a •, 1 X O j ^ F - >> W^ S O N O Ito O 1� W c 4 ' o I v i w O V IF ' ! C Z• It n 3 R Z A 4 P N M W o 0 ojWp ry IV�8 : °�°, ° 4 0 > s o 's I 0 F " z o o W IF £ 61 P o £ £ ° £ «- z . o W o 4 s� W 0 . o F -� IF o O I� Z l y W� U W v Z ' i � i C O I � v " L Q yy ¢ I.1 I L� ' I W j j N u u 4 g 4 0 0 a° o. 'dal p 3 4 d o N r x ( • c 6 NJ tl N 2 p 4 �_ ' c M w 41 ' 3 a s S N = S 6 Ia - [.1 O V - n a g n 4 4 N W N j W V O j 6 u O II R F C i� i i j P i � 4 • w i w 0 IP o WKO: a Zi 4 v 4 4 ry j 7 a 2 li 4 4 m 4 t 4> • u %q = Y _ p o- a o o c a = o a `_o W E Ii i O -p O 4- Y -- 6 'c � q 4 O 14 F V_ ry ry - 2 W - 4_ W O W• - w - r W ry 2 V ry 3 O .i E i- - O N: V Y rv 2 w ! „ • - £rv pE o �aa o W T a 1 V F V N 2 z W N ry S W V N G a U m L Y? V v 4 4 3 C O 4 4 W 6 C Z O 4 O 4 T V n 4 2 j U m 6 : 6 3 w O 3 m K 3 U V 2 U V 2< 6 N m 2 4 ¢ ry 3 3 6 n n 2 4 a N 4 W I^ : p t C< m r l O zo V 3: N 2 a O F C r Ir i I = I s O U �Y 40 O Q : 3 I O O r i v O V O E W -n - I t^. n n W p r 4 ry Z N W V o n m ry 3 E F 1 U; W� . Y 2 L• U 2 N S S^ v .O 4 [ O l W r m 1°r V V 1. _1ri1 crl-Y'= :� "11Y r Y oiop�w•F °4 G 3 L wW° - mow .�w- r.. ,��¢ olp� �r i °02 ° - .°° Y = z w 4 o N n Q > Q V • W V j 1 0 .1 4 g G W O 4 W C r ig j 4 N E G r W V qq 4 0 j w W O j C 0 N 41 Q � j Gm E D -� O 4 W V 1 W rY O r F I1 a y N W O N K : 6 Z F n x U W W F• F W V W 4 K V 4i 4 Ii1 W N • r O N • i W W L G w O Y = •Ww Q L 1 O S W 14 ¢ v1 V v 2 6 u o S .l C K 4 0- 0 22 4Y1 N O .. N N N S N - r�Sw W OOO W Oyp o oo�o 0 o 1 Y 1 n 1 I 1� I 1' o o ry V C O F O W II Z Z 4 II S W Y 1 z £VIII ; _w Y a o a 0 0 ° o 'o ¢ 0 0 0 0 O N - o ry N a I ii z i N 1 4 4 Y l Q w1 i1i rviOl W in W - N ;VO �R�Y ry o . Z 2 O F W I u p l $ I O I_ 4¢ 4 V O I S 1 1 p S O I 4 6 4 f V O I 1 K F V w i Il i C Z Y Q w V W C E W Q W W W W G Q II QQ G 3 N II N I C III � W am Y� u O W G N • VO ¢ O II : 6 N W S O 4 Y K O I ¢ Z O I W ¢ O II Q .� ✓ W £q ' Q 6 M K Yq1 WO \o ill q h p u q a 4 6 3 n l i II - I.1 r£" a . II , II M o 4 o O F= O O O V Z_ �l O N y O q X. H Z 'O O G W U U N N f W II 1 • O W 3: ry 1 11 IV W W ~ O O v w W _ > O• 4 4 1 1 v£ w 1 4W �� ry W a �1 ry I N In Q y`; - 4 W O W• K F O O O O W U o Zq q ` : G Z - 1 � W -Ww ^W FWF� rvg� V _ _ NawoWF� Z F m O Z 2 F 11 w m S .� Y O £ ry p u •{ ; m W- I.. U O l i O ! i 6 11 O 11 Z D W o 4? m Z 'i w w w Y. 06Wqq 2 UN II lj - o z } I I I Y N .. m I V �o a o N W W wl j O U ry O� a 2 � N I L l i N 1 2 IN N l i S I N W • I N N �O W Z: w Y .L G 6 I Z V 3 Y 3 QQ _ u nnl O w 2 a I /. U O I D l i I W O 6 6> G II N Z U L II 4 . II • II W W p W () w - i rv I 4 I o" Irll W oG ag^ m` I Z v i ry W 4 C • F j ry 4 y y '. V c W W 6 W w F ry m j LL; a 4 4 n 4 4 7 4 >• - 4 Z TT El u ~ 'u F - O] .. 4 ' _ P m , i 6 Y U U Z '� C W V Z -' O S O Q • • F- y P_ 3 P F £ ° 5 - C O 5 .}] Y I 11 Z I L I W C �• aC - II - Z O I� m u Q W u U v ' 40 O r V W n 4 4 K m m 3 w Z V ry 3 4 � Z p S w Z V 4 m I•. a. 4 U W Z O R .• _ O 6 W j ' 4 I P- V £ z m U F_ K 4 g Y ry 6 Y 4 O� 3 I V I S I �_ S�� V n; 4 w �� .. ry £� 'L N (SNa O 3 • ui 2 y O U 4 • t .] h ^ ` O 3 O V 6 O F it I _ I III q m m ¢V m30 m' q ZI �4 3 i� ry m W W 3 K6 W n > O ry } ry ry fn ry �^ O ry I S I F 2,U C rl I 0�< U O S O m 4 Z Q m E m ;� _ V O • Z^ U O A ul n i O I ry n m F ry I � I If I r ? £ ' eCpi IS6W� Z¢ `u 4 O I II 4 6 F Z V F 4 O - S Y C •] .-1 .l V 'V 5 W '� > r/i r S r ^ C Y' ? k• - 4 (L � 4 C K r O M a � E W a 1 11 1 Y , o .l L O Y >¢ 4 S o O O K C> i 6 N O F w O 0 4 O w O O Y r • G ..� v� £ K F u r li r II - I Ir • r n Cr I i m 1 • n om , ry v 11 ' o - o v IP Z li 4 ') 4 u= t 1 S n O ry v W 11 e W q P j N Y O ry Y = ry U` 3 yqj C ymj O 1.1 Z 41 N 2 W '1 C O j~0:644X Z y Y- J V O o V O 1 C I Y I I - F a _ F 4 L O n 2 S O 4 C m 3 1 a 2 F W N> V J n - C - O G£ ry 1 •• fq.1 yy11 O Z F Z m 2 Y Z O z 11 PI 1 C _ Y O g j W 4 Z> V _ 11 W N pl j 4 n Z C W O Q j W O 6 v F Z V 3 C O 6 4 W 3 W Q u N G 1- 3 4 ry 3 m 5 m 4 1 O 4 m W S N p Q W 7 l Z I .] V 1 I I 0 1 4 1 4' ..l � 4 6 ✓�� .Si W� a 1 i O I � C .l F 2 I V .] Y Y W F 4 1 �� N W { O 1 W G i O i Z_ O_ I A 1. c� Z U 4 E h U ..1 QV V qq 2 o O S> 1 1 n 1 QI I > > V > / /,� yy G i G I V I A � Z Pi 11 V 1 I C 4 Y W O O � ry 11 li 1 11 V u W N W. 11 11 II A 111 n m _ 1 W 1 11 LI W o 1 £ 14 u p u 4 v 6 W o p 4 W w u 4> q 4 m o 11 ry O O 1 O A- N N 4 S ry I Z Y 4 W v I I v 11 Z O W 11 P o W C O 1 W m Z F£ ry Z O F S . Z m .] 1J £• - O N W 1 Y W Y 1 1 W Y I V 11 1 2 1 1i • p a �I ° z 1 r O o £ O C 1 i ' • 4 V W Z : • O O 1 Z I N N R N F C F: 1 p ry O O U O O 1 i W 1 p W 1 O 1 11l O Q • p 11 z W O Z F- p W O 1 O 11 1 '^ 11 O £ `O .Z. N � 03• � II 4 G • i II 1 u I 11 • I 1 i rl - o a u p u i III ml n _ 'II�o oWWiWa a �^ 0 itory aa $a � o o n o v lu o •• 4 m F F - o _ f i p S II m l y II 4; Y F O N O I I W Q N rgj 2: U m u£ v O n ^ It m Z 1 Z 2 Z O Z O ' I I I F 1 -- ; II Z V -£ .' U • 4 I W W Q +' 4 y 1 ` - U n V W N L. • Z 11 w. I 4. O 4 C 4 F U p W s I 4 W 4 O r+ U F W Z 4 vl i o I S p U I.1 WW 11 4 S Q w 4 W I G y >^ W C > 41 x O w t W Z 7 V O 2 O< W 4 6 C L• a 4 j N w W w w 11 O F I I I 4 , vi GW O 4 V G.i u W u q £ CG Y= N a r s A 11 6 II r F Z> o N 4 4 O N .4 >> . F 4 : G '.0 ti G - u j 2 • O N m O O O U x d 0 O y 0 _ O i d Y O O F 4 N•• W .7 4. 4. ' = � I I I II W U O II n w 41 n m_ 4y o a u O O F Q V V w l V F IW ry ry 11 v d 4 L o 0 Q � m O = o o al zz� -oW = - - _ - 21 OV Z+ c i 2 4 4 u S rv Q F O Z O O ry W II m qu F £P ov, rv p£ 6 m w 11 4 V '• U '• ll ¢ O _ O r W 3 II O U I W .- 6 O s 3 vN W- 3 Z I m W V w ¢ O ._� w 5 L •. � l i £ l i 4 i a W I G v O 4 -� 41 G 4 w W^• >' U 3 F m I p It Z y u 4 4 t O j c V F K 1 O W Z 4 6 L G W U Z I ii O .FV. 4 O O O q I p I O Ills J 4 - O W O • P p 0 y Iw.l O 4 4 1 V W O o\� 5 u W Z 4w 4 v ry 7 W ¢ j V l li y G O N 3 i W w w O U O O CCCCCCN 3 I 1 c O m V d F 1 li . II 11 n a! J I I I I 1 I 1 a' •dI � M It W O V G O g 4 II II I O 2 m O 11 N u w 4 u a O C X ^ LL I N In O O _ •= O I V II 4 N O F C O w m o W .l i V C w x Y O y of W N m O W } 4 i � x u 4 F O a W Y 3 u N O F O w N N d •£ I ` W_` O O W j O O F C f ^ N a O H W } N N� a ^£ N W 2 C Z > U S O W J F 3 W O F W Q W p W� 5 F 3 W G II U 2 C W C m L F C w O j w W G 6 w Imt W O; C m¢ 4 O F � 1 4 Z I lr w W¢ N Y t4x- Y W W F- O 4 4 u m F ZZ ¢ fW.l Z F Y W I" 4 p p g 4 W 41 N 6 O N Z V Z N r 4 W F [ LL Qa J 4 4 4 W m 4 0 u f C O I U 5 O x W a r^ 4 0 n C Q LaI ' °I u N a N F 4 K a N O O V 4 v J i F u p W . • p r n N N N • N N S 4 6 N^ N p 4 O n j O W O u O Z v In O F I ol p i • ry W � Q Ir • O FX• r 4 m I v ^ II 41 d 4 _ _ W u I�I Z �O�• - O O u 4 Z r p X i S m 2 ry u i o R Z F i ¢ 4 [U O O 4 II r O O I T v U W m C 2 Y ry 2 O q W F 7 V u O Q 1 r G 4 y o fpqpq O N u 2 ry W Y SN K O N ry N Om m C O I. F A O Z F . F £ m 4? l i O N IX n m p C J G n p 6 o a Ir K O ^` z 11 n I' - W O Z O N £ I j li Lti F L. 1 - o u 4_ z D 4 1� C W LL ry ry J f O I n II ¢ I £ Z V ✓� 4 : U r0 6 G O W N LL Y W r S II W £ ¢G 4 m w - V a N G I II 4- S C m _4l` l 4£ • ° ^ ^ O } O O C Z A 11 P r O i Y p £ { W S 2 G a V K i Y Q C G n 4 4 6 n N 1 K f h 1 II Z 0 U £ 6 U' • F F j f 6 Y 4 3 r Ir 3 n II k- = Z 7 O N .] Q Y C 3 n a N 2 o 2 6 O r O r n II N 3 m O 1 N Y F r I � O V � O F Y 6 O .� .`. O .�. O G III Y W n n v 11 IL v .O] 4 = V I p O Y m W Q E _ O _ O V` £ F 2 O W • o I W 4 X N Ua V O W I O« Y Z Z O •- _O ry O o N _ _ , P O F .. W Q« W _ W • W v F K W 6 F F y I V I E W? m ^ U p • O i O U W v 2 K W G• Q V m p I 1 O I ' O V 4 J W O I Y�' VV I W W S O I y £= U e 4 Z = V v = 3 2 V m W p N W N a A W W 4 Q I•. 3 F > VY y 2WI , 2 O O j j 2 IIA Z j 4 3� v W •� I w p p W C y W O • O 14l I � O ` 6 O � I S I O W W O j y a i Z 4 G 1 6 N T a' fN.'. F W O• G � W ry � ._1 L i^ I • u N N E I O? '' Q O 6 � F i O L £- V Z N 6 -' F .] • Y Q n II . 3 � K�� � 3 it > W O 6 O V 3 I A I • Y V L O N • • • • I u • i u • I n • I 1 P' 'I c CL v 11 , o W EI -I OgrvVb 6� m ry L. 4 K v 11 W I ¢ 1 ry A I 1 7G =wo m r o v X = a u O W G • 7 w O W O eG° z E . 5 0l o 1p IL O q 4 X O V LW. O O C 7 SS55 V D O O 3 O n N IL Q- w V A ry 0� 0 4 I F O O 4` 0 li ZO U? O S z Z O it W N p A I W m N 6 £ O F II m W O Q W Q O O U II .� W 0 4 4 O O E A W % � I • W I S 11 '- W W W W_ Y1 4 i 4 1 �I O W t^ W 4 W W U U 6 � i ' V M W V O N N L i O II N W 6 y Q N C q Y Z W I W II W i O i .] v W 4 t Q Q N C � V I rl 3 W p 2 p I'Il Q W K 1 I.1 p .] 4 4 ¢ ♦ C w II C q 4 • .� K W U ..1 6 1 0 1 • W F Q II q Q II l y . II 5 4 F a V > w ai$I IKII YQ F V a SI a y 3 w u •; II II 6 ^ Y W G 4 S 3 3 X F 1 a£ w 4< a O , I O _O U Z O O A 'Il F W Q W - 0 0 0 0 O O li n W • I II • I II « f W � II I I I I n • I X r V - W4 - y u s _ ry v o F V V� II I x n U t w a Q o v lu u W _ � F __ �� rv ... _ I - •� S I yO Y? O Z n O l i N V 4 4 0 Q X V Q4 4 W Q W O Z S o -. N O W T ^• j ^ 4 a � I u O G O I£� O O o� ul F C O u W 3 41 U i W m W r i q > 'O I 4£ £. U �. W V Z •• F N W i- C _ n K S O � i W X i m v" n j 5 N U L W N_ • T F O� II 4 L h Z - O H O W ry Y 3 i O 13 F _ x I Xn O N C Q O 4 1 e W Z F O W N n S •£ I W V I O a � 5 y q W O U U V W O O F O V LI O> a >¢ 4 Q V 0 4 C W • K 13�3�'' i e U y > ££ n¢ I �Fil Z 5 K O F �4W[ > K of O 4 O O F 3 O J O O N N 4 Z O N •• N N g C d v U O O O m W 4 '•n j • X ' i I I. G r. O W a • I • O� u ry I w W 4 i U ry W 50 o• n W I w W C ry m0� m � i O y, F q• V V 1 0� ry ry ° > O 4 G 4 G W q Q W J F j• p p q 4 3 W w 4 O- r` S W Z O_ O F Z 4 W m= 4 F O o V 5 2 W Ll 11 U O W V !£ V • Q a - U a � _ v _ _ Y W o C W W W � •'� _ ; _ ' Z F OQ = W ^ 4 m ^ U I a n F O I � II O j � W N � = Y .`. . ' , II V O W P 4 S O u cv � •N { W N m° W W K G '•. - � i F O s O O U W W O> ¢> 6 Y • m� II f V \ Z W O p O W .. ry = J 4 U O 4 4 a 0 1j1' 4 W i i ai Q 0 0 o V o ° o V I W A • V • i • ♦ I O v 11 I v It 4 ry _ n c v. l I x 4 4 r U ' Q m M m w0 ¢ N n 4 y z m m 4 m " Yxa °I a� ai5o io F J F - 0 n nl L X O - L . Z . li i 11 In W V S 1 0 N = vl Z W �+ Z Z U li E L1 ry Z- O O S 1 O O W O II Z 1 1 N W U I 3 I W 11 W N It v 4 O x vi 7- r F Y W ££" £ Q •- F Z I O ' O u- • £ a z_ S u W I.. O i 4 x O i£ I� O I O ._ 4¢ W 4 W • W i j q W w �p x ( v W i p 2 2> W V .QFi C J u O W q W W • O eJ „ O£ i O Z • O l O f- n 4• N¢ O I.I p ._1 4 4 O W 4 C 6 1 'w i'1 ry = y F N O O 4 O M1 6 2 J O O O _ of p u O F z O 0 0 w w 0 o I a n d 1 u l 1 1i F = Now a Il iZ I o - o - m o �! m "�° mo -I - In E O O £ KO ¢ 0 K_ S `IC- O - O ¢ O V�4 J� r O q _ 0 4 O - ¢ ♦- U u C I y U r -_ O _ 'n n W F •- S qV - O V 3 1.1 �. It It I _ o o u 4 z ° v ' u o m - x - W W 'i a �'. o e.0 £�� sl ol. O W :� ` _ 1 1q 4� 4 •¢ O N u O .OL-1 6 vni ° V Z £ a V v S£ x n a Z• Wy q� ' I a F n 4 h O 1 O ` W .. _ O t J • Z z _ V z u + O 7 O - F of oauc �'z n O 3 F 1 11 W c� 1 u W z � .. 1 i I o i O Q O i V v II II I i Q ' I F � Y u u :•. G w Q U F v£ L+ - � O C t ^ - - - o - = F o ^ • Z s - r ` S P n � O a c0 3 Q F W n 3 L I 'W I' W K� 0 4 ry m O m Z a o £ m . O m ¢ O N E i C D - - o � i� A � J Z~ '•1 F-.O of 4 1.1 I m p W V a F a? ' en W a Z ' U� 3 1 C a K •] u V F' L. G N G II r . O F .O 111 -1> Z V o W _] 4 N a ry m m u O u F u- iu u � i 0 ' li 4 4 F Z 2 0 � 1 .] F F Q�� 4 v' W N • Y I O N I O Z O O .. O K N 6 i O ' I 9 O F a �� ¢ y>• W V >.aDOwz > ° ' z °' G 3u w m W .•. .. u h u 3 y > 7 C 4 4 P 4 ` Q U • 3 1 3 F of O n• G .> f' u O C >> C F f w O; O O c 4 V L G'I t � C I ¢ I m 144 1 ° o 0 0 W ' s 4" ry II - -' I V 11 U 4 41 _ 14 E: F ' i32 m y U`j .•_` a w �3 Fu O - aW IS - o o ° ° ° u u¢ z w u0 � °oD o auw ¢ a I K it FIJI Q _ -u O W O o C O u Y G- 1 V O t ti qF I h� Q � w 6 jyy G W yQ Z y 4, • O N 11, ' V F F 4 C W 10.1 ¢ r W A G 7 4 p Q 4 v O i f O Z 3 N It wl .. a4a'' 4 V 3 11 F F Z O N U 4 A 11 kI �I A 1 II 1 n n i C O W Z z i 4 iii i W p W_ 4 II O0 O O_ 4 F I W 6 U y r 11 4 F O O F - yt O F v V II 4 F 4 N S W W - I ; W 1 1 N �I U z 4 , O_ W N v p N " u 10•. 4 a O C a V V F F h 2 F O 1 a G F= Y Z ry Z O " O J - = gll FI° ttI t — of — S° ov — I N I V_ 4 - p S 'J I u 4 3 U> F ZZ O 1 o n O £I - n O u U .0 a .] y1 w 111 Z V N G W (� a l £O r-• _ W O- ` C W O • O n' V Wg< ;a NISI N �I I V W I K Li N W p 4 N C fa•I I.1 Z II W Z= W F W W 4 W W O r] N G 3 6 Q l i q 2 q 11 Q 4 Q [[ S 4 4 GG� N O m G X< O O O O L G o U 1 N O F U 1 .. • N YY . •• o_ 4 O N O ' u V L F • II • li X F = W • N N - O m N t i It I t, I I Y O O a' W £ o 3 I >• ; I tv am ' I £ + Y � •'- W W v v. £ F W W' W - E � O o W£ Z O C K I o V� 2 F u �O n �� O r F `'' U ^ F 7 ✓� G w m _ 6 F O O O F 4 N W �. • ^ U - ' - m t F- 3 Z O W f W - V .• 6 m I v I _ Cy V O W �. I - n .• u r ' ^ u n N F S o m _O tzp f N 4 4 e K m W qq N N W _ W = W r r 6 z W W • _ W L a O a K O I-n Z O O rWi O> 4 O O N It, r W a - u FFj yq n a >[ 4 • 3 3> Y. W t W m U N p O fJ iy W •+ u• N S~ U 6 O O O O 6 U' c. c. O N J I I II • i X I X O 3 1 i 1 o P V = m4 -� 4 � Go. F .. p I U F F O K o V e N U W w y V e i V ~ 3 m 4 Z Z c n O UU O 4 q Z Z• 4 0 0 _= - m 4 F z O u m W I O O G o u= u W z o w QQ O F C II I 11 n f o£ Q Z O S O Y 4 = z vl m W O �"' z U 0 1. £ r O u Y G w F W ry W J 4 It i II w E N' u 4 ✓ S 4 11 Z 4 v 4 41 G u 11 ti p 7 W L S W T i j F - £ O F E u •¢= p m F£ h - z 5 i 4 f O W O £ z N S C vi u F Im.. z £ x ' S rc • O X 4 I tN II _ W 3 V I W W > O } LL V _O L. m . 4 O W 4 It In W F O Q N F 1 C Z V 3 6 o Q O W U F 3 W Q Y N C 'I F 3 y W II m a u 3 4 ry 3 U� 3 a 4 F O O • U 4 .. V pt 4 4 6 l I O li a w F w _ V .] .> QQ > 41 Z W -> 6 I V I £ W S W J_ aY W Z• 4 S W y 1 m a 3 N F Z Z O I fS.l yGyG o S F F Qy> C x 4 e a o i] W O n 4W In m .r V • F V u• Q ry S 4 F 4> C O .] O F O Y S ` O ` 0 3 F u O W G III cz w ry o w W ry I.� t U O O O O 4 0 ryr F a a 11 v I ''' i o F u > ¢ rc W o 0 c = Qi 4 'o� t 11 o 1 O w D - LI ti 4 % 1 6 0 2 m F_ O 1 O F 3 0 'I F a W 5 W W W x z w e W I' I Z In 1 4 C C z! S z q Z z 1 O i1 \' �.' O l w ._ - O W Z� O 11 u\ O a O V^ O O U I' O 1' I ¢ Y O F Il u I.. u 6 W z F q q- u F V O VI h II N Z N w m .a G O • P u 4 2 G Ll Z 6 C 4 O .t N N 6 4 W = w u O .a N �n o-! 1 m O W W W l 3 3 V I 3 p 11 W ' > O „ 4 O 6 O O O O O ✓+ 3 'W O � � p. O . £ O O .. W O Z t W O 4 z C W O U 1, N O F ti O O w j, II • 1 ii • 1 ii - i I� i II - I II v W � Y W K W W F O• — ^ O r Z O '� ��• � O r m I r S Z Q 1i 1 O V' O S K O I F= ryry r£• a n 4 F O r F O 4 0 S S W w= N�II�_�I wY, 1 1 I Al i .-t � F " F i — w1 rr O I � . � I y , O C w v� J 4 N I ; I 4 p j 6 e O £ V I Va � j a — ✓t N O¢ 2 N I N 2 W 6 Z K S m V W • u¢ Z: O 3 Iil V II O 4 W O q C O 1 Z F O • O• Y w .°+ £ 4 4 _ W 4 K m p q Q 5— £ O A Y u 7 � ` O V O N N f • N • N .`. �p 3: .. a 11 IP Cr n r 4 a a - - o f' m 0 1 v w t V e cl .—. I _ � Z 6' 1 F O a _Z N O r V 11 v rl i i C .7 In a 0 2 rn _ O O O l i m I II W . j w F O i r m 6 m ry m 11 O r l m i O I O r• F L? 2 ¢ O O r O I lr F U m Y o¢ K 5 .] F Z I I 2 I II � I yW p lir Y I O r i L ?. III O 2 W ; r w i O Q > a • (l II ' N p p W T y 4 O V � Lyq. m £ 3 W W I I � I . • — I q .� r — O N_ w O C F O 2 4 r .. I �£] 4 r I ^— Z fJ 6 W W O¢ 6 U a r^ F2 u I 6 yy a' F I A W 0 6 V L L • F O N Z O N£- O a O • r II p, • r 4 • I II I rl '1 PI ' - = IF 11 v 4 ,e_ Qo a - IFF V i Y a O O O G O 2 II a Z 4 F O 4� Y li � 7 U V O_ O 3 • F A N ul � Z 3 O O F• • w 3 � U a F a 1 SII 4Z — l itl f ` m Y p N m w Y O ^ w 4 F 4 F • __ ry m m V Y W m A 4 0 x 0 4 O = W l i Z m 4 O F U 4_ £ O W_ W 4 4 C W S W n S X U q i II F G f�l w G K r •�`. Z a— = L= V N 3 Y Z U o 3 _ 3 W O V W 0 X F • 4 Z L n i s II N; 4p K Z p _ 4 O I W I gqg O O K O O m l �i O O l i Q S w W a, C O O 1 •] u W a �] 44 K y I S IOiI O 6 O X V 5 Y F W y W w Z> o ry U N m j • f W 4 m ! a a N .n • O A o o — II — `o 1 v 11 ° _ n _ °v 4 x n P 4 u Y4 W I W V rd N II . o c _ ° i o I _ v it F. C N O U q m y. IF .• p 0 IV W 4 n w 1 O O I O O O O II _ II N O . 0 W ' loll of �ii�u ono ai IF i''o R_ X40.ad to u s u N F W _ w ' - ow a N s o o - - o 4 II I e E I o maF_ `s I W_- i W r w W .. a a _ I 'v l ° f l a 6 w° I 2 s� l i o II I o f ... a � W u In o i F x W w 4 4 p z N o W x a i w Q W W Z V F vi F N l i 6 i' m ,n ill O i Q I • V i O I . N f � F N C W N a II Z S . '"' o m 3 N rS. 2� I G O W N F O W V I Z A • W • u ..1 0 K q l i a S F Ou Lal IF, _ W II S F W F k Y W 4 W ¢' Q • 6 of V C l i 4 2 N w v V G V li 4 U p r N V ..A J v 1 £ I 3^ 4 3 A II F' 2 O V' .] Q Q 3 n II N 3 4 lil XG£XG o y .> a> c > [ C 4 S 4 Y O V j • O .>. > F L1 O L J 4 Q I II I II • I II • I II • I r I it I It 2 F n I I n n n } n m >� i O m S I O E Il i p O Ll II • O O S III ¢ w Z 111 F F 6 Z O II O O 4 i S i N w Z o 2 F r o W V Z G 2 li C w W O I Y p C m o It Z 01 Z Cll Z,6 2 W J O O �OIIOWFZ O m 4 £ £ 4 4 O F £ O W _ m O O S O £1 O O _ 4 W _ 4 O I, lal 5 , ¢ l 41i 4i V O F \.i V J O II l ♦ t) Q p l Il n a O I II 4- w 0 L J W 4 ¢ O z a q m O 6 G b } U • II II • 2 • 3 3 I A 11 it F i a J 6 C 2 N O O O A 1 1 • O O li O w OO '^ H O m ct l C • I , I, , II l i 4 F W ,a . , Y . . • 2 �o° m =4 nl, � a � m =� NW G• 1 1x.140. 44 a 6 It ry w W > vi Fi zz Pi 4 F 3 O w Z F ry Q i" a z i s q W r a r r 0 4 -- S L. - S o O r w W u - j D O i£ i - W , i w �. x ,.. N• W W_ Z W- _ n G _ -• 4 �- V u, C O L -'. V 0+ 4 S K O 4 'a - -^• Ot! a s O m O • S U w O C O W tl W l l Y a v O n O O W 2 . w U ^^ U 011 F O W Z V - W p V K \ £ 0 L £ K a6£ ^ U' F F ? . m .. ry Y 6 4 O • o O II , .. u £ m r . S , r 6 • w .. ry a y , � � • vFi J . . o 3 � • v z V d O F • N � V E � .�` 0 3 � • N � u 41 0 1 ' � 4 • P I c' 1 N U4 I v �W W W j E� =° F ' ' W z ' O ¢ 4 O n 0 G £ 4 = W O F O 4_ W — ¢ tQ- W — n¢ 4 4 6' .. 3 6 O • O F e O 1 ° °V _? ... r/r 4 W W = :•. O i v rn V CV . U 4 ^ i F q U O L O f.' 2 O 4 C O 4 r[ � '• Y q 4 4 2 O 6 � 0 0 2 b vl 6 C 3 ry W i > O - v1 S LFI � N J O !- v f W - =� I•. S y 4 C 1 " 1 N � 6 Y i �o YI - O Y r F O u C w 0 - t7 F u •. S[ �[ j LL .� i� tl 4 O W W F> j q W W 4 W N 1 O Q 1 S L y w O F u Z w r N 6 1 W 4, ¢ w q O' N Y m F W 4 O O O V w _ - E v 6 F W � > W_ • F I i L 7 II O O p u O U W S v1 £ 1 G,.1 0 4 y m O I t i L r i W j C y f] ¢ W V� . Q s o q w m F O W : Yi i I,•• • S O 41 > F u 4¢ .l 4 W L_ a W ` W W W o F r a U 4 w —> 4 i I A 11 z ^ .r i I I l L w N 4 ' I W In . : 0 W W " 1.: Y yl e • ; ° V Y F Y O O O O Y[ 4 t O 2 O v IP w K 4 U O_ V 4 o v 11 m 1 O p n u O O u 4 2 Y 4 F> 4 4 • c - O: Y Tj ry W 4 V C K V$ V I^ p p< y g i 41 O y: 6 W 4 • 6 r° X of a V N ¢ N O 1 n - CCF p N .• ^]] 4 4 3 i n X F ^ F N G 4 o O O O 0 1 i N n n < a a p O O > O j O U U G • C ry O i _O l i _O I � l = •• � z 4 V I S . 4 F O O _ tt z i 1' =-zY z�1 010 .°41F rv o rvo $'r u. 4 ol; mw ol°o t o z m o z o _ a IS W 4 V '^ r . >• i °m o i- W .-� i n u a u W z W a i ° z _ N 6 Z °_ o a o_ o W u ' s a: ' " p• • Z ' q y m S ; N n I W O K ti 2 4 j C p O ` O A N F N C 14.1 4 N v N ti ry W 4 4 o. u a^ nil UO j Z £ 4 It, o ua •' II a W F 2 G W N N • N 2 N °- ^ O S y V 6 ° F- • A n Now IN I - V 3 v '� . W Y• IJ Y Ll N W ' O p W a V ° U V V y ° z' c a a ae > o £ . _ W 1 1 n x E f h K F n 5 O O Z q : u= v O 1 Z O v l p 1- m z W £ m it m O i o Y - ✓t Z n - 4� _ B O A I ^_ z o�£ N 2 o a W i -• ry � ,°° I W i_ l i W I o_ A I � Irv- _ W CI m I_ 4 � i o i m � N I rc G O < I O Y p F Z V ~ LI W x V • K � K S 0 �� � Y i 4 W O� Y - 4 ���� • W� m N 6 6 O U V Z O P ¢ W O 1 U° O W o n1 O^ O •- C vi S • °pY. LI Y • m S O vi O Y S 4 A V Ll O C m ii w W x F Z• 4 G W ry j V i V V e o_ ^ Y C 4 H y li j 111 .] I� +' O 1 • , In o I �I I =W 0 A w W °s ei y W i l o as - z l o 3 2 2 > O %_ • 2 h O P W 0 _4 • _ A Z Q O - O ' • O ' W . 2 O V O O G j. O y Y J V a Z O '� � •'1 n V r j pq Q O C S V• � I O P C> V C 7 m n O � I „ i £ ' £ I � I £ ^ . � z xol'". '.F F °y• �Ir� W ° � p Ei "° z_S''SWa r_ o W s a W w p o a V p Q p Q WqW IaIa/ a V C yy C j C C p i W Y O i- � I W P .��° i a S� O 4 U J U o w_ In = • gg Y II 1 u Y a P •• (� F F .0 lu m Y 4 y y _ j I j ; j N 3 W _ NI O F S O I Z 4 W O r Z W S W V v F O a V W I L r � III ' o f � l a e � W � W I j F •• m II Y ' O O I � O O O O LL I L f m O Y P C Y 6 4 °- ' V V O V v v Y ry W Z p O 1 i O W Inl = W m W LL C 0 O S ' I Y p u - ., w -O j C 6 O V I i -• W Z u W Y_ ¢ O N V O 4 30 .I W I V W p 1 � U � m l O W ] N C 6 6 3 > w ml o V W 3 4 3> N W V � 2 Y V n_„ W� O¢ Z W W V I W 2 p 2 U W ° 41.1 o I " z • G w C 6 4 W W E V " N N w C W n .: W Y •G > s �d �I II II II I N II �I .I N, 1 W t ° °o ilia' Noe ��s W5 VioE �,° N =W Z Z 0 4 4 G 4 _ S S 6 2 in F W _ " t� • I `n S n - x7_�. N � n j S• , G J. j~ F S� 6 W F- m n I p � 4 h j F L n 2 O F S t . �.• j. � K W F E .". n =° i u N a o` N 6 W a- `d o W _ � ° .. m• =: °_ n a x° � � 6 o N a o I". y ' °- 0 V a z 4 m V s_ z { W- u_ 1 " O 3: I u o rX o 0 0 " I v lz V i V Om ry X W W i A - M W V 3 =_ V V • W o Y p , p i - O 3 O £ n Q W V 4 II 0 G .. 3 L O O O p O v w of E WW��o V pE�s NW �8� m ono' o� o �gwo=o o _ uu °IEWp %E 4 F iO �o i zE I z _- W w N L FLII r O w w 3 O �. 0 O W F 4 a W W F 2 O F Q W W 6 4 F 3 vl F N F N Q e W l 4 l W n O W 0 4 N W W O v 6 i u w 1 W Q O .a N W C 4^ q K W U • PI vi 11 F r j C L. K I W K O ,. Y V W O S> v o £ 1 p u < C Y 4 N a 4 Y m 4 O W OI '3 F W K N u N V N N S m W o S K < F 3 U '� 3 3 n F F W O .A O u W W F N C L N x c O O u O o . O u .n 3 .. m • O .] - 2 0 O O O V 2 N N O u W v O- O V N I�il 0 W ..1 7 E W V u - W I F m m F O f } ° o C 8 W F ' LI W F O W N I � 2 u O S o; S I, 4 C , 4 , O Y 6 I•. r : N W v Q l 4 4 V W N II W 2 W N m° Z t W . K F K a�`. V •. L W N 4 0 u SO] N r f e 4 e C v 41_ (] C W ° ^ V 4 x O ; Y _ C : I i O F W j fj j} t W q j f L a W W> N a R P U A K I k Y t Ll N f} W V n r U u N of N 2 j U W 4£ O C >> C V 4 S G O W °] - ° r x •' r Y , II Y F N 3 Y O N_ a . O H ~ 2 Z V r =�81' -o.°�o NI I _ W e NEW V U O 4 O O O v m a 6 0 1 q [V O O O O v W 1 O V 1p f W [ O - V m s I V G > L. r W o =` n W o N w = I i m W I n r O• .r m 4 S K Y £ r N ;,I n= O= C r i i P V H= G ' i � X O r W "_ 41 w W L ° j 4 U • N C W- W 1 1 4 B 6 4 Y W 4 Z 4 V F r O 1 'J N W N W O Y o- ^ °o 3 O 3 3 3 r ,> F L W W 4 O V 3 O Q F O O O O W O O V Ir O r 3 W N= O O c' V I A A A W W 6 V W S W G G r e r v - r A - r P � u • r e I i i ! pi i� o u W =oLL M1 • I y O m m o } X O m F Y f S !- O , C Q£ 4 — x O M O o W 0 4 v ry Y u K D S L O j n ¢ m a O 0 i £o f �;V _ O 4 4 N W C Y O f X O m ? II z m � i `_ � ° � m i ° � z_ ". � ��� i � = \ .°� • � i � � o � g � ° Y u ' m A � ^ � £ o W 4 m m � m C ° ' ,^., r � � , y W � s ii O F u a I , 4 L ¢ c ¢ > V W a N > W W S FO t2 I = z , W > 0 U O x O .°] �— W Q W w II i • L i V M1 4 W u In �4 4 O W [: • O 3 n . 3 4 M1 y Z O O o O, m 3 S• >> x a Q 0 O W O 2 O r O N N O J i L 2 O V v C' N. O I W . L M1 W4 I 1 l V o u O= n o u 0 I Q M1 _ Y.i V O S O rv� — ', u 41 O j L V 1 X IM1 m .1 — O 0 V V S O •: C O N S aj v ry ,L O L � W — 2 N� O M1 W e � N t���X � = o F o o a i I I i v, n `o_ 4 W m 4 c � h 4 W m 6 6 W 1 O K £ N F W F 6 '� O 1 L O O V W N O O O p O U 4 Y Z 2 4> 6 V .. O L O Y O 4 O£ d O 2 W j .. • S i> o y2 100 c a q> y O — O F y S O z z S W N S O W O A A A A V I I m 1 � PI • aI 2 I O F¢ W /p � 3 2 q 4 4 O G Q P ._] >• - � 4 V - X F S F-J n Q _ .• E .n j Z O V W j O a 4 4£ 4 .. 4 G O 2 I � O n O : � 0 I- O U V 4 . Z m �£ O O £ O - O 4 W F Y 2 S O � O F .`. U F Z • 4 rn W a LL11 1" N O F- W O r p 2 ry O - - ° o ° 6 u W _ _ r c 2 fl -- F V •1 .. .. W W .1 q W . W W V N� Z� O_ 0 4 N p U N O V tll 4 ' W °° Y O I F o L = C N v Q O tl m L W 1 0 u i .] 6 w 4 W LL j N F F• W H W N s ££ II O W 1 ` SN u V+ Y N ' W V W O 4 F- • ,K r O W O W W Q Z> U V F O 4 6 m tl O 2 Z 2 M1 .a' D W - 3 C 4 R F S - 6 - 2 Zq ¢ Q O W O y WW' V 4- tpr O V j �' 4 _4 O L u V W C Q 4 - K M1 O , F W .] V a S y E W I q W I r ] W : OW V' L V W Y V tl Q n n >> y � 1 '� 4 £ F ° F S : 2 1 £ 1 W L L: m U W W 6 y 6 • i a i B N p j 4£ O a N F¢ >> N O 2 W O O . O r • I • v .°] ^ a y - S 4 W O n '� C V V F 4• 1' W O L .] W I •• O 3• V 6 14 r I of ' W - U a v CI I v W w V m O F N p e 1 r O II o Y 1 F tl C 4 F 11 F O N C 0 0_ tl 0 I j LaF. Y-- C- n N. W .°] G - 4 F Z N O W O U 0 r Z O I I 4 �- O Y O �'� =7i:W'sFW'• sl ��e �x 48 >�"'� ° ^F ; W I I W ' I Z 4 4 W '� W C41 II 1 > 3 j W F W 5 £�; F U w _( V •[ 4 W [� 1 W • \ O r W Y O � � 4� W���^ q N 6 . V i / � Ir u 4_ - W : N F U W ryq' C Q N 4 a 7 W W i L . tJ i W ' ; of Y O ' i • 0 6 4 F n 3 w 4 P 4 O i ./1 v. °' F N N S G 6 N � g N Lql 4 W o O Z • O; ry W O U O II N I. V O V O n' — V Z ° M1 Y • 3 1- O� > W G Z ry [ Z ! E a II p W K S e F y C W W O ry llal O O 4 li S_ 4 °i x,- o 4 q F N } F 2 2 S O n Z O 4 • 7 5 = rv i P 1 P N I nl L1 ^ 6 F I� f L O •. F W O S m M1 S O 3 ry _ 1 W O o OI R ry x l i W I It li i ii: M1ey o ° _N OC m W$°d¢eogx°o 0mz o zg o —.... I _ F N W C F X V n O 1 Z S O O X V 4 2 W_ O' n 4 1 4 4 1 W V U I C> W M1 _ W u 1. 1R.. �. G a a Z C N 2 1 w + W O J N x } • U . 0 4 2 4 6 6 ° } 6 W= x L. 1 O , 1 � ' p i 5 i 4' £¢ O 4 fa.. �� 4 a l i O i� � F .F^. _F Y 1144.. • F M1 R l ¢ C N W K i a i 1QQ+ P I 3 1 II In n O O _ • O 2• LI 4 > t a y GGm C O O^ Y • 0 X 1 1 1 I i 6 e V ° e g V O _ tl UU rq In O p a C LL Y 6 li > a O W Z q 4 � W Y 0 I.. W a � p � 0 0 `� 6 o w o W ° ''o °t N o ry nom ° 4 W 1 2 rv— L F W? W . — II II M1 6 n F II II O N It 4 L p l 4 m W >> V N O Z 1 x 4 O W 0 4 1- a n S v0i I � � ^ t W 6 3> I W i W � W 1 O e — N W 1 4 1 4 4 n ¢ 1 V i a °— 6 J 1Wil .O V W y 6 Q £ N S .• L. 1.1 4 .i .. W N I O W • O• G Y- 4 ¢ R + 3 F L U 3 I A I A 11 l - , '' 2 1 > e ' O J 1 a c O O Y O 4 F O 11 N v v0i O e N G Y S N O F 4 :> N• W D I 11 w c V d I i . aI Y N � - - I v 1p p rV W c _ K W C U �V _ � V � Z - U 410 V O - G - W F O } II G W u W W o V 0 II � V 6 O U O _ O II y I U p U V C n- �•1 o y� 4 - - £ li u 4 ZO - - W - , - e O ' W - WF C z In I I L. 4 4" o n f- - - .. M - V'£ O Z Zqq A O V j o - Z U AI Y IW.1 W Y It • C£ O .i I•• O; 'w 4 O U W ' S W F £ C W ? W Z W 4 L1 4 F £ li C Y I 4 t.1 W 2 W U W a I i V t > w '> . I.. V m p c C r i 4 I Z A I 1. p 4 C W 0 - 4 N I' N 4 A S z . 0 .Wi N H U S j O C N W W O N O Sq q W Ir Z Z U Q O 4 g ¢ U Q W O n O ri C I R Y Y w- O W C R q R 6 li I 6 i'I ' Q W O _ £ •• N G • 3 r^ n r F, • F . N" Y "> o N N R -, Y N 3 a Z O N 4 GU O m O F O O V 2? C S N N O O O u Q W O c 6 O N j 0> d d v It it Pi m V lu V V V U W _ If I V - v _- z= o ac � - E i J� o° F O F O z G G O i W N" 2 P - I m I�o " - _ _' =� I�� w1 _ mow° o I Z 4 W W w -WS W WWF W �Y r IZ I I K u q Iil o. 2 ' Il 2 ry 3 i- W W W r Ili u C 4 4 n I•I F a 4 R ,. n W y' • O ¢ , a R G K r£ 11 O W O Z 0 C p I' i li W 6 - 5 y O r i O I 2 Y O j I I n 4 N F_ C Y 444111 2 >° ' V N G 4 3 II 7 3 fil �IWr l7 3 I II o L] } 7 G£ o I G G S II Z F F O .• � O m F O j N £ m F V O = O T O V II O Y Z a 0 I i -: U4 � 11 F i11 1 J � O V V+ O I Y I F I F W I I g Q o —� I V XI I 6 5 I Y 3 I I Y 4� 1 1 0 N Q F V O II F a ! c W O w K O I 4 W 4 0 Z F W 1= m I n II II — ol I 6I� eF II I II �� o o o � mull ry I WF� w 6 W j fil O m= Q S 4 H 0 O li Z y 6 w O a H Z q li o Lt p u 4 t- V = r p q — ... W > w II 6 L1 Y W ♦ O I V O I L. 2 m � '+ O O F I W I Z O � 4 Q W > w II m a Y F O W Q W_ ry 00 Z o m u� K I v i� i i Q n g i Q I O w Q m c � o m Z m II Y ry w o v I 4 F � 5 I 3 ` W C w x II S 2� F W W 4 W U L. 6 I> i L] WO Z G I ✓� w '. � U U S 0 O 6 F 4 C 1 - Q W ; Q £ O O C n Q vi . . I O w r? I,.. 6 O > a G �? O O C C Q> v . G SSS F' II . II UL • a M I - 1 o u t v I V } W O L a 4W. O 4 O O O li O W F O O O _ CV D m'Im O Nam I �N W s FN W o I`o z� ilii o z ° of .o I 'ous i i -° 1 It np y cn, i u< i N 1 V C II O 1. In N W££ G 2 C 4 C 1 U l i Q N 4 l i O II N LL M1 2¢ 4 orvl Z W O U 4 ' < C 6 z q O p I S I i W li Y 4 W F F Y V c r I U I Y 6 p Y Y 6 1 -i £, J Y • 1 A V III 3 II n -] 2? .] C 4 O 1 �i II O l i li 1 ii F M - W O O It Vc 1 a i U o S C O� It o o ii — N < P 0 m W W N s o z £ m 1 11 x u W m 1- r W , i Z i' b 11 c • O � �O WII UWy O^ 0 W tj I — 1 O V u> N W ` . = o S .. y 0 0 m G •• O O v In I 1 _ F R 1u .. z I l i p £ pry 4 N x C c W£ n m p F O O[ iX O F L1 F U i V¢ W 3 O 1 it w u 4 Y 1- 1 O 1 -1 „ 1 • m V W W N Z 4 u g 4 W u �W O � O � O r- -` Pi I I el I u 'i a �,^ �� F - •� I - I v 11 v 11 I I V 'I i olsi ol'd zl o�lF of °°_ii ;- ^jlly� -6 ^W o £ W J £ W I l a ww W - ° >u4rc 4�� �u x -wea - m w 4 6 '� .• '' m S 4 c O O W O� W G i O 1 2 Y O i l O i I G 'n W¢ u `� Q . 4 C � � O I' � ° ry j '.. o. g ¢ 3 n -_ 7 0 4 4 C • uFl V £ N m V o G O O A 11 C I ° ° • I II • I Y • i I I II • � ^ • i I� II I I I I I f W W W w -Wa 1p o c u z m o. w _ w 5 m - ° , '" o d ° v. o F£ o£ �? p F P- _- o£ w f £ N£ ow r G o U 3 m¢ 3 _ n z G 4 c © p c O ^ O K 0 3 V ; F O O V W w 4 I W � £ a c z " v s ° W z ° vl - O 3 I 1 I uI 4 V O u 3 C C li 4 0 ENV 3 F- V N G e 3 Z w w 1 x F- _ ? = - ew Fc� - W: £ I y 5 : x y: Q h 4- w U ur ¢ i O n ¢ I . O a a .. _ V O" L � I� 4 • 1. i S u F o i F W 4 O w 4 F c N v n w V" , n w C a I 9 Ali '4 x _ v11 a M = 3 H - n II F - _ LL a u h Q n - o U o Q - O O I I V S - _ w N W - O • - V 4 w ry It w u Y 6 o w > d u o e • - � V a u ! m� 1 ! r q V of oiu ° 0 0 0 3 C r G O C 2 C „ 4 4 � K- •`• V O ' l i � a 4 v O v 1 1 I q 4 '��. fL x N W Imo- N � •• �- F v W _oloy�o�o u�''4 W i W m S i N t N 4 P i &5 40 w W s y t y 4 H v� o i o o. s W V °1 lei v 11 IP W • N 4 I O P m Y LL C Y I L O - N 1 = � r _ P S- ry ` .. - P 's i p r� I 4 � F O W p ..1 4 4 C i O it � F W j fJ Iv E � C � j 4" 4 F 4 1 W 6 'S W � i C� N � F O f• 5__ 4 9 • N I I O 3- O S m W p �� N' W Y C L1 4 Y 3 F O � S I O 2 l i r I, ^ ¢ O 6 F • l r l V L] I W W I U O Y O I 3 rc D £ W O c I C 'V 4 V L1 5 C ¢ p 4 x I V N o l l L W 1 r v N� 4 om. o y D N 6 O C O O O II F O j W O O O N ` O 2I II - - a� `zl zo: W ti �s s IP W - 3 r - - - -- -- �N I II ¢ £ W V 6F W N 0 4 Q - - r 4 u 2 J O U Z Sa < v O V H I •] W . II J F rc O e- S ' r O O • U I N W K 4 U 2 4 O Z m ¢ _ 4 O m O w -- ry _ j 4 6 6 O N l i 4 V- N gamma aN- r I, IrWWN o "o a I 7 • II I ii a i it i it 1 it Z � w p 4 Z F � - O r � - O m F Z < Z�_ ¢ LL ry 4 F O I W V O _ _ m _ 4W O- p 6 1 n I v 11 r p I•: � l i = W .� II n i� u K �^ F- r Q V F �' ry O � } Q F W I O i m l i Z i .°] � E l i W — C OV I¢•1 ` u W 2: C W ^ x ^ U m 5 i Y w a W U ° m u tr a _ ry C (, 4 ? t w n ' S^ N 5 _ O 3; • N V O O ° n li li I I In i ° v ° m I I II II n o 0 _ I I ' O u rt ' cl o Y I E a O t'J U H J - � r O m �� O �i O I i - N M1 a- L O� O .L :. LL O O i S I O I Y o 11 p_ c K o 1 p _ 0 Q V _ - a O m q4' ¢ _ _ N £ i } p i I>•1 ' _ I] 2 I 4 °� o a 'J 6 z K N ¢ y _ o W F- £ I O l i F U 5 1.. j u" �i O I i w _ v- - ti 6 G a •t , F O 4 w a W = t l w � 4' Z� U Y O � I O •L 'I- p I�•' r O � 4 I O¢ V P V K G IN/I i£ i �• ] i 0 0 �¢ i � . . Ll . N C qq � � L !p- INN.1 LL O Z 4£ W I ¢ O U ¢ O l i ll i ¢5 Z_ _ W 5 t W_ , W W o F¢ I W¢ 4- O£ 11 ¢ • J � • .-I O 3 a F 1 u i n i O . I li I li L L • � r m _ II u 14 ° O 1 • ° C 11 II IL Ir V m I Q N O I 4 4 u F O O II W W W ul o Y Wo U m S ut O L m _ w o 'i i '£ wi u � '.] o' � ' li a Y C� e O f L p V V 4 a O ° V 0� F E 41 £ LL K U V .� q V j a Z u Q ' - y ' > IFiI ¢ I O I m p I ° u `•I > > _, •-'• V F -0 I Ir G I I � W u) 4 II l U I c Z a � Q rl _ O w W O O O v C. O w Ij V Z V W p •o O' m O> v a W O q <- 4W ° u 4 4 ° O I/i V • `W _ 4 5 i F ° !j l ° I Y a 2¢ U 4 u a d I•._W... :.. W t) 3 ? F...>I 00 416__ '�' LL u j U o m F O O O _ O _ I, - , II - , n I li W p a I li I U • I r I � N r I • _L 4 r I IN it It It m O _O 1 Lt It In W C 1 Y u li a O F 4 ry 4 W g O u G V ? IS y ¢ S W 4 O$> a G £' V F F 4 v A A - r w 11 r - _ > W w I u o P ' G 4 l G F L1 1 K O _ WOI o 11 1 i s O� a Ll V G I < . W G q F Y '. ~ W -= O 6 R- 4� • I A It 11 F. r It Yz °° m 1 C - I v 11 it r W O n Lxl Y 4 C V � N' III �- p O W W C O ¢ O U_ i G T O m l �_ O W W i l m I o l m z W N c W_= v _ - = a o a o. ; u h ° s o ll li O pt '-' z it I LL I I - it W i t it It I N V Y U ry 4 It It t E O R U O 4 O O O V O I w it W a 2 0 I Y It _o wl I W s _ w u w y l W m o u _ ry n - l U O F` t O Z .] } O Y O ` x Q = G II O till U In O O 1 LL F ° F o It pt ' y - R S W W W 4 4 II - = W x I 4 W, w 1 D V LL 1 _O U r W = L 1 S I u. w W �- W i . W . 11•.. qq u V li .•. 'f _ _ • of O O 1 k N W O C 4 6 S T e „ : O F I a¢ IS i lli s; N? a. rc il I u li d a r w v F f o 1 I I � 1 I I o _ II vI r o u of ij ul a ¢ G O 4 y W 1 i m n III = s II W VWSaqW' l i O VF Z L 3> o 0 0 F W O I 1 Harveston Specific Plan ' Section C Right -of -Way Analysis 1• 1 1 1 1 UJo&s oog G omg2 SeOM:aazViyoGGA9\2 / \ ) _ ° ~ u � ; \ § CL ] R u LLJ @ u 2 e § b w ! { ) 2 �]{ j \ w \ \ !| _; . ■ ■ . : { | ! §` ■ ! �] |!� )h � | \ � ! � � Date Street at 0.5% Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Date Street Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Slope 0.005000 tuft ' Water Surface Elevation 0.91 ft Options Current Roughness Method mproved Loner's Method Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lotter's Method Closed C hannel Weighting Metho Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficient 0.015 ' Elevation Range 0.00 to 1.46 Discharge 162.91 cfs Flow Area 44.3 ft' Wetted Perimeter 116.36 ft Top Width 115.00 If Actual Depth 0.91 ft Critical Elevation 0.92 ft ' • Critical Slope 0.004545 ft/ft Velocity 3.68 ft/s Velocity Head 0.21 ft Specific Energy 1.12 ft ' Froude Number 1.05 Flo Type Supercritical ' Calculation Messages: Flow is divided. ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0 +00 1 +34 0.015 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0 +00 0.91 ' 0 +12 0.67 p +12 0.00 0 +60 0.96 0 +60 1.46 1 0 +74 1.46 0 +74 0.96 • 1 +22 0.00 1 +22 0.67 1 +34 0.91 Project Engineer: Andy Gong untitled.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614b] ' 08 /08100 01:20:51 PM 8 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Date Street at 1 % ' Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Date Street Flow Element Irregular Channel , Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data , Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Water Surface E l e vation 0.91 It Options Current Roughness Method mproved Latter's Method , Open Channel Weighting Methodmproved Lotters Method Closed Cha nnel Weighting Metho Horton's Method Results , Mannings Coefficient 0.015 Elevation Range 0.00 to 1.46 Discharge 230.39 cfs ' Flow Area 44.3 ft Wetted Perimeter 116.36 ft Top Width 115.00 ft ' Actual Depth 0.91 ft Critical Elevation 1.03 ft Critical Slope 0.004252 ft /ft Velocity 5.20 It •, Velocity Head 0.42 ft Specific Energy 1.33 ft Froude Number 1.48 , Flow Type Sup ercritical Calculation Messages: Flow is divided. ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings ' Station Station Coefficient 0 + 1 + 0.015 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (f t) 0 +00 0.91 0 +12 0.67 0 +12 0.00 , 0 +60 0.96 0 +60 1.46 0 +74 1.46 0 +74 0.96 1 +22 0.00 • 1 +22 0.67 1 + 0.91 ' Project Engineer: Andy Gong unlitled.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 ]614b] 08/08100 01:25:55 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1, Date Street at 2% Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Dale Street ' Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge ' Input Data Slope 0.020000 ft/ft ' Water Su rfa c e Elevation 0.91 ft Options ' Current Roughness Method mproved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting Methodmproved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Metho Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficient 0.015 ' Elevation Range 0.00 to 1.46 Discharge 325.81 cfs Flow Area 44.3 W Wetted Perimeter 116.36 ft ' Top Width 115.00 it Actual Depth 0.91 ft Critical Elevation 1.15 It ' • Critical Slope 0.003956 ft/ft Velocity 7.36 ft/s Velocity Head 0.84 ft Specific Energy 1.75 ft ' Froude Number 2.09 Flo Typ Supercritical ' Calculation Messages: Flow is divided. ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0 +00 .1 +34 0.015 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0 +00 0.91 0 +12 0.67 0 +12 0.00 0 +60 0.96 0 +60 1.46 ' 0 +74 1.46 0 +74 0.96 • 1 +22 0.00 1 +22 0.67 1 + 0.91 Project Engineer: Andy Gong untitled.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost B Associates FlowMaster v6.0 1614b) ' 06/06/00 01:26:09 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 067011 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Interior Street at 0.5% , Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Interior Streets Flow Element Irregular Channel , Method Manning's Formula Solve F Discharge .. Input Data 1 Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Wate Su rfac e E l e vation 0.73 ft ' Options Current Roughness Method mproved Lotters Method ' Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lotter's Method Closed C h a nn e l W Metro Horton's Method Results , Mannings Coefficient 0.015 Elevation Range 0.00 to 0.73 , Discharge 90.57 cfs Flow Area 25.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 67.01 If Top Width 66.00 ft Actual Depth 0.73 It Critical Elevation 0.74 It Critical Slope 0.004588 ft/ft ' Velocity 3.63 ft/s • Velocity Head 0.20 ft Specific Energy 0.93 If Froude Number 1.04 ' Flow Typ Supercritical Roughness Segments , Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0 + 0 + 0.015 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation , (ft) (ft) 0 +00 0.73 0 +11 0.50 0 +11 0.00 0 +33 0.44 0 +55 0.00 0 +55 0.50 0 + 0.73 �i Project Engineer: Andy Gong c: \haestad \fmw\sweet.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (614b) 08/08/00 01'41:46 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of i' Interior Street at 1 % Worksheet for Irregular Channel '• Project Description ' Worksheet Interior Streets Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Slope 0.010000 fuft ' Water Surface E l e v a tion 0.73 If Options ' Current Roughness Method mproved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting Methodmproved Lotter's Method Closed C h a nnel Weighting Metho Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficient 0.015 t Elevation Range 0.00 to 0.73 Discharge 128.08 cfs Flow Area 25.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 67.01 It ' Top Width 66.00 ft Actual Depth 0.73 ft Critical Elevation 0.84 It ' • Critical Slope 0.004265 fGft Velocity 5.13 fUs Velocity Head 0.41 ft Specific Energy 1.14 If ' Froude Number 1.47 Flow Typ Supercritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0 + 0 +66 0.015 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0 +00 0.73 ' 0 +11 0.50 0 +11 0.00 0 +33 0.44 0 +55 0.00 0 +55 0.50 0 +66 0.73 1 ' • Project Engineer: Andy Gong c:\haestad \fmw \sweet.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates FlowMaster v6.0 1614b] ' .08/08100 01:41:22 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Bfookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Interior Street at 2% ' Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description 1 Worksheet Interior Streets Flow Element Irregular Channel ' Method Manning's Formula Solve F Discharge Input Data 1 Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 0.73 ft ' Options Current Roughness Method mproved Loner's Method Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lotter's Method Closed C hann e l Weighting Metho Horton's Method Results , Mannings Coefficient 0.015 Elevation Range 0.00 to 0.73 Discharge 181.14 cis Flow Area 25.0 fi Wetted Perimeter 67.01 ft Top Width 66.00 ft 1 Actual Depth 0.73 It Critical Elevation 0.97 ft Critical Slope 0.003969 ft/ft Velocity 7.25 ft/s •' Velocity Head 0.82 ft Specific Energy 1.55 it Froude Number 2.08 ' Flow Typ Supercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0 + 0 + 0.015 , Natural Channel Points Station Elevation , (ft) (ft) 0 +00 0.73 0 +11 0.50 0 +11 0.00 ' 0 +33 0.44 0 +55 0.00 0 +55 0.50 ' 0 +66 0.73 1 • Project Engineer: Andy Gong' c:\haeslad \fmw\sweet.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates FlowMaster v6.0 ]614b] 08/08/00 01:41:06 PM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Major Streets at 0.5% Worksheet for Irregular Channel t• Project Description ' Worksheet Major Streets Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve F Discharge ' Input Data Slope 0.005000 fVft Water Surface Elevation 1.14 ft Options Current Roughness Method mproved Lotters Method Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lotter's Method Closed C hannel Weighting Metho Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficient 0.015 ' Elevation Range 0.00 to 1.14 Discharge 304.17 cfs Flow Area 63.3 ft' Wetted Perimeter 111.36 ft Top Width 110.00 ft Actual Depth 1.14 ft Critical Elevation 1.18 ft • Critical Slope 0.003914 ft/ft Velocity 4.81 .81 ft/s Velocity Head 0.36 It Specific Energy 1.50 ft ' Froude Number 1.12 Flow Type Supercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0 + 1 +10 0.015 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0 +00 1.14 ' 0 +23 0.67 0 +23 0.00 0 +55 0.64 0 +87 0.00 ' 0 +87 0.67 1 +10 1.14 1 Project Engineer: Andy Gong untitled.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614b] ' 08/08/00 01:24:22 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 067011 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Major Streets at 1% ' Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Major Streets Flow Element Irregular Channel ' Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data t Slope 0.010000 Wit Water Sur Elevation 1.14 ft , Options Current Roughness Method mproved Lotter's Method , Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lottees Method Closed Cha nnel Weighting Metho Horton's Method Results ' Mannings Coefficient 0.015 . Elevation Range 0.00 to 1.14 Discharge 430.17 cfs Flow Area 63.3 ft' Wetted Perimeter 111.36 ft Top Width 110.00 ft Actual Depth 1.14 ft Critical Elevation 1.35 ft Critical Slope 0.003638 ft/ft Velocity 6.80 ft/s •' Velocity Head 0.72 ft Specific Energy 1.86 ft Froude Number 1.58 Flow Type Supercritical Roughness Segments , Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0 + 1 +10 0.015 ' Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0 +00 1.14 0 +23 0.67 0 +23 0.00 1 0 +55 0.64 0 +87 0.00 0 +87 0.67 ' 1 +10 1.14 Project Engineer: Andy Gong' untitled.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (6141b) 08/08/00 01:24:42 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of i' Major Streets at 2% Worksheet for Irregular Channel ' • Project Description ' Worksheet Major Streets Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Sol F Discharge ' Input Data Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Water Surface Ele 1.14 ft Options ' Current Roughness Method mproved Lotters Method Open Channel Weighting Methodmproved Lotter's Method C Cha nnel Weigh Metho Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficient 0.015 ' Elevation Range 0.00 to 1.14 Discharge 608.35 cfs Flow Area 63.3 ft' Wetted Perimeter 111.36 ft Top Width 110.00 It Actual Depth 1.14 ft Critical Elevation 1.55 ft ' Critical Slope 0.003385 ft/ft Velocity 9.61 .61 Ws Velocity Head 1.44 ft Specific Energy 2.58 ft ' Froude Number 2.23 Flo Type S upercritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0 + 1 + 0.015 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation ( ft) (ft) 0 +00 1.14 1 0 +23 0.67 0 +23 0.00 0 +55 0.64 0 +87 0.00 ' 0 +87 0.67 1 +10 1.14 Project Engineer: Andy Gong untitled fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614b] ' Os,os'00 0124:55 PM © Haeslad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 1 1 ' APPENDIX G ' BIOLOGICAL ASSESSEMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FOR HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT BY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES DATED JUNE 29, 1999 ' TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES ' 2150 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405 • TEL (909) 882 -3612 • FAX (909) 882 -7015 E -MAIL tda @tstonramp.com ' May 4, 2000 Ms Patty Anders Community Development Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, Ca. 92589 -9033 ' Re: SweetWater Specific Plan revised site plan. ' Dear Ms. Anders: • Tom Dodson & Associates conducted biological surveys, jurisdictional wetland/waters/streambed delineations, and focused studies for endangered species on the above referenced site. All of these studies were conducted to ascertain what biological resources occur on the approximately ' 500 acre parcel. Because biological studies are focused upon what is on the site, and not what the intended use is ' for the site; any and all changes to the specific plan will have no affect on the conclusions made in the biological studies. ' If you have any questions regarding this information or would like additional information, please call. ' Sincerely, ' Lisa M. Kegarice Ecologist t Biological Assessment and r Jurisdictional Determination for SweetWater Specific Plan Development Prepared for: ' EDAW, Inc. 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, California 92614 ' June 29, 1999 �• •u� uvC �kviN� Tom Dodson & Associates 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, California 92405 • (909) 882 -3612 z BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FOR SWEETWATER SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT r Prepared by: LISA M. KEGARICE Tom Dodson & Associates 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino California 92405 June 29, 1999 �, (Revised: June 29, 1999) �'• TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS t Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................ 1 METHODOLOGY ................... ............................... 4 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Methodology ................... 4 ' California Department of Fish and Game Section 1603 ............... 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Waters of the United States" . 5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Wetlands" ......................... 5 RESULTS ........................ ............................... 6 1 General Biological ............. ............................... 6 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly .................... . ............ . .. 8 • Jurisdictional Determination . 9 DISCUSSION OF NDDB SEARCH ..... ............................... 11 CONCLUSIONS ................... ............................... 14 REFERENCES .................... ............................... 17 APPENDICES Appendix A — Species List Appendix B — Natural Diversity Database Search Appendix C — Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Report TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES • LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page_ Figure 1 Regional Location Map ..... ............................... 2 Figure 2 Site Location Map ......... ............................... 3 Figure 3 Stream Location and Vegetation ............................. 7 r Figure 4 NDDB Overlay 12 ' - - -- Site Photos 15 ............. ............................... Table 1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas ............................ 10 -iii- • TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The purpose of this report is to assess the biological resources and the potential impacts associated with the development of the Proposed SweetWater Land Use Plan as identified in the Specific Plan and the April 1, 1999 Notice of Preparation. The proposed project involves a master planned community on approximately 500 acres. The site is located in the City of Temecula north of Winchester Road between Interstate 15 Freeway and ' Margarita Road, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). This 500 -acre parcel is located in Township 7 South, Range 3 West, Sections 13 of the ' USGS — Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic (Figure 2). This site is characterized by relatively gentle slopes of disturbed annual grasslands, and two stream channels which are characterized by unvegetated sandy bottoms and an abrupt transition into upland disturbed annual grasses. There are no wetland or riparian resources associated with these channels. There are a few isolated and disturbed remnants of coastal sage scrub (CSS) elements characterized by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) that occur on the southend of the parcel. Finally, this site has been historically disturbed by farming and grazing. Current disturbances include frequent discing, extensive off -road vehicle use, and dumping. The results of this assessment is �. that there are no sensitive biological resources that will be affected by the proposed project. During a habitat assessment conducted on February 19, 1999; Plantago erecta, a larval host species for the federally listed endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (QCB) was observed along the dirt roads above the CSS remnants. Due to the low rainfall this year, the Plantago erecta was approximately 2 to 3 cm tall and not more than 2 cm in diameter. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was consulted and a focused QCB survey of the potential habitat areas was conducted in accordance with the 1999 protocol. The result of this survey is there are no QCB observed on the parcel. (Refer to Appendix C for the protocol report.) Additionally, the proposed project occurs within the range of the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensl). The Stephens kangaroo rat (SKR) is not likely to occur on this parcel because none were observed during the 1988 and 1989 studies conducted by SJM Biological Consultants, and these studies concluded that SKR are unlikely to occur on this parcel because of the frequent disturbances. The parcel does occur within the Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Area and a per acre fee will likely be assessed. x \x "I V1 \v A l L V , i t -i�. Y,i �.� �,\ - } lZ / , T ' ,��5 `'r� l � �y.+' \' . ^ . T �. �; .�j, it a T lzj P *femecula 50 100 Miles Regional Location Map FIGURE 1 1 ' r .. Oaks e..e. .ew. .✓ d, S \. :.�''•' d ..; r,�ic Er d ♦'�`,,, 1 c° _ -.. '�1'es`triCi'�_�. �' Al \ B p 6 / ccu n au \:; t .. .d / �� •/ � i'.�'ia�� r s c G n G'I _• E" .ruvan ate. -LA Y j, ?. -,a! Murrieta Hot Springs a Y I Ap f MURRIETA - g' G r•ti' a o �� ° / I / � �a•' =fir c0 ~ �� �l c e 1 y[ �i�[ \ 1 1 t \ ��• X11 ' ' ' �E � � °.ms �,� �.w4� \ l_ 3; i£'y 3 u u ra_s.� •'.•, o'• �� �'j �� o f"ta ! .>t, •�j� '•_ — �\ r / � TEMECUtA ure 2: SITE LOCATION MAP Tom Dodson & Associates ' Environmental Consultants Sourcc: Map provided Uy EDA \1' 1 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Two stream channels occur on the parcel. Neither of these channels support riparian vegetation or flow during storm events. Permits have been obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Army COE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for the proposed impacts to these channels. There were no listed rare or endangered species observed onsite during any of the field surveys. METHODOLOGY Background information was gathered prior to visiting this site in order to determine what species would be expected in this area. This background check included a search of the CDFG's Natural Diversity Database (NDDB), a review of previously conducted biological �> surveys on the parcel and on adjacent parcels, and a review of the "due diligence' investi- gation for the parcel. The NDDB search was completed for the USGS — Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic. Finally the results of the focused Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) survey and wetland /streambed delineation provided supple- mental information for the species list. Field surveys were conducted on the parcel on August 4 and 28, 1998; September 15, 1998; February 19, 1999; March 23, 24, and 29, 1999; April 5, 10, and 25, 1999; and lot 6, 1999. The primary focus of this field investigation was to determine the presence of any sensitive biological resources on the project site; and to determine the extent of jurisdictional "waters of the United States" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including wetlands, and CDFG "streambed" under Section 1600 of the CDFG Code. The following discussion outlines the specific criteria for the focused QCB survey and the three types of jurisdictional areas: streambed, waters, and wetlands. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Methodology The 1999 QCB focused survey protocol involves surveying the site during the flight season. The flight season is initiated by the Service and continues on a weekly basis until the Service determines the flight season is over. The surveys may be conducted only when weather conditions are considered "suitable" as outlined in the protocol. The 1999 flight season began on March 17, 1999 and ended on May 10, 1999. California Department of Fish and Game Section 1603 The CDFG takes jurisdiction over water flow areas, i.e. streams. These water flow areas are identified in the code as: 4 • TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES "...natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river stream of lake designated by the depart- ment in which there is at any time an existing fish orwildlife resource or from which these ' resources derive benefit or will use material from the streambeds.. " In order to quantify the acreages of "streambed ", the channels were walked and measure- ments of the discernable bed and banks were taken at approximately 100 -foot intervals. The acreages were then calculated from these measurements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Waters of the United States ", excluding wetlands The limits of "waters of the United States ", excluding wetland, are defined in 33 CFR t 328.3(a) as those areas within the "ordinary high water mark ". (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as: "...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of the water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." In order to quantify the acreages of "waters of the United States ", the channels were �• walked and measurements of the OHWM were taken at approximately 100 -foot intervals. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Wetlands" The conclusions of the Jurisdictional Delineation conducted in 1998 are based upon The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual January 1987, Technical Report Y -87 -1 (Manual). This Manual outlines a comprehensive approach based upon the presence of the following three parameters: wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology is present if the "sum total of wetness characteristics in areas that are inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation" (Manual). Hydrophytic vegetation is "the sum total of macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (Manual). A positive hydrophytic vegetation indicator is present if the prevalence, characterized by the dominant species of a plant community or communities, of the vegetation is classified as hydrophytic vegetation. Dominant plant species are those that contribute more to the character of a plant community than other species present, as estimated or measured in terms of some ecological parameter (i.e. %cover, %density, etc.). Hydric soil is "soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long ' enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth • and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation." -5- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Using this Manual, a wetland determination is made when under "normal circumstances" an area has all three parameters present. An area is not functioning under normal circumstances if a positive indicator for one of the three parameters could not be found due to effects of recent human activities. If a particular site has been recently disturbed by natural or human activities, it may not meet the criteria of "normal circumstances ". If this occurs it would be classified as an "Atypical Situation" meaning one or more parameters are not reliable indicators. To complete this Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation, all three parameters were investi- gated: soils, hydrology, and vegetation. The Manual describes inundation greater than one month to be a 'very long duration , therefore areas that were ponded or were saturated at the surface or within the root zone (usually 1 -12 inches). The hydrophytic vegetation is characterized by plant species that have demonstrated an ability to achieve maturity and reproduce in an environment where all or portions of the soil within the root zone become, periodically or continuously, saturated or inundated during the growing season." (Reed) The National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands was used to determine the indicator status of the dominant species of a community. The wetland area was delineated by looking for vegetation boundaries in the field between communities dominated by Facultative Wetland Species — Obligate Wetland Species and those dominated by Facultative Upland - Upland species, and comparing the hydrological and • soils data along the vegetation transition. RESULTS General Biological Two vegetation types were identified during this investigation. The approximate distribu- tion of the vegetation communities and streambeds are mapped on Figure 3. The follow- ing is a discussion of these communities in order of relative area covered by the assem- blages. 1. Non - Native Grasslands This community occurs at the top of the slopes and in disturbed areas. The community is characterized storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), wild oats (Avena barbata), ripgut brome grass (Bromus diandris), and foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros). Other species occurring in this community are and short -pod mustard (Brassica geniculata), barley (Hordium vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and dove - weed (Eremocarpus setigerus). Small patches of Plantago erecta, a known larval host 6 • ,• TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES species for the QCB was observed in the disturbed grasslands along the road margins above the CSS remnants. These patches were discovered in early February. By mid- ' March the Plantago was undetectable because it had been covered by the thicker and higher growing storksbill and brome grasses. Due to the disturbances on the site, these annual grasslands do not support a diverse fauna. The most common species observed on the site was beachy ground squirrels ' (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Other common species include western meadowlark (Sturnella magna), cottontail rabbits (Sylvalegus audobonip, mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis), and red - tailed hawks (Buteo J.amaicensis). The primary biological resource on this parcel is foraging habitat for raptor species. 2. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Of the approximate 500 -acre parcel, only 15 acres are vegetated by this degraded CSS community. This community is characterized by two dominant species: California buck- _ wheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California sage (Artemisia californica). California buckwheat represents more than 90 percent of the vegetative cover in this community. �• California sage accounts for approximately an additional 10 percent. No other species, such as California sage and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) occur in these CSS remnants. One elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) occurs adjacent to the southern channel. This individual is relatively old and there is no evidence of recruitment in its vicinity. A species list is included as Appendix A. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) The QCB was listed by the Service as an endangered species on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). This species is a small member of the Nymphalidae or "brush- footed" butterflies. This is a large family of true butterflies which is characterized by their reduced forelegs of both the males and females. QCB typically utilize grassland and open areas of CSS and chaparral. Historically the QCB's range extended from the Santa Monica Mountains in California, south to northern Baja California, Mexico. Today, known populations are restricted to San Diego and western Riverside counties and northwestern Baja California. The QCB has two distinctive life phases. The first phase is the "terrestrial phase" which is characterized by the egg, caterpillar, and pupa stages; and the second phase is the "flight phase" which is characterized by the butterfly stage. Each phase has distinctly different environmental or habitat needs. • _g_ •- . •� '� • '• TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES The terrestrial phase requires larval host plants which allows the caterpillar to feed and grow. The QCB are thought to be highly restricted in what species of plants are utilized ' as host plants. The only known primary larval host plant is Plantago erects. Other species such as Plantago insularis and Castilleja exerta may be used as secondary larval feeding ' plants. These host plants are associated with the open or sparsely vegetated areas of CSS and chaparral. According to Mr. Greg Balmer, University of California at Riverside entomologist, the butterfly is generally found at sites where high densities of the host ' plants occur. The adult QCB flight season lasts approximately 8 to 12 weeks and can occur anytime between mid - January and June. During a habitat assessment conducted on February 19, 1999; Plantago erecta, a larval host species for the federally listed endangered QCB was observed along the dirt roads above the CSS remnants. The Service was consulted and a focused QCB survey of the ' potential habitat areas was conducted in accordance with the 1999 protocol. The flight season was initiated by the Service on March 17, 1999 and ended on May 10, 1999. By mid -March the Plantago was undetectable because it had been covered by the thicker and higher growing storksbill and brome grasses. The Service was re- consulted at this time to determine if a focused survey was warranted. They determined the focused survey should be completed because Plantago did occur on the parcel and the parcel was in the mapped "Adult Focused Survey Area ". The result of this survey is there are no QCB observed on the parcel. (Refer to Appendix C.) ' Jurisdictional Determination Two primary channels were investigated in this jurisdictional determination. The First channel traverses west to east along the northerly one -third of the property. This channel is characterized by unvegetated sandy bottomed channels with sharp transitions to the upland vegetation. This channel was delineated as a Army COE's "waters of the United States" and as CDFG "streambed." The second channel traverses east to west along the southerly half of the property. This channel is similar to the northerly channel in that it too is characterized by unvegetated sandy bottom at the eastern edge and transitions into a more deeply incised eroded channel. This channel bifurcates into a southerly secondary channel. The natural flows on this channel has been removed by the adjacent development. The flows that once entered the site have been placed in storm drains and diverted around the parcel. Therefore, the only source of water for these two channels is direct precipitation. Any flows generated on the parcel enter storm drains at the western edge of the parcel. �� 9 Tom DODSON & ASSOCIATES Table 1: Summary of Jurisdictional Areas z .. ... I. Junsdi i n ictio a A creage Area .�.Length of ... ,-- I ., E CDFG Channel Waters I 1. .. Strea ]�,i nib6d W et l an d ., ­ #1 4,700 0.00 3.34 3.34 #2 3,150 0.00 0.00 1.12 #2 southern arm 1,850 0.00 0.00 0.27 Total acreages 0.00 3.34 4.73 The proposed project involves the construction of culvert crossing over the northern channel and the filling of approximately 6,000 feet of the two channels. Neither channel flows during a "typical storm event," however, the southern channel no longer flows at all. The culvert crossings are associated with the extension of two City of Temecula roads, Date Street and Ynez Road. The fill of the southerly channel is associated with the development of the residential community, and the fill in the westerly one-third of the northern channel is associated with an industrial park. The proposed project will impact approximately 2.86 acres of "waters of the United States. No wetlands or riparian plant communities will be effected by the proposed project. Lennar Homes has obtained a 404 permit from the Army COE and a 1603 Agreement from the CDFG. Mitigation for these impacts includes avoidance and habitat creation. The project proponent avoided impacts to the channels to the extent feasible by reusing the Land use Plan to avoid 1.84 acres of the northern channel. The proposed project was further mitigated by a permit condition requiring the creation of approximately 8 acres of a riparian corridor on the along that northern channel. �• TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES DISCUSSION OF NDDB SEARCH The following species were identified by the CDFG's NDDB and the Service as having the potential to occur onsite (see Figure 4). Tetracoccus diocus: This plant species is listed as a Species of Concern formerly Candidate 2 species by the Service, and as a 1 B (3 -2 -2) by the California Native ' Plant Society (CNPS). This species was not observed during this field review or the biological surveys for the City of Temecula General Plan. The nearest occurrence listed the NDDB is in the vicinity of Rainbow, California. The plant assemblages associated with this species is Chemise chaparral. Because the appropriate habitat is does not exist within the project site, it was not observed in the vicinity of the project site and was not observed during the field surveys. The probability of this ' species being present on the project site is zero. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (yellow - billed cuckoo): This bird species is a state listed endangered species and is on the Audubon's "Blue List." The cuckoo is associated with riparian forest consisting of willow- cottonwood jungles with an understory of blackberry, nettles, and wild grape. There is no appropriate habitat �• for this species on this site. Therefore, the probability of this species occurring on site is zero. Vireo bellii pusillus (least bell's vireo): This bird species is both federal and state listed endangered and is an Audubon "Species of Special Concern ". This species ' occupies the similar habitat as the yellow - billed cuckoo during the summer where it nests and fledges young before returning to Mexico for the winter. There is no appropriate habitat for this species on this site. Therefore, the probability of this species occurring on site is zero. Polioptila californica californica (California coastal gnatcatcher) (CAGN) is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in CSS in southern California. The CAGN are year - round residents of the CSS vegetative community in southern California. As late as the mid -1940s the CAGN was considered locally common and by the mid -1960s ' a noticeable decline had begun. The CAGN was listed as threatened in 1992. CAGN is a small thrush -like songbird approximately 4 to 5 inches in length with dark, blue -grey plumage above and gray -white plumage below. The breeding pairs become highly territorial by late February or early March and nest building begins in the second or third week of March. i �• -11- N d I ❑ 1�9 O O1 w IA a Q c co w U — fn V) C Z } NE Oo r / w c F 0 l O �- U O U � y Q y F? \ X � � U Z \ , Ill. \ �� 1-\ • i t a j / y Nv/ s �o � o , Z TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES ' CAGN are very difficult to detect during the incubation and brooding stages of the nesting cycle. Once the young are older than 8 days the detection of breeding adults increases. Fledglings start to appear around the first of May. A pair may produce multiple clutches during the breeding season. The Service recommends ' 6 visits during the breeding to determine delectability and those visits should be no less than one week J days) apart. The site was visited on August 4 and 28, 1998; September 15, 1998; February 19, 1999; March 23, 24, and 29, 1999; April 5, 10, ' and 25, 1999; and May 6, 1999 as part of the general biological survey, the jurisdictional delineation, habitat assessment, and the QCB surveys. No CAGN were observed or heard during any of the site visits. Further, the remnant CSS that occurs on this parcel is not suitable for the CAGN. It does not offer the quality, continuity or quantity associated with the presence of CAGN in western Riverside County. Therefore, this project will not effect the CAGN. ' Dipodomys stephensi (Stephens kangaroo rat): This mammal species is federally listed endangered, and state listed threatened. This species is associated primarily with annual and perennial grasslands, however, does occur in CSS. The micro habitat described for this species includes California buckwheat, brome grasses, and storksbill. This rodent is known to burrow into firm soil. The proposed project occurs within the area designated "Fee Plan" in the Habitat Conservation Plan for this species. The SKR is not likely to occur on this parcel because none were observed during the 1988 and 1989 studies conducted by SJM Biological Consultants, and these studies concluded that SKR are unlikely to occur on this parcel because of the frequent disturbances. Clemmys marmorata pallida (southwestern pond turtle): This species is a federal Species of Concern formerly Category 2, and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. There are no ponds or flowing water on the site. The potential for this species to occur is zero. ' Phrynosoma coronatum blainvellei (San Diego horned lizard): This species is a federal Species of Concern formerly Category 1, and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. This species occurs on gentle slopes in CSS and chaparral in southern California. They are typically observed in open areas near cover and feed predominantly on ants. No horned lizards were observed during this survey or during the surveys for the General Plan. The only open areas appropriate for the lizards are the off- highway vehicle roads and trails. The habitat quality for this species is marginal, and therefore the potential for the proposed project to affect the lizard is moderate. • -13- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cnemidophorus hyperythrus (orange- throated whiptail): This species is a federal Species of Concern formerly Category 2, and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. The preferred habitat for this species is washes with sandy open areas and patches of ' shrubs for cover. There are no scrub covering associated with the channels on the property, therefore, this species is not likely to occur on the project site because there is no such sandy wash habitat. a CONCLUSIONS , The project property provides habitat for several wildlife species, however, none of these are rare or endangered. Although the proposed project occurs within the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Area, this species is not likely to occur onsite. Mitigation for the SKR in the form of a fee payment is likely to be required for this project. Further, a focused , survey for the QCB was conducted in accordance with the Service's 1999 protocol. The result of this focused survey is there are no QCB occurring on this parcel. The area does have important raptor foraging habitat due to the high abundance of prey species. However, there are few roosting sites available because of the total lack of large trees. Because foraging habitat for raptor species is not regionally unique, the loss of this resource would not be significant. Two strearn channels occur on the parcel. Neither of these channels support riparian , vegetation or flow during storm events. Permits have been obtained from the Army COE and the CDFG for the proposed impacts to these channels. _14_ ' r SITE PHOTOGRAPHS r r General Site View r 1 1 ' Remnant Coastal Sage Scrub r� VA i S .1 : ' Y •1lF ILI '� y +► �? 6 -1 a TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Natural Diversity Data Base. Goodman, Robert H. 1994. Focused Survey for the Southwestern Pond Turtle. Hickman, J.C. Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press. London, ' England. 150 pp. Munz, P.A. Flora of Southern California. ' National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to Birds of North America, 2nd Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. ' Page, Lawrence M. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Nort h America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. ' The Planning Center. May 1988. Biological Survey for Rancho California Parcel BP7 -1, Riverside, County of. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephenst). SJM Biological Consultants. May 20, 1998. Field Reconnaissance and Trapping Survey for Stephens kangaroo rat on the Winchester Business Park (BP7 -1) Property. SJM Biological Consultnats. March 28, 1989. Site Check for Stephen's kangaroo rat on the 1,049 -acre Rancho California Commerce Center Property. ' Stebbins, Robert C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. ' City of Temecula. General Plan. Old Town Temecula. Specific Plan. 1 �� -17 1 i APPENDIX A SPECIES LIST 1 r� r r r r r r r r• r ' TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES • APPENDIX A . SPECIES LIST ' ANIMAL SPECIES LIST Mammalia Mammals Canidae Canines Canis latrans Coyote ' Canis familiaris Dog Leporidae Rabbits, Hares ' Sylvalegus audubonii Cotton -tail rabbit ' Geomyidae Gophers Thomomys bottae Pocket gopher '• Sciuridae Squirrels Otospermophilus beecheyi Beechey ground squirrel Reptilia Reptiles Iguanidae Iguana ' Scelopoporus occidentalis Western fence lizard Teiidae Whiptails ' Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus Coastal whiptail Colubridea Colubrid Snakes ' Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher snake Aves Birds Accipitridae Hawks, Falcons, Eagles ' Buteo jamaicensis Red -tail Hawk Falco Sparverius American Kestrel ' Alandidae Larks Eremophila alpestris Horned lark i• TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES ' PLANT SPECIES LIST Angiosperms Flowering Plants ' Asteraceae Composites Artemisia californica California Sage Baccharis glutinosa Mulefat ' Centaurea melitensis Star thistle Gnaphalium californicum Everlasting Haploppus squarrosus Common Sunflower ' Hemizonia fasciculata Tarweed Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce ' Sonchus olenaceus Sow - thistle Boraginaceae Borage Family ' Amsinckia intermedia Fiddleneck Criptantha sp. Popcorn Flower plagiobothrys californicus '• Brassicaceae Mustard Family Brassica geniculata Short-pod Mustard Chenopodiaceae Pig Weed Family ' Sa Isola iberica Russian Thistle Fabaceae Pea Family ' Lotus scoparius Deerweed Lupinus bicolor Lupine Medicago polymorpha Burclover Geraneaceae Geranium Family Erodium cicutarium Filaree ' Lamiaceae Mint Family Marrubium vulgare Horehound 1 ' APPENDIX B ' NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE SEARCH 1 1 1 1 1 1 California Department of Fish and Game ' Natural Diversity Data Base • DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD List of Elements and Status by Scientific Name Federal/ Global/ CLAPS/ CDFG ' Scientific /Common Name State Status State Rank R -E -D Status DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD DDDDD DDDDDD ARCTOSTAPHYLOS RAINBOWENSIS None/ G2/ SB/ ' RAINBOW MANZANITA None S2.1 3 -3 -3 BRODIAEA FILIFOLIA Threatened/ G2/ 1B/ THREAD - LEAVED BRODIAEA Endangered S2.1 3 -3 -3 ' BRODIAEA ORCUTTII Species of G3/ 1B/ ORCUTT'S BRODIAEA Concern/ S3.1 1 -3 -2 None ' CHORIZANTHE POLYGONOIDES VAR LONGISPINA Species of G5T3/ 1B/ ' LONG - SPIKED SPINEFLOWER Concern/ S2.2 2 -2 -2 None lie CLEMMYS MARMORATA PALLIDA Species of G4T2T3 SC SOUTHWESTERN POND TURTLE Concern/ / None S2 CNEMIDOPHORUS HYPERYTHRUS Species of G5/ SC ' ORANGE - THROATED WHIPTAIL Concern/ S2 None DIPODOMYS STEPHENSI Endangered/ G2/ STEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT Threatened S2 ' ELANUS LEUCURUS (NESTING) None/ G5/ WHITE- TAILED KITE None S3 ' ERYNGIUM ARISTULATUM VAR PARISHII Endangered/ G5T2/ 1B/ SAN DIEGO BUTTON- CELERY Endangered S2.1 2 -3 -2 EUPHYDRYAS EDITHA QUINO Endangered/ G5T1/ QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY None S1 . • HARPAGONELLA PALMERI Species of G4/ 2/ ' PALMER'S GRAPPLINGHOOK Concern/ S3.1 1 -2 -1 None HEMIZONIA PUNGENS SSP LAEVIS Species of G5T2/ 1B/ 1 1 APPENDIX C FOCUSED QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY REPORT 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX G FOCUSED QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUFFERFLY (EPHYDRYAS EDITHA QUINO) FOR i HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT BY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES DATED JUNE 21, 1999 '• Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Ephydryas editha quino) ' for ' SweetWater Specific Plan Development ' (formerly known as Winchester Hills) lie Prepared for: EDAW, Inc. ' 17875 Von Kerman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 1 Prepared by: LISA M. KEGARICE ' Tom Dodson & Associates 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, California 92405 ' June 21, 1999 ' • (Revised: June 21, 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS TOM DODSON &ASSOCIATES • Page t INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................... 1 ' METHODOLOGY.................... ............................... 4 ' Background Information for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ............... 5 ' RESULTS ......................................................... 6 General Biological ............ ............................... . 6 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ...... ............................... 8 CONCLUSIONS..................... ............................... 9 REFERENCES...................... ............................... 12 ' APPENDICES Appendix A — Species List Appendix B — Data Sheets Appendix C — 1999 Protocol LIST OF FIGURES, TABLE, AND PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 1 Regional Location Map .... ............................... 2 Figure 2 Site Location Map ........ ............................... 3 Figure 3 Vegetation Communities ... ............................... 7 ' Table 1 Survey Data Summary .... ............................... 8 ' Photos Site Photographs ......... ............................... 10 -ii- ' TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES • INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1 The purpose of this report is to assess the presence of the federally listed endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) ( QCB) and the potential impacts ' associated with the development of the Proposed SweetWater Land Use Plan as identified in the Specific Plan and the April 1, 1999 Notice of Preparation. The proposed project involves a master planned community on approximately 500 acres. The site is located in ' the City of Temecula north of Winchester Road between the Interstate 15 freeway and Margarita Road, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). ' This 500 -acre parcel is located in Township 7 South, Range 3 West, Sections 13 of the ' USGS — Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic (Figure 2). This site is characterized by relatively gentle slopes of disturbed annual grasslands, and two stream channels which are characterized by unvegetated sandy bottoms and an abrupt transition into upland disturbed annual grasses. There are a few isolated and disturbed remnants of coastal sage scrub (CSS) elements characterized by California buckwheat (Eriogonum ' • fasciculatum) that occur on the southend of the parcel. Finally, this site has been historic- ally disturbed by farming and grazing. Current disturbances include frequent discing, ' extensive off -road vehicle use, and dumping. During a habitat assessment conducted on February 19, 1999; Plantago erecta, a larval host species for the QCB, was observed along the dirt roads above the CSS remnants. Due to the low rainfall this year, the Plantago erecta was approximately 2 to 3 cm tall and ' not more than 2 cm in diameter. Once the focused surveys were begun on March 17, 1999, the brome grasses and the stroksbill (Erodium cicutarium) had overgrown those ' areas where the plantago was previously observed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . (Service) was consulted as whether to continue with the focused survey in light of the overgrown or absent larval host plants. The Service (personal communications with Brenda McMillan) requested the survey continue because the site is within the "adult t focused survey area" as mapped in the 1999 protocol. A focused QCB survey of the potential habitat areas was conducted in accordance with the 1999 protocol. The result of this survey is there are no QCB observed on the parcel. (Refer to Appendix C for the ' 1999 Protocol). -1- 1 e � c J ' l i J t �\ 7F�t'�ir i 1� Ill l•!I%� l pa i l j < rvoo 1777`' / 1 r I' / I I , ^ �, � ; ,r l,'r' f /1�'r / J / l��{ � r �' •� r`ptp�// � E e 1 F a. , �. ,� r/ y { C /4 / s�l/ 1)} /•( !/ f',cyi� [ '1 -f >1 t � �, ad� �' S (t :� � G �rl { I �' n � j dJ � I ,/i .J /} / } �7r• . J �l ;)). ��, f)��!'• - \.,V ';J',- �� ,_h'!_ %� 1 i (� ..i r I ;� / ` `' ( /% S r - Q/ �� r:_F�1•e l';N�.J , ��rll� �j, /)�i /l / \ .)ti (mill.Ia ciila / +/ f ;I(`1`el( Teme �s -%�� 2 r•�ier I I 1 ' f t ` n5�� \7 t� l + {j' (r �I ° "� /i•• ' � - -i r ) ' //- .fir -_.�il .; `.l 4 ' I ( / f� (/ jiill: � - r.�•�j� I� l- 1 r.Sn • ZS � � � /roa .':!�' �. 1 ' (•�' � �. r /1 /�lfi '. � /.- '�ls)'�1j S �� � �" ���5 1. � `'�i 7 > i• J '., p VI Ln00 _ � 1 i.ti T..o :•(�• fir 'l J�L`)) 1 ' �., -'/ / Ib'(l c. ,l�',. .. / /� I(i� cry 'roei N \ / /11 ` / '_ ' V " •i '/ " • �� \ 1 ` o f `1 /� I -.i /,..) 1R 7, .� r . �- ;' • .l t'r )f ^.,l /0 1\ eservo'r` l5 , I \ � '( 1 rn '1 ! •• Ifi%\, it �� ., .. n ,loQ l �. ( ,.�'.l r J ` %tli 1 / Ga¢inq Srys M"1072 l- ..1`.ill ( f(r'., 1 1 � / / - i ,! ,�' 1 •h �' Well am 1010 •. r , ! 1r b / i 1 1` , ' \( � , ( , ! } 1',', • J % /. ,,� �' � { 9 { 99I , f ` "Oso eservoil'. i - ��ll�V �.•. -. S Fi gure 2: SITE LOCATION Tom Dodson & Associates 1 Environmental Consultants Source: USGS 7.5 Series "Murrieta" i TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES ' Background Information for Euphydryas editha quino (Q CB ) This species is listed as endangered by the Service. The QCB is a small (3 cm) butterfly with reddish -brown and yellow spots, and is restricted to sunny openings on clay soils within shrublands of southwestern California according to the Service. The QCB has two distinctive life phases. The first phase is the "terrestrial phase" which ' is characterized by the egg, caterpillar, and the pupa stages; and the second phase is the "flight phase" which is characterized by the butterfly stage. Each phase has distinctly 1 different environmental or habitat needs. ' The terrestrial phase requires larval host plants which allows the caterpillar to feed and grow. The QCB are thought to be highly restricted as to what species of plants are utilized as larval host plants. It appears there are two types of larval host plants. The primary host plant is the plant species that the female lays the eggs on. The only recorded primary larval host plant observed being used in the wild populations is Plantago erecta (Pratt �• 1999). There secondary host plants are those plants that the larva move to when the have depleted the primary host plants. There appear to be several species of secondary host ' plants including Plantago insularis, Orthocarpus purpurescens, and Keckiella antirrhi- noides. The distribution of this species is defined by the presence of its larval host plants. These host plants can be found in a variety of communities including chaparral mixed with CSS according to the Service. According to Greg Ballmer, University of California at Riverside entomologist, the butterfly is generally found at sites where high densities of the host plants occur. The adult QCB (flight phase) emerge for 4 to 10 weeks, and begin to fly from mid - January to late- March. The flight season is highly variable and weather dependant. During the flight phase, the QCB utilizes a variety of nectar resources, shrub refugia, and topographic features such as rocky outcrops and the tops of hills to facilitate finding a mate. t -5- y . y 5 j ! j Q• /j � S�ssiSr . i % j i N N c 0 D D O N si ¢° N c O N / O O c a) _ - o E c ai p o c m E c w c m O w U $ H c a`) cm N N c a L 0 U Z c U N N CA a .� ns m a) C7 to v E c r a c p L C .c Q U U � c c � N U) j c L u W y N d 'O d W Q x ; ? N ' as ,z O a U N Z o O E . W a W > n a) CL L AM — in TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES • buckwheat represents more than 90 percent of the vegetative cover in this community. California sage accounts for approximately an additional 10 percent. No other species, such as California sage (Artemisia californica) and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) occur in these CSS remnants. One elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) occurs adjacent to the southern channel. This individual is relatively old, and there is no evidence of recruitment in its vicinity. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly No QCB were observed during the focused surveys. In fact, this site has a very low diversity of butterflies. The most common butterfly observed was the mormon meatlemark (Apodemia mormo virgult/). Other butterflies observed were the common white butterfly (Ponita protodice), southern blue (Glaudopsyche lygdamus australis), acmons blue (Icaricia acmon), and painted lady (Vannessa annabe /la). Table 1: Survey Data Summary 'Wind Speed (mph) / Survey Time Temperatureff) Cloud cover :.Date Direction Start '.End -Start ` ?. End Start ' End Start End 02/19/99 0800 1600 03/22/99 0930 1530 64 70 clear clear 1 -3 7 -8 03/24/99 0900 1400 64.7 70.3 clear partly 1 -3 1 -3 �i 03/29/99 0930 1530 72.8 .62 clear clear <1 1 -3 03/30/99 1000 1500 63.4 69.3 clear clear <1 4 -7 04/05/99 0900 1500 58 64.5 clear p 1 -3 gusts 04/10/99 1140 1440 65 68.2 partly clear 1 -3 4 -7 cloudy ' 04/19199 1000 1500 74 92 clear clear <1 <1 04/25/99 1000 1500 62 76 overcast p artly cloudy 13 gusts �. 05/06/99 0930 1430 70 1 92 clear clear <1 1 -3 -8- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES CONCLUSIONS • A focused QCB survey of the potential habitat areas was conducted in accordance with the 1999 protocol. The result of this survey is there are no QCB observed on the parcel. The results of this focused survey are not surprising due to the extensive disturbances occurring on the parcel coupled with the fact that the site is surrounded by urban development. Therefore not only is this species no present now, but the site does not appear to be suitable for colonization. The site is subjected to extensive off - highway vehicle use throughout the week and the use is intensified on the weekends. During one field day 23 motorcycles were observed. In addition to motorcycles, trucks, quad runners, and bicycles typically use the site. These off -road enthusists use existing dirt roads as well as make new ones. Other ongoing disturbances include discing, dumping trash, exotic insect species, and children's forts. Historically, the site has been farmed and grazed by sheep. i 1 -9- Eli Eel" IM � � � l ? � ,�"t 1 y y , � ' 1' �,«� , � �' '% t � � IC, 7 � t �,_ � 1 . , � r /r� f �' , • � i xY �t r. "� - +' `� "' try +r .1.: r � � �� / �7`i� , /y: !�Fr -IA LAM Oil m m,t, N t r L F : Y t L s J V ....... r; 1 � •Y 4� -- r: - . r � r � X r v FY + +1� v Jt x t � A \ ..-fi t � jT t " .d�`• a( ..,may G. S *jN H �'S�� d I ,. h f t�4 y"'I LVS 't�t��.tlr -.,t 'E`.1. -?Y`�T 'Cr F r ^�» �..,w Iu � + +� 1 "+ T ' '.: %H Y -„ t r e l+ .q s Xi '_ Y xt•i t w - 4 H� af' i1 tti �.. t• o "� ! TC'' 'i a t� `� l f, - t 'i17�>5j�,,;�� `.�j `!4 r � •3 l��yt} i J v . t V n i . {� P a vtFir' }r r' ���� `f�'•ti1�9�'�tA'; rl� � rp r � y �� `'? 1u�,;pi�" w } � ♦ rt ' t ��.v Q "t•vf '�if R' IY + b t•�, y + t > ff �.` l'1 1 :. c t,t � k ' +, ...+.' vt y � e t l � ;/I�(t,J'1 ✓ ^v Y 'f. r ; •t �' �li �.: 3 ! � • ' J er : r _ ,4 + t 1 } °" '•err {t � � � ;Nr� �� t , � ��i f j ) r L � � ! '�. t V '�•.��v +"� {�`� �,� Yr ���� x ' E~ *_ �! + + • / � ,t 'i a i r \' , i } � ' �(ys r ..._ t � d' •�'• t��."( p't �% Y•'� �. +. �� \ri .;. r t v1 -'•!�: 9 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES REFERENCES Arnett, Ross H. and Richard L. Jacques. 1981. Simon and Schuster's Guide to Insects. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc. Ballmer, Greg et al. 1998. The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Euphydryas editha quino. California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Natural Diversity Data Base. Goodman, Robert H. 1994. Focused Survey for the Southwestern Pond Turtle. Hickman, J.C. Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press. Hogue, Charles L. 1993. Insects of the Los Angeles Basin. Los Angeles: Natural History Museum Foundation. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions fo the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Munz, P.A. Flora of Southern California. National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to Birds of North America, 2nd i Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. Page, Lawrence M. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Powell, Jerry A. and Charles L. Hogue. 1979. California Insects. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Riverside, County of. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi). Stebbins, Robert C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, Massachusetts. Stokes, Donald and Lillian. 1996. Stokes Field Guide to Birds: Western Region. Boston and New York: Little, Brown and Company. City of Temecula. General Plan. Old Town Temecula. Specific Plan. -12- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994 Federal Register, 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Species: Cuyamaca Lake Downingia; San Diego Fairy Shrimp; ' Laguna Mountains Skipper, et al.; Proposed Rules. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Survey of Protocol for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) for the 1999 Field Season. . r -13- � APPENDIX A SPECIES LIST 1� TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES S APPENDIX A SPECIES LIST ANIMAL SPECIES LIST ' Mammalia Mammals Canidae Canines Canis familiaris Dog Canis latrans Coyote . Geomyidae Gophers Thomomys bottae - Pocket gopher Leporidae Rabbits, Hares Sylvalegus audubonii Cotton -tail rabbit Sciuridae Squirrels �• Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Reptilia Reptiles Iguanidae Iguana Scelopoporus occidentalis Western fence lizard Teiidae Whiptails Cnemidophorus bgris multiscutatus Coastal whiptail Colubridea: Colubrid Snakes Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher snake Aves Birds Accipitridae Hawks, Falcons, Eagles Buteo jamaicensis Red -tail wawk Circus cyaaneus Northern harrier Elanus leucurus White - tailed kite • Alaudidae Lark Family Eremophila alpestris Horned lark 1 �. TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Aves (continued) Birds • Cathartidae Vultures Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Columbidae Pigeon Family Columba fasciata Pigeon , Zenaida macroura Morning dove Corvidae Crow Family Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax Raven Emberizidae Sparrow, Warblers, Tanangers Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark Falconidae Falcon Family Falco sparverius American kestrel Fringillidae Finch Family Carpodacus mexicanus House finch • Carduelis psaltria Lesser goldfinch Hirundinidae Swallows Hirundo pyrrhonota Cliff swallow Mimidae Mimus polyglottos Mockingbird Sturnidae Starling Family Sturnus vulgaris European starling Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers i Sayornis saya Say's phoebe Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird is Invertebrates TOM DODSON $ASSOCIATES Acrididae Grasshopper Family Trimerotropis pallidipennis Pallid- winged grasshopper Apidae Bee Family Apis mellifera Honey bee Bombus sonorus Sonoran bumblebee Coccinellidae Ladybird Beetle Family Hippodamia convergens Convergent lady beetle ' Forficulidae Earwig Family Forficula aunculana European earwig ' Formicidae Ant Family Pogonomyrmex californicus California harvester ant Isopoda Sowbug Order Porcellio lacuis Sowbug �• Lycaenidae Gossamer - Winged Butterfly Family Glaucopsyche lygdamus australis Southern blue Icaricia acmon Acmon blue Noctuidae Owlet Moth Family Catocala sp. Underwing moth Nymphalidae Brush - footed Butterfly Family Vanessa annabella West coast lady ' Pieridae White and Sulfur Butterfly Family Pontia protodice Common white Pompilidae Spider Wasp Family Pepsis chrysothymus Tarantula hawk Riodinidae Metalmark Butterfly Family Apodemia mormo virgulti Behr's metalmark l Tenebrionidae Darkling Beetle Family • Eleodes sp. 'itink bettle TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES PLANT SPECIES LIST Angiosperms Flowering Plants Asteraceae Composites Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Baccharis glutinosa Mulefat Centaurea melitensis Star thistle Encelia farinosa Encilia Gnaphalium californicum Everlasting Haploppus squarrosus Common sunflower Hemizonia fasciculata Tarweed Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's ear Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce Senecio vulgaris Groundsel Sonchus olenaceus Sow- thistle Boraginaceae Borage Family Amsinckia intermedia Fiddleneck Criptantha sp. Popcorn Flower Brassicaceae Mustard Family Brassica geniculata Short-pod Mustard Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family Sambucus mexicana Blue elderberry Chenopodiaceae Pig Weed Family Salsola iberica Russian Thistle Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family t Chamaesyce albomarginata Rattlesnake weed Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed Fabaceae Pea Family Lotus scoparius Deerweed Lupinus bicolor Lupine Medicago polymorpha Burclover Geraneaceae Geranium Family Erodium botrys Long- beaked filaree • Erodium cicutarium Red - stemmed filaree TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Angiosperms (continued) Flowering Plants Lamiaceae Mint Family Marrubium vulgare Horehound Onagraceae Primrose Family Clarkia sp. Clarkia Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family 1 Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Rumix crispus Curley dock Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family Castilleja exserta Purple owl's clover Orthocarpus purpurascens Owl's clover Monocots Poaceae Grass Family Avena fatua Wild oats 16 Bromus diandris Ripgut Bromus madritensis rubens Foxtail chess ' Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Hordeum vulgare Cultivated barley Vulpia myuros Fescue 1 r� r� r APPENDIX B DATA SHEETS li r r Ti" 43 ~ \ � \ \ \ { } aa: \ I A �\ 7 7 7 VI Q I \ ƒ \� c \ f 0 1 Z:: z - \ ;, 0 a @� �\ � {\ \ � } j , )\ \\ � . �\ ` \ \ � __ ) � \�� \� . \�±I\ I �� j {< ` _ . 7 z ` . _ ` \ ; ;{ \ \\ /E _ - � e1 \ \ } \ I r7 \ l - ,,.a :! - � }__ __ j { /))! »� mo U0 -� t U rE � ) ƒ ( } \)\\ \ . � }�\ \ }� }}} j ' � � \ \ \ 4 4 4 4 nnn--- 72 \ ��\ ` : \ \ij � � ,2u / / . 7r Z5 \ \ , / \ �{ 14 � ) �~ � � _ - _\ �{ bj .. : @ . �. @ . � . ;.!!!il -� �!|I!!!�!__!!l! |{! |!•!!( {!!! - ;,,.... _ rr n' �@ : )( v` ! e f \ z \ \ { ®2 * . /§/ :j ) ' 25 ° _ - \\ )Z�W Li @ i } r l ml� 0 J1 o V V n s (] () � Ei o = - @ _ $ @ � _ @ @ J \{\ \ : } : :\ \ _ \/ \,,.__: := \2§ § ! . . - }/ z\ \ TO \{ -1z • 1 Mit 1 A A A I A Ji ci 25 . 25 tj 0 E 2 c-j 0 0 m p _ 1 _ I 1 r s j� fr 5 i f 3 F E ? r§ a j;' {3� 1jl o s 2 n _ c a -_ 7 a � s ' A 4 li iJ i N sa ! ` • 1 � �� � C � C C J n� V n vO _ r . t u 4 4 Ln Ei 'C' j r 0 Z' 05 1 r 1 1 r y •t re n� rb 7 0 u = APPENDIX C 1999 PROTOCOL r r 1 r� f 1 • Survey Protocol for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) for the 1999 Field Season January 25, 1999 r t �• i i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................... ............................... i INTRODUCTION ............................... ..............................1 SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS ................ ............................... I Habitat Assessments ...................... ............................... 2 AdultSurveys ............................. ..............................2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS ............................... 3 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONTACTS .. ............................... 4 APPENDICES.................................. ..............................5 Flowchart............................. ............................... Al Survey Area Map ....................... ............................... B1 ,• Notification and Reporting: Habitat Assessments ..... . ........... . ........... Cl Notification and Reporting: Adult Surveys .................................. Cl Survey and Detection Forms .............. ............................... D I Natural History Sheet .................... ............................... E1 Literature Cited ........................ ............................... Fl i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (Quino) was listed as an endangered species on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). This animal is protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The recommended protocol includes general habitat assessments that can be conducted throughout the year. Focused habitat assessments should be completed in areas of potential habitat delimited on the Survey Area Map. Adult Quino flight season surveys (adult surveys) should be conducted in areas where recent occurrences have been recorded or suitable habitat is present. Recovery permits under section I0(a)(1)(A) of the Act and issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife- Service are not required for biologists conducting general or focused habitat assessments. Permits are required to conduct adult surveys: Incidental take authorization for the Quino checkerspot butterfly should be obtained pursuant to sections 7 or 10 of the Act prior to activities • that may result in take of the animal. The following items summarize the 1999 survey protocol for the Quino: o The protocol can be conducted within a single year. 0 Focused habitat assessments can be conducted from February I through May 31 within the Potential Habitat Area on the Survey Area Map. o Adult surveys should be conducted within the Adult Focused Surveys Areas on the Survey Area Map. 1 o Adult surveys should be conducted within the Potential Habitat Area when suitable habitat is identified. O Adult surveys should be conducted approximately every 7 days for the duration of the flight season (generally early March to mid -May). O Appendices include a flowchart, natural history sheet, and a Survey Area Map to ' assist biologists and landowners. The 1999 survey protocol and appendices can be downloaded from the Region 1 web page at http://www.rl.fws.,izov/textJspecies.htmi or can be obtained by contacting the Portland Regional Office at 503- 231 -2063, the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at 760 - 431 -9440, or the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at 805- 644 -1766. �• Survey Protocol for the Quino I I. INTRODUCTION ' The Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) (Quino) was listed as an endangered species on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). This animal is protected under the provisions of the - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). To avoid take of this federally listed species, adult Quino flight season surveys (adult surveys) must be conducted by a biologist possessing a recovery permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (hereafter, permitted ' biologist). This document provides a survey protocol to determine the presence or absence of the Quino for the 1999 field season. This survey protocol and appendices are based upon the 1998 interim guidelines, input from entomologists and biologists knowledgeable about this species, data collected during the 1998 field season, literature on Quino and other Euphydryas.edidia subspecies, and other information available to us. These data represent the best commercial and scientific information available. We are continuing to work with entomologists, local biologists, commercial oreanizations, and other interested parties to collect additional laboratory and field data on the distribution, ecology, 1• and biology of the Quino. We will review and revise this survey protocol, annually, using the latest scientific and commercial data available. This protocol should be followed for all habitat assessments and adult surveys. ' II. SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS The survey strategy is illustrated in the flowchart attached as Appendix A. Within the historic range of Quino, we have identified areas with no potential for Quino, with potential habitat ' where adult surveys may be necessary of suitable habitat occurs on a site, and with Quino habitat where adult surveys should be conducted. Therefore, lands should first be assessed to determine if they fall inside or outside the Potential Habitat Area or within the Adult Focused Survey Areas �. on the Survey Area Map (Appendix B). If the land falls within the Adult Focused Survey Areas, adult surveys should be conducted throughout the entire flight season. If land is outside of the Potential Habitat Area, no habitat assessments or adult surveys are recommended. If land falls within the Potential Habitat Area and outside of the Adult Focused Survey Areas, the habitat suitability for Quino should be assessed by searching, identifying, and mapping habitat components (food and nectar plants, open, sparsely vegetated areas, and suitable topographic features) in the project vicinity. If suitable habitat is identified, as described below, adult surveys should be conducted throughout the entire flight season (early March to the middle of May). • We will monitor reference Quino populations in San Diego and Riverside counties to determine the beginning and end of the adult flight season for 1999. All permitted biologists will be notified within 24 hrs of the initiation of the flight season and also at its close. If drought limits Survey Protocol for the Quino 2 •� population sizes and shortens the length of the 1999 flight season, abbreviated surveys may not be considered adequate to determine absence of the Quino. Nevertheless, we will be available to work closely with project proponents to develop proposals that would avoid or minimize impacts. Because of the seasonal nature of Quino surveys and the need for immediate field .mobilization, we suggest that habitat assessments and /or adult surveys be scheduled prior to the flight season. ' A. Habitat Assessments Informal or general habitat assessments can occur at any time throughout the year. These assessments may determine if a focused habitat assessment should be conducted. If the potential for Quino habitat exists within the Potential Habitat Area (see Appendix B), then focused habitat assessments are recommended. Focused habitat assessments should be initiated between February I and May 31, and prior to the end of the adult flight season, to maximize detection of food plants and nectar sources and minimize potential harm to larvae. Focused assessments should determine if suitable Quino habitat is present on the site by searching, identifying, recording (see Appendices C, D), and mapping, if present, habitat components (e.g., larval food plants; nectar sources; open, sparsely vegetated areas; and suitable topographic features; Appendix E). Within the assessment area, if suitable habitat components are present and when • an ocular estimated average of one or more Plantago erecta plant(s) per square meter is identified within any 100 square meter area (i.e., 100 Plantago erecta plants within any 100 square meter area), adult surveys are warranted. We recommend that each biologist conducting a ' focused habitat assessment, survey no more than 100 acres in S hours (12.5 acres/hr). Biologists should photograph representative areas of suitable habitat (see Appendix C). B. Adult Surveys Adult surveys must be conducted by a permitted biologist throughout the entire length of the flight season for both the Potential Habitat Area, if suitable Quino habitat is identified as described above, and the Adult Focused Survey Area (Appendix B). We recommend that a written pre -survey notification be sent to the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office. Biologists conducting adult surveys should focus on the identification of butterflies, larvae, and /or habitat components. Adult surveys should not be conducted incidentally or concurrently with other focused surveys (e.g., California gnatcatcher) and may be initiated without a prior habitat assessment. The following should be followed for adult surveys: 1. Adult surveys should be conducted at least every 7 days from the date of flight initiation until the end of the flight season. We will determine the flight season dates from observations at the reference • populations. Survey Protocol for the Quino 3 2. Surveys should not be conducted if weather conditions are inappropriate (e.g., ' rain, drizzle, wind greater than 5 mi /hr, or temperatures less than 65 °F), but it should be noted if conditions preclude surveys for 7 days (e.g., 7 days of rain). Adult surveys should be conducted between 0900 hrs and 1600 hrs. 3. Adult surveys should concentrate in areas that contain larval food plants, nectar sources, and adjacent suitable topographic features (e.g., hilltops and ridgelines). Maximum survey effort should be concentrated on these specific high potential locations during the weekly surveys. The same locations should be revisited during each weekly survey, preferably by the same permitted biologist(s). i 4. If a focused habitat assessment was not conducted prior to the adult surveys, then all areas containing habitat components should be mapped during the first site visit. 5. Suitable habitat should be surveyed at a relatively slow pace (i.e., approximately 1 tni /hr) with special care taken to avoid harming or harassing any Quino larvae or adults that are detected. Each biologist should not survey more than 100 acres in • S hours (12.5 acres/hr). Biologists should also search topographic features for brief periods (e.g., 5 -10 minutes) for Quino, and should revisit these sites during the survey. 6. Biologists should record all butterfly species detected while conducting surveys. Field forms (see Appendix D) should indicate the number of each species observed. ' 7. If the permitted biologist determines that Quino are present at a site, the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office must be notified within one (1) working day by telephone and /or fax and within two (2) working days by letter. The notification should include a 75 U.S Geological Survey topographic map with the project location, project and permitted biologist's name, specific Quino location, and the estimated number of individuals observed. 8. All colonial webs and butterfly larvae should be photographed using a magnification suitable to identify the species. Adult Quino should also be photographed. Upon completion of the adult survey, the biologist(s) should provide the appropriate Fish and l� Wildlife Office with a report within 45 calendar days after completing the last survey at each • project site (see Appendix C). III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS Survey Protocol for the Quino 4 ®� A. Occasionally, circumstances may justify or necessitate deviation from this survey protocol. At our discretion, such deviations will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Such deviations may be allowed if: (1) the permitted biologist justifies to us in writing why deviations are required; and (2) the appropriate Fish and ' Wildlife Office concurs in advance with the deviations in writing. B. We reserve the right to reject Quino habitat assessments and adult surveys , conducted under this survey protocol if: (1) the specific methods described above are not followed, excluding approved deviations; (2) the permitted biologist does not provide us with an adequate written report of the results within 45 calendar days of the last survey; or (3) other information indicates that the survey is inadequate or inaccurate. IV. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONTACTS For areas from Santa Cruz County south to Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County, north of the Angeles National Forest, contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone: 805 -644 -1766; fax: 805- 644 - 3958). For areas from Los •, Angeles County, including and south of the Angeles National Forest, to San Diego County, contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008 (telephone: 760 - 431 -9440, fax: 760 -431 -9618) Please contact the following people at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office for further information on the Quino: Eric Hein, Susan Wynn, or Douglas Krofta (San Diego County); Michelle Shaughnessy, Jeff Newman, or Douglas Krofta (Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties), or John Bradley or Douglas Krofta (Orange County). For the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, please contact Rick Farris or Colleen Sculley. r • �• 5 ' APPENDICES A. Flowchart B. Survey Area Map C. Notification and Reporting Habitat Assessments and Adult Surveys D. Survey and Detection Forms E. Natural History Sheet F. Literature Cited '• B1 ' Appendix B Survey Area Map A map of potential Quino habitat and Adult Focused Survey Areas was developed for the 1999 field season (Survey Area Map), using the best scientific and commercial data available. The polygon of potential habitat was developed by mapping the: (1) historic and currently known elevational range of Quino, (2) historic and current Quino locations, (3) vegetation communities where Quino have been detected, and (4) areas that contain potential habitat or habitat components. A polygon was drawn around these areas to delimit where focused habitat assessments are recommended to evaluate whether suitable Quino habitat exists. Adult surveys in these areas will be based on the results and recommendations from the focused habitat assessment. Thus, not all areas that conducted focused habitat assessments will conduct adult surveys. The Survey Area Map also contains Adult Focused Survey Areas. These areas where drawn by plotting Quino observations from the 1997 and 1998 field seasons and buffering each location by a distance of 3 miles (Harrison et al. 1988; Harrison 1989; Murphy pers. comm.). The buffered locations were mapped as three polygons by connecting the perimeters that were inside the �• potential Quino habitat. Within the Adult Focused Survey Areas, adult surveys should be conducted, unless evidence is provided that indicates suitable Quino habitat is not present. The Survey Area Map is regional in scope, because the GIS coverages have the potential for imprecisely classifying vegetation communities. Polygons are approximate and should not be interpreted as precise boundaries excluding certain parcels. We recommend that biologists use best professional judgement in determining whether lands fall inside or outside the Potential Habitat Area or within the Adult Focused Survey Areas on the Survey Area Map. r • C1 Appendix C Notification and Reporting: Habitat Assessments If suitable Quino habitat is not detected during a focused habitat assessment, we still recommend that a report be sent to the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office. This information may be used to refine the potential habitat area in future survey protocols. The report should include: 1. A map depicting the project boundaries on a 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle. The map should contain the project name and the name of the topographic quadrangle. Maps showing the project location with a star, arrow or point are unacceptable. 2. A list of the biologist(s) and associated personnel who will be conducting the assessment. 3. A table indicating the date, time, and weather conditions of the assessment. Acreage surveyed and total acreage of the site should also be included. ' • 4. A detailed description of the vegetation communities and topographic features of the site, including a complete list of plants and animals identified during the assessment. The location of any suitable habitat components should be clearly mapped on a 7.S U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle. 5. A minimum of four representative color photographs of vegetation communities or the landscape at the site. The report should also include photographs of suitable habitat (e.g., food plants, nectar sources) and any butterfly larvae detected. r Notification and Reporting: Adult Surveys Because of the potential to incidentally take Quino during surveys by trampling eggs, larvae, pupae, and thermoregulating adults, and harassing or harming individuals while conducting adult surveys, adult surveys must be conducted by a biologist possessing a recovery permit (permitted ' biologist) pursuant to section I0(a)(1)(A) of the Act. The intent is to ensure that only biologists who have a strong working knowledge of the identification, biology, and ecology of the Quino ' and sympatric species conduct adult surveys. Prior to initiating the adult surveys, we recommend that permitted biologists provide the 1 appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office with a pre -survey notification in writing for each project • site. We suggest the notification include the following: 1. A map described in number 1 under habitat assessments. C2 •� 2. A list of permitted biologist(s) who will be conducting the adult surveys. Note: , All personnel conducting adult surveys should be listed as independent or supervised investigators on a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit p dor to surveying. Generally, reports should have an introduction, project description, regional and specific project maps, vegetation maps, survey methods, survey results, conclusions, and all applicable supportive information including field forms and photographs. Specifically, reports should include the following: 1. A map as described in number 1 under habitat assessments. 2. A table indicating dates, the times surveys were initiated and terminated, the air temperature, weather conditions (e.g., described on the field forms) at the beginning, throughout, and at the end of each survey, results, and names of all. permitted biologists conducting each survey. 3. The location of any suitable habitat components (e.g., food plants, nectar sources, and topographic features) should be clearly mapped on a 7.5' U.S. Geological •, Survey topographic quadrangle. 4. If applicable, a 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle with the locations of all Quino larvae and /or adults detected. 5. Detailed lists of plants and animals, including all butterflies, identified or detected on the site during adult surveys, including the scientific and common names. 6. A complete description of the survey methods if the methods deviated from these , protocols. 7. High quality photocopies of all original field notes from each survey. S. Completed field forms for each survey conducted. ' 9. All applicable, supportive, non - copyrighted photodocumentation. This should include: a. A minimum of four representative color photographs of suitable habitat (e.g., food plants and nectar sources) that was surveyed. b. Photographs of larvae, colonial webs, and Quino detected during the • surveys. s �• C. Photographs should be labeled with permanent ink or slide label with C3 project name, location of the project site (i.e., city or distance in miles to nearest city), location on the project site, azimuth from which photograph was taken, date photograph was taken, and name of photographer. Photographs should be placed in photographic archive sheets and bound into the report. 10. If Quino are detected', a copy of the complete report should be sent to the Natural 1 Diversity Data Base of the California Department of Fish and Game at the following address: Staff Zool ogist Natural Diversity Data Base - Department of Fish and Game ' 1220 S Street Sacramento, California 95514 The Natural Diversity Data Base does not track negative survey results. li 1 - - - , . . � - . � ... Ir-:IUWL;l I 114111�i:i:��L�j��i�sj�� r. FULUGUI - .... I ...... : . . . . . . � ....... , - .... .. - � � ...; ..,.; ...... ;.. '. - , ,. 6h �)-.,:. A Protoc : 'd M (A us i r. -.999: 2n Map , . ..... ". 1.11, . _ � I ... � ..... . ��.� . -_ '' - -1 � ..... - , Jjjjb �, • 'dM& 11 . .. I ... L :,:: ': , . ..: � - ... -.1. I ".. , ., . . --- ... I -.�- . - . . '.,.., .I - : I � .1- -1-1- � I-- .1-1- ... I-- 11 - I'll, :.:,�, : ...:..:.I:�I,: DoNot. Within .1 :::::.:: I... � -1- ........ ... .... ., -.-::,.: ........ � .................. � ..... . , � � � --," . ".....- Conduct ... � . . , , .I.- , � :.::.::.:: � .::, :I: L � ............ .- " � .. !� . ........... - .... � . I 1 � .:: � : : w Qlui.11`11.0- I .., .1-- 0 .:--�..:.. :. 1: i:::;.:.:::::::::,:::.::.: .,.- 11.1 I :: �: :: l:: �:::!:::,:�.::.:,., Conduct- .1. - . :1- : ..... � , I I . . � .. � . I . .1. I � I . . I - -- ..I.- I - .::: � � - .... I ..... 1. . - I I -.-, . . - -N 0 . : - .1 ..;,.,. : �: ::.: , . Potential 7, -:::::::: .. . - .... :: .... ::�..:..:::..: ..... :, .L ... ::::::.::: ... .-I �.-,.,..:,:.:..:.:: -.,:. ,..,:�.�:-:. Quino:Habltat .. : ; . :. - ... � I.- .: ..... ,. , ., �. .: .- I.. �...., I ... I.., .. � . .:; .. I ? ... . .,. rj:.:: :.: ::: L .... . :.:L:.:: , �.::. - :.::.:: ... ::::.:I::-::::. ::.;.:� ::::.,:�:. Asses sment lrl�bitat.,:.. - ... I.- ... -.1-1.111- � . 1 ,. : ... - .. . --::.- ,-,.--..,.-,.:::::::::L: 1:�:: b .....- ... :: .1.11 --.......'- .... : -..- ..... I I I I . ... - ....... ::::: :.. :.- ... : ... ..-L-L. -.1 ... .. i . ......" - - Y, .:.. .. :.: .. - . . .. I .., ..... . .. I ....... I .... .. ... I.. I.. .1 1. . . , .Within I.- I I I .1 - , : �.'..� Conduct Quino - I I ..... .. �. Adult � Ii . . � .... � ... -- . . ...... -.1-1., .... : ..... .---- . I .. , , , . ... .... . .1 I., . - :z � -L ... . ....... ; : No ,, I .I.- - - � . �i o :.- �.alb!W: --survey * -:-::::::: :�: 1. ".. - - -.r. � . . .., . I., � I -: " sse sm . en - .., ... I.." ... I ... .:.:::- s t ,.. -: 1- !,:.. :A . .. , Area?:-. .....:: ....... .... .... �: : . .1 . : . ..... �.. . � . . Ye s � . � 1. -1 .. . � A dult i:i �� : - ... , :, . --:.- I -1- ... ...., ... I . Conduct Ad : ': 7 ::! : �,!� - - � .. I . :; I � , - :: I . ..., - .. , , .. � . ..... � ...... � . I , .- '' , .--... ., - � 11 ... I.. . : ��:�::� . :�:�� Q6�no . �: . , ":-'. ::..:: I-- Do Not .., - 16 Surv ey; �� .; :::�� ,::::� ...- -1-1� .. :� ::,:::.. .. I Quit , -... . I . - - :::::::� F:::'L :::' ::: : :� �: ' 6 ' . - : � * - . ...:,�:: Conduct - .: ::: : :: :::: :::: I � :::.:.I ��Mablltqt.�:� � . �::::: ::� 1: : . -- --: - I , : �..- "....-I.-I.-I.I..... - . .., ... �. . . � 0 � --- .... . I ... .1 . psi6b��:i;i�!�] ��:�::!��::;�;�; � � �. - IN- . . 1. . . Adult - . � ... I -:. .. I . .. ". . � .., ..... .. .... . 7771 Found :, :�: :, I I � - . ".. ::. pe I.. ...- . :�- ,r�ljtted!�i]..-.-:�:::.- �: ....... �.. - ..... . -.� -:�::::: ....... .... ...... -, , .:, S 6tv:6yi s . - - I .. ......."...: ....... :::: � : - - - - .- : . .:. .."', .... Blologist:�:�::I 9! :�!i� , . .1. . � ... .... - . ,. :........ 1. .... 1. I - .1- . . - I - 1. L . . :..:. .. I: 1. ...... .1: �:�, .1 I . I � � �:........-.-: i . .. : � I - - . . . Adult 1 .1 .,..,.: : ::--:,: � 1 . . .." I %': I ..; . :--- � I.- � / S . I . - . .:::.., . � . ::::, .,..::..:,., - I I ... 11.11 - :-....- ,:, ---- I - �. I . .1 - , I . I - :� .,-.. . .. . . .. - . :... , ..:.:.,.,: / ul�mlt,Fi I* , . . . I I -... - . , . ... -.1- - uino :, ... .. . : :.,:'' p - 11 I .1.1 . .... � - : :1 ::. Q , . . ,. ::.: ;: :.�, : -'. Survey Forms . I �.� I .. ...,.".,. -': 0 0 : : No - 6 . . . j.. . . . . . .11 �m *;. .. 6 � in OP. .. .6 . 1 : � 6-6 .... .. . - . . . . I �11 . 6 -:- � � 6j .. � .;6 ,.,6 " . . :Found :j.. -.,..:,6.6: : . . �: :: � ��!::, �:� . . 1'. , - � . j6 ... 6 - j � � . .,:::::: 1: 1: �..: �� �61:6. . . � 6 .., ... . .. . j . .1 . � 6 j � � I . 6 , ..6. - � . . . o sewice . � � : . j.. I I I . 6 . . ; . : .i onsite? . I . 11 Yes . . 6 . . . 6 �Submit I:6 �j .. I .... ........ I j . . I 1 � j:!: �; �,:: ::.: I T. : . :. :..j. i ; Contact Fish I I . I . 1. . j ... 6 1 1 I . j 6. � � :.� ::, : I � . . 1 : - F�( � * . 6and Wildlife --L�!-�61�vey Forms � . ..- ; .I.. . I I. . .. . I ,� ... j.. . : : :: ' ; : A Service: Office 6 �. I To Service- ..,6 ".j 4 .. , :: : .. : . 1 6 . . I . 6 . .:6 .. .1 . . 6 . ....... j.11. : - I . � j .: ... : � 1 11 . 1.6 1 j .. j , , 4 I.: : I . .1. 6.. . 6.. 6 I . .j j j I 6. j6 � . . . I .. . 1. . j 6 . . . I . . . . . , , 6 1 ., , , , _6 , j I .t.-i..p. ; ; 6 j re c Mmeria submit6l of negative Quire. hiibiiial T ,. . t --:: : : .:: .1 . I.: i �6 I .. I I. I j j : 6 . -� . : .1 . 16 .. � . 11 . ... j � 11 . - - .: 6 .:.:::.,.� 6 ... . . . , . .6 ... . . 6. ... j I - ; : � . , , � .1 . . . j. . . % .. :. � . - 1: assesment results I 0 Fish and Wildlife service office . j : �: , 61 1 j . . . : j - . . 1 6, j6 j6 . 6 : . . �- I : : , . i I 4 , " 11 i6 ® : .�: . 6 . .::46-:::: 6: : 6::.:.:..::, :,j:::::: ,: : : : - ... I . j . . j. : .... .. � : j. :.. -- : ; . .:,.:, . . : ... I 1. 1. 6 . . . ..... I . .. ; : .." 4::-6::: .6.6 6. 6 j .. . 1 .1-16 ..... 6 j HARVESTON FINAL EIR I RE TO COMMENTS The following Exhibits 12 & 13 were modified to correct typographical errors through the Public Hearing process ' and added to the administration record on July 12, 2001. 1 1 1 1 P \1996\9N Ib101\EIR \TABLE DFCDNT.DO ^ C - v ' w 2u O .L' �i O v ' v= C v u 'O o N N O >. .S' 00 C v O 7 C N v u v P.:n O 'O Q O o" u y v [ N h� 7 F d o« o° U 6 bA is C n b E ^ u B y K v bb O b o W i v C v cd bD to a bq v« v v u " v v v o v� u v R�. 0 u y .« p m -0 .0 q y C '4 o V td N a0 p y v z (nu O v a' Fb ° �. c b�ov" v v axou �v . ov lE w C B a F C7 a a � W = 1 � 0 d ■ . a .t r �. a 4� � x 1 ' a 1 ■ O r U I � 7 1 3 - O VIA N � 1 . w ,.� O Fw v ■ O .� QVOH ZaNA • g • • 0 s, $— ,ISNt ®— F (D p N w O "O o O N O L .ti'« " u U mv i All xi U U cn P. Pr a E w H °o H> °o u m c F v o w Q .b .a Z ` O co « W y v N .-. 'H H R m O E w y w [ s 3 P. co v o o ° . c C P, E id rn o N -.q u '� " y Cd W °�' O N V `� E itl N u v 'O u w w u • .0 v v « u N r 7 v V H U p .� C N m �A .v. u w u u C 'H' m C .� is n Cd E ° u a m c ' a 7 V) I F. "O N O \ X v D9 � 7 > O' Lp m m O x O u « Rm v v v v v o w R Q p u O m E .� n" H U ■ 'o u ` v . �a y y u o ° u :d o o y �i ,C N w N F C w H ih o v d9 o v u R a x v F, 0 ' Cl v o v bq a ` q 'ro V cr a x Z 2 n O R fA 7 E ° jF K 0 � �' a LL ' '1Ntld %33NJ N31S3fI3NIM ONIISI %3 y Q I ( \74 a � a w o , 0 z 0 U � I � a a ' 1 OVOH ZMA r • r �r r r r r� r r �r r r �r • r